Picking Nits
Poker realism; exposition; mechanics of the villain plan; poisoning recovery; Vesper’s motives
In the discussion (16)
Approx. transcript time · 00:37:24Read transcript
- Dimitrios’s all-in kings play with an ace on the board is considered obviously foolish against Bond’s checking.
- The unusually frequent high-card hands are questioned, then defended as a selection of the best moments from hours of play.
- Nearly killing someone as a way to recover money is questioned as a poor strategy for the terrorists.
- Bond’s kings-full hand losing to four jacks is an extraordinarily rare collision, while Le Chiffre’s passive play before the final card is criticized.
- Le Chiffre staying in a four-player pot with two pair against likely flushes is criticized as reckless before the final ace improves him.
- The extraordinary collision of premium hands feels contrived, compared with The Cincinnati Kid.
- Bond’s passive play after completing the straight flush is questioned, then defended as ideal slow-playing from the button.
- The cards are not shown long enough to follow the climactic hand clearly in a theater.
- Le Chiffre’s obvious tell is too basic for a wealthy experienced gambler; Rounders’ Oreo tell is compared, while accessibility for nonplayers is the defense.
- Felix Leiter staking Bond feels abrupt and insufficiently paid off.
- Vesper obtaining an exactly tailored tuxedo merely by looking at Bond is implausible.
- Using Vesper as road bait risks killing someone the villains need for the account, making the ambush illogical.
- Recovery from poisoning seems too quick; intelligence-service antidotes are offered as a defense.
- Vesper’s refusal to fund another buy-in is questioned because both saving Bond and helping the villains could motivate it.
- Other players could defeat Le Chiffre even if Bond withdraws; intelligence agencies staking their plan on winning poker seems unreliable.
- Using Vesper as road bait risks killing someone still needed for the Swiss banker.