 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
220.236.158.174
Certain problems...
Her name and his joke about it... Vesper is the evening star not th devil. She was so cardboard when someone shook her I thought breakfast cereal might come out.
Who told M about her kidnapped boyfriend at the end if he was and presumably still is kidnapped and she was dead?
If the baddie sold the airline stock before the crash that didn't happen... he didn't lose any money, he just couldn't buy back in at a cheap price.
Wasn't the password Bond keyed in at the game ELLIPSIS?
How id the guy get the case with the money in it out of the water under the collapsing house without it or him getting wet?
If its so easy to transfer money around the world at the push of a button why the reliance (twice) on cases full of cash?
When the chase went into the Venice house (and weren't they nice holiday videos?) the quality of the film completely changed and it wa a shame the house kept falling through the same space.
Would the same accountant, perhaps a high up accountant although how you do that at her age in the civil service is quite a joke, who is responsible for millions and in charge of an operation with the secret service need an old man to count how much money was on the card table for her?
6/10 could do much better.
The first half was quite enjoyable though. I was the only person in the cinema.
Follow Ups:
The way I remember it was that the bad guy had put all the money into "put" options on the stock -- betting that the stock would go down. Assuming that the options had a very near expiration date and were "out of the money", they could well have been worthless when the crash did not happen.I agree with you, the movie was not stellar. I found the action scenes overly long and found Craig to be stiff. He certainly lacked the style of Connery, Moore or even Brosnan. Why do people get bent out of shape about who was the best Bond? Watch the movie, enjoy it for what you can.
I don't understand how you make money from this. If the stock goes down, where is your profit?
Especially if you sold at the high point.
Is he just going to a bookie and placing a bet? Otherwise who is paying the profit to him when the price goes down?
It seemed to me this a tricky issue and it was glossed over in the movie.
He put the money into "put" options, which gives the buyer the opportunity to sell the stock at a given price. A put option is a bet that the stock will go down, just as a call option is a bet that the stock will go up. The put option is worth something when the stock goes below the strike price of the option (at expiration). A normal call option gives you the opportunity to buy the stock at a certain price, so it is worth something when the stock is above the strike price. Part of the option value is the "time value" of the option.For example:
At the close of 12/21/06 AMD Stock at $20.95. If I'm betting the stock is going to go down, I could buy an option contract which would allow me to sell the stock to someone at $19. The Jan 19 expiration date of that put option (AMDMT.X) is asking 0.35. If the stock goes below $19 before Jan 19, the option will be worth something. If not, the option contract will expire as worthless. If there is a significant move of the stock, it can offer a lot of leverage to your money. Volatile stocks, like Google, have very expensive time component premiums. For example:
goog at $456.20
A June 450 call option has a current inherent value of $6.20, but a current asking price of $49.50 -- the difference being the asking price for the time value of the option. In June, the value of the call option will be the amount the stock is over the strike price. If the stock is at $500 in June, the option will be worth $50 when it expires.
In the Bond movie, the bad guy put the money into "put" options which would be worthless if they were "out of the money" and the stock did not move.
... and I may not...
You have an option to sell at a certain price, lower than the current price because you think it will drop. Is that right? But if th stock doesn't fall, you don't sell, or do you then have to sell at the agreed price?
I don't see how the guy in the film lost all the money.
Why not just sell at the market price if you know the bomb goes off and the price falls? Selling above the fallen price appears to offer no advantage.
Or do I have the stick by the wrong end?
This is why also that the film loose Change was talking about because all the major airlines right before 9/11 had FAR higher than normal put options placed on all the airlines - someone obviously knew something. Then the planes go into the towers all the airline stocks got hammered and someone made a boat load of cash.In the Bond film this was supposed to be a prototype aircraft from a new company and of course if the plane were destroyed (as M noted) then the company would have went into bankruptcy and LeChiffre would have made huge money.
He was taking terrorist money and gambling essentially (but it is not gambling if you stack the deck in your favour - similar to insider information but in Casino Royale he was going to ensure his profit by destroying the plane and thus the company).
I suppose this plot requires the viewer to be fairly well versed in stock markets (though usually I just let it wash over me and ignore it in most of these films because it really isn;t that important -- suffice it to say that he lost the terrorist's money because of Bond and the terrorists will go after Le Chiffre so for the British gov't protection he'll give up the names of the terrorists. I mean as a movie goer this is the only part of the plot that really needs to be understood rather that trying to figure out if there is a hole in the semantics (which there isn't).
The other thing required of the viewer is a basic understanding of Texas Holdem. The movie is after all called Casino Royale so people should be warned that car playing is going to play a major role. Where the film has problems for some is that like most films they get a little too bogged down by the cards rather than the bluff man to man aspect (though for me this was here enough and I enjoy Texas Holdem and so the card playing is more than fine for me).
The problem with this Bond film is that if people loved the traditional cartoon Bond movies this one will be viewed as less of an "escapist entertainment" and more of a "realistic post 9/11" Bond. There is still a sense of the lighter touches but clearly this is a far darker film than any other Bond film with the inclusion of perhaps "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and "Licence to Kill."
I agree with anyone who prefers a Moore or Connery film because of the dashing "style" of Connery and the "tongue in cheek" Moore films or the blending of those in Brosnan. Craig plays it strait up as a true killing machine -- which is too real perhaps for die hard fans.
I have liked at least one Bond film from every actor -- I think Casino Royale is the best because it is the best actual film for non Bond fans and one that will hold up better than any Brosnan film Most of the Bond films have one dimensional villain cartoons who are out for world domination and after Austin Powers have been lampooned to a laugh. CR is all too real, dark, and this Bond is not about one liners tongue in cheek movie moments.
I hope that next time out they add a bit more ambiance style and a little lighter touch -- but I hope they don't ever go back to the prior Bond films.
The investor has the money in the stock option. The option becomes worthless if it is "out of the money" on the expiration date. In other words if the stock has not moved to an advantageous point to the option holder. Of course, it would take some somewhat extreme conditions for the guy to lose all the money, but certainly possible. Normally the option price would devalue and the investor might sell it for what he could get.The investor does not own the stock -- he is trading the option, which may become worthless on the expiration date.
AMD at $20.95
If this were the price on the expiration date:
$20 call option worth .95, $15 call option worth $5.95
$20 put option worth 0.00 (who would want to sell a $20.95 stock at $20?), $15 put option worth nothing too. $30 put option worth $9.05.
-NT
Grins
and excuse this movie for it's vast stupidity just because it is a genre movie.
So it seems hypocritical to me - especially when James Bond films are supposed to lean to the ludicrous while Die Hard was supposed to be a smart serious effort.
I think you are perhaps getting a little bent out of shape by people pointing out just how extremely stupid casino Royale is. In fact die Hard is far more consistant than casino Royale by a country mile. That is the very thing that makes Die hardf acceptable and Casino Royale garbage. i think the big picture you are missing here is there is a difference between a movie maker asking us to suspend certain disbeliefs and a movie maker just being stupid. In the case of Casino Royale you have one of the most clear cut cases of pure stupidity.
Actually there is little that is stupid about Casino Royale and certainly nothing evidenced by you. The Audience is perfectly able to fill in cutaway scenes - not everything needs to be spoon fed to the audience.Die Hard's Ground police chief asks you to leave your brain at the door -- his character alone undermines the entire film because as far as I can tell it is to fill time for a woefully thin plot.
But oh well - not everyone is going to like every film
vitriol about movies they don't like and feel the need to slam whole groups of people for liking or simply enjoying a movie.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
The same is true in reverse. Always strange when people slam others for not liking a movie that they deem worhty.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
I do not care that people don't like Casino Royale - but supporting the view with faulty arguments is not fair to the film or those who did like it. Comedy is the easiest - I do not like Pet Detective because I just didn't think it was funny. I can not prove to people, nor would I care to, why it is not funny. Obviously many people felt it was a laugh riot - after all they made a second one.
Are you sure Die Hard is supposed to be "a smart serious effort"?
I thought it was an advert for vests.
Errrr, singlets, for North American readers.
Well it is supposed to be a smart serious effort in the action film genre (which is entirely different than what dramas are all about).I am comparing apples to apples. If we're going to rip action films for logic pitfalls, plot conveniences then I would not go to action films because they all have them.
maybe we should line up the director, producer, and top five leads in the film and shoot them!!! It's a friggin movie for Pete's sake!! And a James Bond movie at that.I quite enjoyed it and think Ian Fleming would be glad to see his character a bit more on the serious and human side.
I'm glad I'm not as "observant" as you.
Clearly there is a double standard with James Bond films that I am missing - they are held up to the treatment of Academy award nominated dramas like Citizen Kane and not compared directly to films like Die Hard, or the latest Vin Diesal or Steven Segal kinds of films.James Bond films use so many convenient plot devices because without them there would be no film. The character is as preposterous as Superman and so like Superman he overcomes the plot. Well if you liked the movie -- if not you hold it up to some higher level of expectation. Within it's own sub genre of Bond films - it is clearly the smartest one, the best character arc in more than 20 years. The dialogue between Vesper and Bond is as good as Golfinger's Pussy Galore. The Chemistry is overblown - this Bond has yet to find his debonair qualities - remember it is Bond just gettin his double 0 status. He's a rookie and Craig played it like that very well. I am in the vast mjority of film experts and critics who think Craig will be the best Bond of the lot. He's certainly the best Actor to play the part since Sean Connery and many critics think Craig is the better actor! I would not go quite that far yet.
... in the plot.
A curious moment in this film is just before the rope torture seen, when the badie comments "You have kept your body Mr Bond" or something close. Considering he's a beginner it seemed an odd comment.
I think actually I started thinking too much as the film lost its pace during the over long under tensioned card game.
He is a 37 year old actor no? The man is ripped. To be ble to do all that Bond is capable of doing - he ain't 25. So you are reading a lot of holes into things that don't exist. It's like the scene where someone below is arguing that Vesper happens to be walking through the parking lot. These issues can easily be explained away in cutaway scenese -- maybe she saw him from the window and went down - or saw him leave the game and followed.Films do actually occasionally require the viewer to fill in what is not directly stated. Though yes some people like everything spelled out word for word.
"He is a 37 year old actor no? The man is ripped. To be ble to do all that Bond is capable of doing - he ain't 25. So you are reading a lot of holes into things that don't exist."WTF? what does the actor's age have to do with the price of tea in China much less the plot holes in the movie?
"It's like the scene where someone below is arguing that Vesper happens to be walking through the parking lot. These issues can easily be explained away in cutaway scenese -- maybe she saw him from the window and went down - or saw him leave the game and followed.
Films do actually occasionally require the viewer to fill in what is not directly stated. Though yes some people like everything spelled out word for word."Actually it requires the film makers to create plausable explinations to fill in the holes. This one is ridiculous. She was in the fricken casino when he left. If she saw him go to the car then she saw he was in distress. so her casual "oops look what I stumbled upon" discovery of Bond, dead in the car, was STUPID. Not to mention that she just happend to know what he was trying to do with his gadget and was able to fix it with no knowledge of the device. These are minor issues compared to some of the holes in this idiotic movie. Lets not forget that he goes back in and continues the game as if nothing happened. No, there wouldn't be secret service people from both sides of the pond all over the place would there? No, no one would try to nail the girl for trying to kill Bond would they? Of course not. And no one was smart enough to use this as a legitimate reason for postponing the game and putting the preasure on the guy that way? No, to smart and too boring. well that is the fault of the film makers for putting their cards in ::couh:: a card game. A stupid idea through and through that simply lead to more and more stupid plot holes. You know, like the one where the bad guy loses the game and goes unprotected by any secret service people for the night even though there were at least two foiled attemtps to kill him during the game. Yeah that aint fricken moronic. Again I could go on and on becuase the movie is soooooo stupid but I am getting as bored talking about it as I was watching it. But I have to mention the stupidest part (already mentioned but I feel it deserves rementioning) the fact that the new airplane not being destroyed would do NOTHING to cause the guy to lose that money he is holding for terrorists. WOW WOW was that a major screw up. This movie was three stylistically different demos for stuntmen doing chase scenes, one boring card game and one stupid twist and a ridiculous visual effect of a building coming down for ten minutes. WOW sooo bad.
Actually you must have been watching something else."This one is ridiculous. She was in the fricken casino when he left. If she saw him go to the car then she saw he was in distress. so her casual "oops look what I stumbled upon" discovery of Bond, dead in the car, was STUPID."
Actually you are WRONG. When James takes the poisoned drink there is an extended shot of him looking at Vesper who is looking at him (concerned). Bond then gets ill gets up walks directly IN FRONT of Vesper in obvious distress and picks up pepper and a glass. Goes to the washroom and takes the pepper and glass. The very next frame has James RUNNING to his car being hit by one as horns are blaring away. He gets to his car and not more than 1 minute passes (It is so obvious that she was not "strolling through the parking lot as YOU CLAIM, but she has gone after him. How do I know the time is under 2 minutes because Bond is on the phone with MI6 who are telling him what to do as they are scanning his blood to figure out which cure to give him.
The scene has Vesper arriving in huff - she obviously was following him. The one loose wire -- well there is a squarish box connected to him - the one on the right is inserted the one on the left is not. Any half-wit looking at this would think gee maybe I should put the loose wire into slot B and Push the BIG RED BUTTON as it's the only one there.
"Lets not forget that he goes back in and continues the game as if nothing happened. No, there wouldn't be secret service people from both sides of the pond all over the place would there? No, no one would try to nail the girl for trying to kill Bond would they? Of course not."
Well you must not of understood the entire plot. Le Chiffre was the villain - but he is only USEFUL if he loses the game. The woman who tried to kill Bond is not LeChiffre so here villainy is secondary. You must not understand how policing works -- see if you want to topple the big guys you don't blow your cover arresting the small potatoes.
"You know, like the one where the bad guy loses the game and goes unprotected by any secret service people for the night even though there were at least two foiled attemtps to kill him during the game.
Wow did you ever blow this - that is trly funny. Firstly there was no plot to kill LeChiffre - man where were you. Two terrorists barge into Le Chiffre's room and demand their money. See Le Chiffre is a Private banker - he is taking terrorists money and investing it on insider information so he can make hundreds of millions of dollars WITHOUT the terrorists knowledge. The Terrorists can not set up bank accounts of their own due to the US freeze on accounts post 9/11 (which M references as the time period of the film).
So Le Chiffre offers them a safe haven private bank but he makes millions investing in sure bets. Le Chiffre bets wrong with the new plane which Bond stops from being destroyed. Le Chiffre loses 100 million of the terrorist's money. He sets up a game 10 million buy in winner takes all which will recoup the money and save himself from the terrorists who will be angry at him losing their money.
The two terrorist barge into his room threaten to cut off the henchwoman's arm -- they leave the two unharmed - they did not try to KILL him -- it was a warning.
"the fact that the new airplane not being destroyed would do NOTHING to cause the guy to lose that money he is holding for terrorists"
Again you were not paying attention. Le Chiffre put the terrorists money on that plane never seeing the light of day. His plan would have worked if it were blown up. M explains that airline stocks hit an all time low after 9/11 and that someone made a fortune (guess who). She says that someone put up a large some of money again with the destruction of Star Fleet's prototype the company would have been near bankruptcy and that Le Chiffre lost 100 million betting the wrong way.
Logically this is sound plot - it isn't the most original and I would argue that it's convoluted to a degree - but it is covered well enough to not be called stupid - because it is clearly described and not wrong. It makes no mistakes leading up to this nor after the fact.
Vesper later provides a different account number which Bond does not see. She made a deal with one of the terrorist groups (who were blackmailing her because they had her brother). So she said she would give them all the money for Bond's life. They kill Le Chiffre.
It's a very tight albeit convoluted plot but there is no obvious error.
The other poster keeps talking about cases of cash - where? Ther eis no case full of cash. The cases has a computer wire transfer code keyboard inside it. This is not difficult to understand. Each gambler puts 10 million into an escrow account and the winner will have all the funds transferred to his account. The terrorists at the end however do not have the independant banker (that's why they went to Le Chiffre in the first place. So toward the end they are making their withdrawals before anyone is the wiser.
As for the comments about Bond being 37 - that was in reference to the poster who said LeChiffre made a comment about his body - the original poster got the quote WRONG to start with. He said "You've taken such good care of your body, such a waste." Why? Because Le Chiffre is about to whack is balls so much he will be useless to a woman.
So not only can't you guys understand the basic premise of the plot, you can't even site the lines properly or understand the meaning behind them.
Ohh and lastly the Mr. White - the guy with the case at the end after James is all wet holding Vesper's body. Original poster wonders why Mr. White and the case are dry -- umm because he left the henchmen behind to fight while he made it clear across to another building. No errors there? Does anyone watch the actual movie? Unlike Die Hard's paint by numbers made for grade 6 boys depth of plot.
And let's not praise the snappy dialogue between Vesper and Bond on several occasions. Chemistry was clearly there because Vesper presented Bond with an equal - which scares the hell out of a man like Bond. They even get the psychology correct.
We're having this argument...clark
That was at the airport to get into the secure area when he was trying to stop the bomber.Agree completely about the Venice building falling through the same space. For me that was the most poorly done sequence in the film. In the previews (or at least a preview) they showed it just collapse and it looked great. The way they did it in the actual film was awful and not the least bit convincing... inside or out.
I disagreee about Ms. Green being wooden. But since she's close to the top of list of my hottest movie star hotties I may not have been watching objectively. They were certainly wooden - no pun intended - together in regards to sexual chemistry but the same was true with Craig and the fist woman so I'm going with the common denominator and blaming him.
As for the other stuff, one answer (for me at least)... willful suspension of disbelief. I imagine any James Bond movie could be taken apart the same way... more-so, probably.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
c
.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
I was convinced he tapped ELLIPSIS in at the card game as well... I wa trying to watch his fingers.
If it was him who was the woodentop then maybe they were his feet on back to front.
Earlier in the film I certainly hope it wasn't...
I counted 6 digits in the password keyed in by Bond at the big poker game.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
