Status
Available
Call number
Library's review
Frankrig, ca 1965
Indeholder kapitlerne "Den hemmelige agent", "Sagens akter", "Nummer 007", "'L'ennemi ècoute'", "Pigen fra hovedkvarteret", "To mænd med stråhat", "Rouge et noir", "Champagne og lyserød belysning", "Baccarat", "Højt spil", "Det afgørende øjeblik", "Det dødbringende rør",
James Bond er på Casino og spiller baccarat mod Le Chiffre og kan sagtens ryge som en skorsten imens (dagens halvfjerdsindstyvende cigaret). Le Chiffre er kasserer for en vigtig fransk fagforening og russisk agent. Han har spekuleret i bordeller med betroede midler og tabt. Den franske efterretningstjeneste har opdaget at han er i lommen på russerne og presser ham endnu mere. Le Chiffre er nødt til at spille højt spil for blot at have en chance for at dække sig ind. M's simple plan er at ruinere Chiffre. Mathis og Felix Leiter er også med på casino.
Det lykkes at ruinere Chiffre, men han kidnapper Vesper Lynd og fanger Bond, da denne forsøger at befri hende. Chiffre binder Bond nøgen til en stol uden sæde og tager fat med tæppebankeren, men Bond afslører ikke hvor gevinsten er gemt. Russerne er blevet trætte af Chiffre og en af deres mordere likviderer Chiffre og sætter Bond på fri fod, dog først efter at have skåret lidt i ham. Efter at Bond er kommet til hægterne igen, bor han sammen med Vesper et stykke tid, men hun viser sig at være dobbeltagent, dvs på russernes side, og begår selvmord fordi hun ved at Bond aldrig vil kunne tilgive hende dette.
Glimrende spionroman
Indeholder kapitlerne "Den hemmelige agent", "Sagens akter", "Nummer 007", "'L'ennemi ècoute'", "Pigen fra hovedkvarteret", "To mænd med stråhat", "Rouge et noir", "Champagne og lyserød belysning", "Baccarat", "Højt spil", "Det afgørende øjeblik", "Det dødbringende rør",
Show More
"'En hvisken i elskov, en hvisken i had ...'", "'La vie en Rose'", "Den sorte hare og den grå mynde", "Hårene rejser sig", "'Min kære unge mand'", "Et ansigt som en klippe", "Det hvide telt", "Ondskabens natur", "Vesper", "En sort vogn kører forbi", "Lidenskabens ebbe og flod", "'Fruie Dèfendu'", "Manden med den sorte klap for øjet", "'Sov godt, min elskede'", "Det blødende hjerte".James Bond er på Casino og spiller baccarat mod Le Chiffre og kan sagtens ryge som en skorsten imens (dagens halvfjerdsindstyvende cigaret). Le Chiffre er kasserer for en vigtig fransk fagforening og russisk agent. Han har spekuleret i bordeller med betroede midler og tabt. Den franske efterretningstjeneste har opdaget at han er i lommen på russerne og presser ham endnu mere. Le Chiffre er nødt til at spille højt spil for blot at have en chance for at dække sig ind. M's simple plan er at ruinere Chiffre. Mathis og Felix Leiter er også med på casino.
Det lykkes at ruinere Chiffre, men han kidnapper Vesper Lynd og fanger Bond, da denne forsøger at befri hende. Chiffre binder Bond nøgen til en stol uden sæde og tager fat med tæppebankeren, men Bond afslører ikke hvor gevinsten er gemt. Russerne er blevet trætte af Chiffre og en af deres mordere likviderer Chiffre og sætter Bond på fri fod, dog først efter at have skåret lidt i ham. Efter at Bond er kommet til hægterne igen, bor han sammen med Vesper et stykke tid, men hun viser sig at være dobbeltagent, dvs på russernes side, og begår selvmord fordi hun ved at Bond aldrig vil kunne tilgive hende dette.
Glimrende spionroman
Show Less
Genres
Publication
[Kbh.] : Skrifola, [1966].
Description
Fiction. Suspense. HTML: For James Bond and the British Secret Service, the stakes couldn't be higher. 007's mission is to neutralize the Russian operative Le Chiffre by ruining him at the baccarat table, forcing his Soviet masters to "retire" him. When Le Chiffre hits a losing streak, Bond discovers his luck is in�??that is, until he meets Vesper Lynd, a glamorous agent who might yet prove to be his downfall. This audiobook includes an exclusive bonus interview with Dan Stevens.
User reviews
LibraryThing member tootstorm
Picked this bad boy up and read through it in early '08 as a break from my usual and pretentious postmodern reading schedule. I was looking for something fun. Something fun and badly written. All the Bond books get mixed reviews from fans, so imagine my surprise at Casino Royale not only being a
I loved the Bond films as a kid, but in all honestly can't remember beans of them these days. The last time I tried watching one as I became a teenager, I was bored silly. The only one I vaguely recall is GoldenEye, and only because of the N64 game I had recently played through twice in a row (finally beat it all on 007 Agent! FINALLY!). Not having any clue what is going to happen during any scene in any Bond book (since they're all spread out between movies) is a...nice thing. Duh. The only thing I remember from the films are those lines: "Bond, James Bond" and "shaken, not stirred," and of those only the former has appeared once so far in Moonraker, and said by M. At least as far as I know.
Yes, this book contains hardly any action. The least of any Bond novel. James goes on an epic journey to Royale-Les-Eaux to try to take as much of SMERSH operative Le Chiffre's money as he can. Most of the book is spent in very intense baccarat games with Le Chiffre, and even if you don't have any idea how to play baccarat, or what it even is, or even how to pronounce the word, they'll still have you sweating. You'll find yourself randomly saying "suivi" without a clue as to what it means for weeks afterward before you finally run a Google search.
After reading the first three Bond novels so far, Casino Royale has remained my favorite. I do have one big complaint: the last 20 pages. The villain gets defeated pretty early (ohhhhh, spoiler spoiler--jerk) on, and the last twenty pages (if you have the hep 144-page '60s copy like I do) are Bond and Vesper talking of love to one another. It felt severely out of place in relation to the rest of the novel.
Flemings novels are classy, let me tell you. Being published from 1953-1966 (including those published posthumously) by a high class Brit born in 1908, of course they're going to contain some words folks today would find offensive. Lots of sexist and racist beliefs (I'm looking at you, Live and Let Die) by Bond and company. And, uh, I like that side of the book(s). It makes the experience so darn campy. Just wait for Bond's little internal soliloquy on how women are only meant for the pleasure of men and nothing more, the constant condescending attitude towards any woman, and cetera. It's great. Chuckles will be had by all.
If you're looking for some fun, give Fleming a try! Twelve novels, two collections, most between one hundred forty and one hundred ninety pages long (again, if you own the '60s copies; font-size seems to have doubled in modern $20 trade paperbacks). Do it.
F.V.: 80%
[review: 1,173:: reading: 950-something -- and I swore I'd only write reviews for neglected books for no reason at all...]
Show More
hell load of fun, but to feature swell, sexy writing from Fleming. Those folks who say they can read Fleming's descriptions of household items like refrigerators and boxes full of cheese all day aren't kidding. His descriptive passages are a spectacle, baby. I loved the Bond films as a kid, but in all honestly can't remember beans of them these days. The last time I tried watching one as I became a teenager, I was bored silly. The only one I vaguely recall is GoldenEye, and only because of the N64 game I had recently played through twice in a row (finally beat it all on 007 Agent! FINALLY!). Not having any clue what is going to happen during any scene in any Bond book (since they're all spread out between movies) is a...nice thing. Duh. The only thing I remember from the films are those lines: "Bond, James Bond" and "shaken, not stirred," and of those only the former has appeared once so far in Moonraker, and said by M. At least as far as I know.
Yes, this book contains hardly any action. The least of any Bond novel. James goes on an epic journey to Royale-Les-Eaux to try to take as much of SMERSH operative Le Chiffre's money as he can. Most of the book is spent in very intense baccarat games with Le Chiffre, and even if you don't have any idea how to play baccarat, or what it even is, or even how to pronounce the word, they'll still have you sweating. You'll find yourself randomly saying "suivi" without a clue as to what it means for weeks afterward before you finally run a Google search.
After reading the first three Bond novels so far, Casino Royale has remained my favorite. I do have one big complaint: the last 20 pages. The villain gets defeated pretty early (ohhhhh, spoiler spoiler--jerk) on, and the last twenty pages (if you have the hep 144-page '60s copy like I do) are Bond and Vesper talking of love to one another. It felt severely out of place in relation to the rest of the novel.
Flemings novels are classy, let me tell you. Being published from 1953-1966 (including those published posthumously) by a high class Brit born in 1908, of course they're going to contain some words folks today would find offensive. Lots of sexist and racist beliefs (I'm looking at you, Live and Let Die) by Bond and company. And, uh, I like that side of the book(s). It makes the experience so darn campy. Just wait for Bond's little internal soliloquy on how women are only meant for the pleasure of men and nothing more, the constant condescending attitude towards any woman, and cetera. It's great. Chuckles will be had by all.
If you're looking for some fun, give Fleming a try! Twelve novels, two collections, most between one hundred forty and one hundred ninety pages long (again, if you own the '60s copies; font-size seems to have doubled in modern $20 trade paperbacks). Do it.
F.V.: 80%
[review: 1,173:: reading: 950-something -- and I swore I'd only write reviews for neglected books for no reason at all...]
Show Less
LibraryThing member paradoxosalpha
I had decided to read this first of the James Bond novels many years ago, and it took me a good long while to get around to it. In the interim, I ended up reading some other Cold War espionage classics that I consider to be much better books, such as Deighton's Ipcress File and Greene's Our Man in
The book reads very quickly, but has an unusual pacing, with two major climaxes and plot resolutions accomplished fairly early, and settles into what appears at first to be a long denouement for the final third of the book, focusing on Bond's physical recovery from his earlier ordeals and the consummation of his love interest. Fleming is supposed to have drafted the novel just prior to his wedding, which seems a bit alarming in light of the grim eventuation of the romantic plot elements. Also, considering his reported ambivalence about the book prior to publication, it seems odd that its finish clearly intends to provide a point of departure for more stories about Bond.
One of my motives for reading the book was to assess the common claim that its villain Le Chiffre was based by Fleming on his acquaintance Aleister Crowley. Crowley may have contributed a few minor details and physical mannerisms, along with an aura of the sinister, but the resemblance is less vivid than those afforded by other Crowley-based characters in fiction, such as the Oscar Clinton and Apuleius Charlton of H.R. Wakefield.
Bond is no superman in this story, but he is harsh, calculating, particular, and not altogether sympathetic. The French agent Mathis with whom he is teamed comes off as both more fallible and more likable. Fleming's prose throughout is efficient, and shows the fascination with hardware (especially cars and weapons), the predatory attitude regarding sex, and the attention to glamorous settings that would become hallmarks of the Bond works as a whole.
Show More
Havana. Still, Casino Royale has its charms, tending toward the violence and sex that characterize the enormously popular Bond franchise. It largely lacks the epistemological anxiety that I find to be one of the chief attractions of the spy genre.The book reads very quickly, but has an unusual pacing, with two major climaxes and plot resolutions accomplished fairly early, and settles into what appears at first to be a long denouement for the final third of the book, focusing on Bond's physical recovery from his earlier ordeals and the consummation of his love interest. Fleming is supposed to have drafted the novel just prior to his wedding, which seems a bit alarming in light of the grim eventuation of the romantic plot elements. Also, considering his reported ambivalence about the book prior to publication, it seems odd that its finish clearly intends to provide a point of departure for more stories about Bond.
One of my motives for reading the book was to assess the common claim that its villain Le Chiffre was based by Fleming on his acquaintance Aleister Crowley. Crowley may have contributed a few minor details and physical mannerisms, along with an aura of the sinister, but the resemblance is less vivid than those afforded by other Crowley-based characters in fiction, such as the Oscar Clinton and Apuleius Charlton of H.R. Wakefield.
Bond is no superman in this story, but he is harsh, calculating, particular, and not altogether sympathetic. The French agent Mathis with whom he is teamed comes off as both more fallible and more likable. Fleming's prose throughout is efficient, and shows the fascination with hardware (especially cars and weapons), the predatory attitude regarding sex, and the attention to glamorous settings that would become hallmarks of the Bond works as a whole.
Show Less
LibraryThing member camillahoel
Criticising James Bond for being sexist is a bit like complaining the sea is wet, I suppose. But he is. I have always known that was one of his defining characteristics, but I was still surprised to find how true it was. The character then, is much the same as the character I have to a much greater
I suppose, on the whole, this is the book that justifies Bond's world view. It is the book where his masculinity is (very directly) attacked, he momentarily drops his cynicism and misogyny and allows himself to fall in love. It is perhaps not surprising that this is something James Bond can only do when his testicles have been damaged. Crude, yes I know; but it is all there in the book.
I am sure the story is familiar, certainly since the film came out. The key difference, of course, is that Le Chiffre is an evil communist rather than an evil terrorist. And Vesper appears rather more vapid. For those who have been living under a rock, however: the evil Le Chiffre raises money for communism through prostitution and other evil pursuits. But he has overreached, and if his evil communist bosses find out they will kill him. He is therefore trying to win the money back on a high stakes baccarat game. As you do. It is Bond's job to stop him. At the gambling table.
The book was written in 1953, following years of post-war austerity. Sugar and meat rationing was still going on, and I cannot help thinking this has shaped the novel. It revels in luxury, with the colours and fabrics of clothes, foodstuffs and drinks always noted. It shows a real longing for lobster, champagne and good tailoring, and while I sympathise (students also get too little lobster and champagne) it is part of what marks this out as fully fledged escapism. It is not a spy novel. Glancing quickly at John Le Carré or Graham Greene will tell you that. It is a fantasy written out. A fantasy which includes horrific violence as well as luxury comforts, but which promises a restoration of order as well (a return to cynical misogyny after the aberrant chaos of falling in love, for one).
It is not my type of escapism. I suppose if it were, I might like it more. As it is, the only appeal this book holds is as a cultural and historical curiosity: the original Bond.
Show More
extent been exposed to through the films (although I suppose the later films have taken on a tinge of political correctness and toned down the overt sexism somewhat). The sexist, cynical hedonist hero.I suppose, on the whole, this is the book that justifies Bond's world view. It is the book where his masculinity is (very directly) attacked, he momentarily drops his cynicism and misogyny and allows himself to fall in love. It is perhaps not surprising that this is something James Bond can only do when his testicles have been damaged. Crude, yes I know; but it is all there in the book.
I am sure the story is familiar, certainly since the film came out. The key difference, of course, is that Le Chiffre is an evil communist rather than an evil terrorist. And Vesper appears rather more vapid. For those who have been living under a rock, however: the evil Le Chiffre raises money for communism through prostitution and other evil pursuits. But he has overreached, and if his evil communist bosses find out they will kill him. He is therefore trying to win the money back on a high stakes baccarat game. As you do. It is Bond's job to stop him. At the gambling table.
The book was written in 1953, following years of post-war austerity. Sugar and meat rationing was still going on, and I cannot help thinking this has shaped the novel. It revels in luxury, with the colours and fabrics of clothes, foodstuffs and drinks always noted. It shows a real longing for lobster, champagne and good tailoring, and while I sympathise (students also get too little lobster and champagne) it is part of what marks this out as fully fledged escapism. It is not a spy novel. Glancing quickly at John Le Carré or Graham Greene will tell you that. It is a fantasy written out. A fantasy which includes horrific violence as well as luxury comforts, but which promises a restoration of order as well (a return to cynical misogyny after the aberrant chaos of falling in love, for one).
It is not my type of escapism. I suppose if it were, I might like it more. As it is, the only appeal this book holds is as a cultural and historical curiosity: the original Bond.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Cecilturtle
It's difficult to read a James Bond without comparing it to the movies and I was astounded by the differences! Bond as a misogynistic, fallible, emotional (under that tough exterior) man was a discovery! I was also surprised by the lack of action, basic story line and character development but
Show More
great attention to aesthetic details. In general I enjoyed the book and this other side of Bond but it was definitely not what I was expecting. Show Less
LibraryThing member laytonwoman3rd
No praise from me for this one. As sexy as Sean Connery was in the role, there is nothing appealing about Fleming's Bond, as portrayed in this first 007 novel. He's just a hired killer with enough finesse to pull off a gambling coup against a Russian agent who both sides want eliminated. His
Show More
attitude toward women is appalling; even when he finds one who is a technical wizard and a cool agent in her own right, he can't help objectifying her. Even when, by his estimation, he falls in love with her, his feeble attempts to feel and appreciate real emotions are laughable. The book is violent, sadistic, misogynistic and totally lacking in humor or subtlety. Fleming clearly knew what he was doing, as evidenced by this quote: "surround yourself with human beings, my dear James. They are easier to fight for than principles. But don't let me down and become human yourself. We would lose such a wonderful machine." I read this book to educate myself, and did not really expect to enjoy it very much. I did expect to see why others might enjoy it, but that did not happen. My husband, who read a great many of the Bond books as a teenager, started with a later entry in the series, and does not recall reading Casino Royale. Maybe they get better. Maybe their optimal audience is 15 year old boys. That particular teenage boy turned out to be a fine fellow with no Bondian characteristics. I think I'll just leave this whole issue alone now. No star for you, Mr. Fleming. Show Less
LibraryThing member ctpress
…in which James Bond survives a bomb explosion and a car crash, is brutally tortured, looses millions at the card table and in all seriousness uses the words "will you marry me?".
It's an odd, but interesting thing to read about a character that has been portrayed in so many movies. You expect a
It's hard to take the last part of the novel serious - Bond falling in love and crying? Come on, let's not kid ourselves here. His last word in the novel are more in line with his character: "Bitch"!
Bond saw luck as a woman, to be softly wooed or brutally ravaged, never pandered to or pursued. But he was honest enough to admit that he had never yet been made to suffer by cards or by women.
It's an odd, but interesting thing to read about a character that has been portrayed in so many movies. You expect a
Show More
page-turner and a lot of action - and you get just that - but also some very well-written suspenseful scenes, like when Bond looses big - and then winning again at baccarat in Casino Royal. You also get some of Bond's rigid thoughts on woman and sex and life in general - well, not that many thoughts because there's a man in a dark suit with a gun that has just stopped 007.....It's hard to take the last part of the novel serious - Bond falling in love and crying? Come on, let's not kid ourselves here. His last word in the novel are more in line with his character: "Bitch"!
Bond saw luck as a woman, to be softly wooed or brutally ravaged, never pandered to or pursued. But he was honest enough to admit that he had never yet been made to suffer by cards or by women.
Show Less
LibraryThing member LisaMaria_C
I can't say I liked this much. James Bond is so much part of popular culture, I suppose I expected reading the books he's based on I'd find myself charmed the way I am by Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. And well, if a book published in 1953 isn't exactly politically correct, well neither am I
Except not. In a way full warning was given by the blurb praising the books by Raymond Chandler: “Bond is what every man would like to be, and what every woman would like to have between the sheets." Except not me. Bond is the most misogynistic fictional character I've encountered since Raymond Chandler's own Philip Marlowe. Some have described Sherlock Holmes as a misogynist but he's really not (See, his reaction to Irene Adler in "A Scandal in Bohemia" for instance.) Holmes is just a misogynist in the way some are described as a misanthropist. He's cranky. Bond however... A friend warned me I wouldn't find the suave, witty charmer of the films here. Bond, she told me, is a thug--and Daniel Craig is a lot closer to his spirit than say Roger Moore. Fleming describes Bond as "ironical, brutal, and cold.”
In this book James Bond is out to defeat Russian operative "Le Chiffre" by--wait--get this. Beating him in the Baccarat tables. Seems Le Chiffre embezzled funds given to him by the Russians to prop up this trade union that's really a communist front. But he invested it in prostitution only to find the French outlawing the business. Since Bond is the best gambler in the British Intelligence Service, they send him to play against Le Chiffre to make sure he can't make up the shortfall at the gambling table before the Soviets discover what he did. Apparently they can't just, oh, expose him and arrest him.
Right away Bond is put out--because they're making him work with a woman! Vesper Lynd. A sampling of Bond's reaction to her?
Women were for recreation. On a job, they got in the way and fogged things up with sex and hurt feelings and all the emotional baggage they carried around. One had to look out for them and take care of them. 'Bitch,' said Bond' and then remembering the Muntzes, he said 'bitch' again more loudly and walked out of the room.
And
These blithering women who thought that they could do a man’s work. Why the hell couldn’t they stay at home and mind their pots and pans and stick to their frocks and gossip and leave men’s work to the men.
And
And now he knew that she was profoundly, excitingly sensual, but that the conquest of her body, because of the central privacy in her, would each time have the sweet tang of rape.
And if I had any doubts... Well, the last line of the book is a corker. Is it bad of me I laughed out loud? NOT meant as a funny line I think.
It is a short novel thankfully and with a decent prose style, but parts dragged for me. The endless descriptions of baccarat and gambling, the whole report early on with "M." This certainly isn't a book that makes me want to pick up more in the series, but I give it as high as two and a half stars because it was interesting to read the literary counterpart to the character in the films. Ian Fleming actually had a background in British Intelligence and his tale of espionage, even if obviously glamorized, with loving descriptions of fast cars, beautiful women, expensive liquor and cuisine and fine tobacco, did seem more plausible than say, that of Len Deighton, who I read just before this. Casino Royale isn't campy the way many of the Bond films are with its cartoon villains and outlandish gadgets. But I don't find James Bond to be in the same league of literary creations as a Sherlock Holmes. Not by any means.
Show More
and I can make allowances for it the way I do with Victorian attitudes.Except not. In a way full warning was given by the blurb praising the books by Raymond Chandler: “Bond is what every man would like to be, and what every woman would like to have between the sheets." Except not me. Bond is the most misogynistic fictional character I've encountered since Raymond Chandler's own Philip Marlowe. Some have described Sherlock Holmes as a misogynist but he's really not (See, his reaction to Irene Adler in "A Scandal in Bohemia" for instance.) Holmes is just a misogynist in the way some are described as a misanthropist. He's cranky. Bond however... A friend warned me I wouldn't find the suave, witty charmer of the films here. Bond, she told me, is a thug--and Daniel Craig is a lot closer to his spirit than say Roger Moore. Fleming describes Bond as "ironical, brutal, and cold.”
In this book James Bond is out to defeat Russian operative "Le Chiffre" by--wait--get this. Beating him in the Baccarat tables. Seems Le Chiffre embezzled funds given to him by the Russians to prop up this trade union that's really a communist front. But he invested it in prostitution only to find the French outlawing the business. Since Bond is the best gambler in the British Intelligence Service, they send him to play against Le Chiffre to make sure he can't make up the shortfall at the gambling table before the Soviets discover what he did. Apparently they can't just, oh, expose him and arrest him.
Right away Bond is put out--because they're making him work with a woman! Vesper Lynd. A sampling of Bond's reaction to her?
Women were for recreation. On a job, they got in the way and fogged things up with sex and hurt feelings and all the emotional baggage they carried around. One had to look out for them and take care of them. 'Bitch,' said Bond' and then remembering the Muntzes, he said 'bitch' again more loudly and walked out of the room.
And
These blithering women who thought that they could do a man’s work. Why the hell couldn’t they stay at home and mind their pots and pans and stick to their frocks and gossip and leave men’s work to the men.
And
And now he knew that she was profoundly, excitingly sensual, but that the conquest of her body, because of the central privacy in her, would each time have the sweet tang of rape.
And if I had any doubts... Well, the last line of the book is a corker. Is it bad of me I laughed out loud? NOT meant as a funny line I think.
It is a short novel thankfully and with a decent prose style, but parts dragged for me. The endless descriptions of baccarat and gambling, the whole report early on with "M." This certainly isn't a book that makes me want to pick up more in the series, but I give it as high as two and a half stars because it was interesting to read the literary counterpart to the character in the films. Ian Fleming actually had a background in British Intelligence and his tale of espionage, even if obviously glamorized, with loving descriptions of fast cars, beautiful women, expensive liquor and cuisine and fine tobacco, did seem more plausible than say, that of Len Deighton, who I read just before this. Casino Royale isn't campy the way many of the Bond films are with its cartoon villains and outlandish gadgets. But I don't find James Bond to be in the same league of literary creations as a Sherlock Holmes. Not by any means.
Show Less
LibraryThing member ptdilloway
It's really hard not to compare this to the movie franchise. Though really the Bond in this story is more akin to Sterling Archer than Sean Connery. By that I mean he's kind of a doofus. He gets captured and nearly gets his genitals whacked off with a carpet beater (or so I gather though it's a
Anyway, the last 20% of the book is really slow and other than one car chase and the torture scene you won't find much of the effects-heavy movies in here.
That is all.
Show More
little hazy with the "decency" standards of the 50s) and only escapes when someone rescues him. And he gets played the whole book by another character, which you probably know if you watched the 2007 movie with Daniel Craig. You could also make the case he's a closet homosexual. I mean he's a fastidious bachelor who eats gourmet food and is a serious misogynist. Well he does have sex with a woman, but that seems more to prove to himself his gear is still operational.Anyway, the last 20% of the book is really slow and other than one car chase and the torture scene you won't find much of the effects-heavy movies in here.
That is all.
Show Less
LibraryThing member amcheri
I thought it was a fairly fun book to read. I've never read a Bond book before and think I've only seen one or two movies and remember nothing about them. If it weren't for the horrible, absolutely terrible sexism, I would have likely loved it. Yes, I completely understand that it must be taken in
I don't think I'd read another but I'm glad I read this one. I don't know. Maybe I would read another. Maybe.
Show More
context of the time and the sort of man Bond is and his profession. I get all of that but it still took away from my enjoyment of the book. I don't think I'd read another but I'm glad I read this one. I don't know. Maybe I would read another. Maybe.
Show Less
LibraryThing member JohnWCuluris
When I finally got around to reading this book I was in for more than a few surprises. And it was not as if I went in blind. I was aware that the movies--even the Daniel Craig vehicles--were different from the books. And I had read Thunderball years ago, though it was during the observation period
My first surprise was at how well written Casino Royale is, particularly since I had heard of Ian Fleming’s lack of critical respect. I can only assume it was more a question of subject matter and tone than his narrative prowess. Another surprise was that while we share thoughts with Bond, there remained a certain lack of intimacy. I felt we never got much insight into 007. Fleming painted more vivid pictures of the supporting players: Vesper Lynd certainly, and to a lesser extent Mathis and Felix Leiter. Perhaps this was intentional in order to give Bond’s final scene--and the last line of the book--more impact. If that was the goal, at least that part was successful.
As was the main casino sequence. Fleming loved sports and games and endeavored to include them in his work whenever possible. That showed here. Bond’s showdown with Le Chiffre at the baccarat table was everything it could be.
But there were other negatives, some serious. First of all, I kept waiting for something to happen. A lot of time--for me, too much--was spent inside Bond's head. Again, because I felt we didn’t learn much about the man, this compounded the feeling that there was too much “waiting around.” And then there is the matter of following a protagonist who never manages to save himself. He was saved from a bomb by luck. He was saved from another bitter loss by Leiter’s care package. And he was saved one other time[from Le Chiffre’s torture by SMERSH] . True, he did extricate himself from an attack earlier, yet I had the feeling had that confrontation not happened in full public view, Bond would have been left dead on the floor.
I don’t mind mistakes by the hero. They should all make some, whether the series is realistic or fantastic. But by the time a villain says to Bond, “You are not equipped, my dear boy, to play games with adults,” I find myself agreeing with him.
My last complaint is muted to some extent by the fact that the book is sixty some-odd years old. It took place in an era whenthe only reason characters’ needed to fall in love (in any medium) was that they were alone together in a story that required it. While the attraction between Bond and Vesper was ever-present from the beginning, love seemed unlikely, particularly as they were never on the same wavelength for any period of time. This is particularly true at that beach resort, where, again, there seemed to be a lot of wasted time; I found myself “willing” for something to happen .
Was it worth the read? Maybe as a curiosity. Will I follow up? I was somewhat intrigued by the character and those who have read the series have promised more evolution to Bond, at least in the first couple of books. And it might be interesting to see how the movies and the accompanying mainstream success affected Fleming’s work. But somehow I doubt I’ll be back. It didn’t do enough for me.
[Reprinted and updated from a message board post I’d written in early 2006.]
Show More
after a car accident; it was the only book of fiction in the room and all I can remember is that I did not care for it.My first surprise was at how well written Casino Royale is, particularly since I had heard of Ian Fleming’s lack of critical respect. I can only assume it was more a question of subject matter and tone than his narrative prowess. Another surprise was that while we share thoughts with Bond, there remained a certain lack of intimacy. I felt we never got much insight into 007. Fleming painted more vivid pictures of the supporting players: Vesper Lynd certainly, and to a lesser extent Mathis and Felix Leiter. Perhaps this was intentional in order to give Bond’s final scene--and the last line of the book--more impact. If that was the goal, at least that part was successful.
As was the main casino sequence. Fleming loved sports and games and endeavored to include them in his work whenever possible. That showed here. Bond’s showdown with Le Chiffre at the baccarat table was everything it could be.
But there were other negatives, some serious. First of all, I kept waiting for something to happen. A lot of time--for me, too much--was spent inside Bond's head. Again, because I felt we didn’t learn much about the man, this compounded the feeling that there was too much “waiting around.” And then there is the matter of following a protagonist who never manages to save himself. He was saved from a bomb by luck. He was saved from another bitter loss by Leiter’s care package. And he was saved one other time
I don’t mind mistakes by the hero. They should all make some, whether the series is realistic or fantastic. But by the time a villain says to Bond, “You are not equipped, my dear boy, to play games with adults,” I find myself agreeing with him.
My last complaint is muted to some extent by the fact that the book is sixty some-odd years old. It took place in an era when
Was it worth the read? Maybe as a curiosity. Will I follow up? I was somewhat intrigued by the character and those who have read the series have promised more evolution to Bond, at least in the first couple of books. And it might be interesting to see how the movies and the accompanying mainstream success affected Fleming’s work. But somehow I doubt I’ll be back. It didn’t do enough for me.
[Reprinted and updated from a message board post I’d written in early 2006.]
Show Less
LibraryThing member BrokenTune
"Well, it was not too late. Here was a target for him, right to hand. He would take on SMERSH and hunt it down. Without SMERSH, without this cold weapon of death and revenge, the MWD would be just another bunch of civil servant spies, no better and no worse than any of the western services."
And so
Unfortunately, this is the only aspect of the Casino Royale story that I actually liked. The idea of James Bond and his mission is what draws me to the books, but not in fact the character of James Bond himself.
James Bond, as a character, is an utterly unlikable, chauvinist, self-centered idiot, who happens to be good at playing cards but is otherwise pretty lucky to have anything go his way - whether it is his involvement with women or his actually staying alive.
I first read Casino Royale some years ago, shortly before the film was released, and really liked it for the plot and the fact that a card game could pose more danger to the world's biggest villains than any attempts of arrest or assassination. Incredible! However, I enjoyed that the book dwelt on thinking through Bond's moves at the baccarat table more than on action scenes.
However, on this particular re-read of the story, I felt more drawn to paying attention to the way Bond interacts with the world around him and was reminded why in some of the subsequent books I tend to root for the villains - I just can't stand James Bond.
Would I still recommend this book? Yes. I think it is important to demystify the legend (and the franchise - even tho I do enjoy the films!) and acknowledge that there was a time when the most popular of books was based on a character that was a snob, a chauvinist, a racist, a misogynist, an egotist, and an utter idiot.
2.5* rounded up.
And so
Show More
begin the extraordinary adventures of the most famous of all spies. Had it not been for his involvement in bringing down the villain known as Le Chiffre, James Bond could just have been another one of such civil servant spies.Unfortunately, this is the only aspect of the Casino Royale story that I actually liked. The idea of James Bond and his mission is what draws me to the books, but not in fact the character of James Bond himself.
James Bond, as a character, is an utterly unlikable, chauvinist, self-centered idiot, who happens to be good at playing cards but is otherwise pretty lucky to have anything go his way - whether it is his involvement with women or his actually staying alive.
I first read Casino Royale some years ago, shortly before the film was released, and really liked it for the plot and the fact that a card game could pose more danger to the world's biggest villains than any attempts of arrest or assassination. Incredible! However, I enjoyed that the book dwelt on thinking through Bond's moves at the baccarat table more than on action scenes.
However, on this particular re-read of the story, I felt more drawn to paying attention to the way Bond interacts with the world around him and was reminded why in some of the subsequent books I tend to root for the villains - I just can't stand James Bond.
Would I still recommend this book? Yes. I think it is important to demystify the legend (and the franchise - even tho I do enjoy the films!) and acknowledge that there was a time when the most popular of books was based on a character that was a snob, a chauvinist, a racist, a misogynist, an egotist, and an utter idiot.
2.5* rounded up.
Show Less
LibraryThing member richardderus
Rating: well, why not? 3* of five
**THIS REVIEW IS OF THE FILM**
Oops! Forgot one. This is 1967's film version I'm discussing, not the book, which was *awful*. That's not fair...it's not horrid writing, it's just so very very very dated and not in a good way. Kind of a time capsule of what was wrong
Ya know...this film version was pretty damn lame, too. What redeems it is the sheer balls-out what-did-I-just-watch comedic pace of the thing. David Niven is LUDICROUS as Bond, but good as this character who isn't Bond but is called Bond. The return of Ursula Andress, this time as superspy Vesper Lynd (not to be mistaken for 2006's Vesper, completely different character), is notable; but the turn to the comedic and ridiculous is signalled by Bond having a child by Mata Hari, yclept Mata Bond.
It was one of the many moments where I rolled my eyes so hard I think I saw my brain. There's a bit with a flying saucer in London that convinced me I was having an LSD flashback.
Don't go into the film thinking it's a Bond flick and maybe it's okay...but frankly, it feels a little too Sixties-hip-via-Hollywood for me to do more than smile faintly.
Why watch it, then? Because David Niven is very good at being urbanely nuts. It's a meta-performance. If he arched his eyebrow any higher, he's lose it in his receding hairline. Because Ursula Andress is classic as Vesper. Because Orson Welles is endearingly baffled as Le Chiffre, seeming not to have seen a script before being shoved in front of the camera. It's like a Warhol-movie moment. If you're a straight guy, Jacqueline Bisset and Barbara Bouchet are pneumatically endowed. But Peter Sellers was a major disappointment to me. Clouseau was his only character at that point, I guess. Blah.
Fun. Not Bond, but fun. Sort of.
**THIS REVIEW IS OF THE FILM**
Oops! Forgot one. This is 1967's film version I'm discussing, not the book, which was *awful*. That's not fair...it's not horrid writing, it's just so very very very dated and not in a good way. Kind of a time capsule of what was wrong
Show More
with 1954.Ya know...this film version was pretty damn lame, too. What redeems it is the sheer balls-out what-did-I-just-watch comedic pace of the thing. David Niven is LUDICROUS as Bond, but good as this character who isn't Bond but is called Bond. The return of Ursula Andress, this time as superspy Vesper Lynd (not to be mistaken for 2006's Vesper, completely different character), is notable; but the turn to the comedic and ridiculous is signalled by Bond having a child by Mata Hari, yclept Mata Bond.
It was one of the many moments where I rolled my eyes so hard I think I saw my brain. There's a bit with a flying saucer in London that convinced me I was having an LSD flashback.
Don't go into the film thinking it's a Bond flick and maybe it's okay...but frankly, it feels a little too Sixties-hip-via-Hollywood for me to do more than smile faintly.
Why watch it, then? Because David Niven is very good at being urbanely nuts. It's a meta-performance. If he arched his eyebrow any higher, he's lose it in his receding hairline. Because Ursula Andress is classic as Vesper. Because Orson Welles is endearingly baffled as Le Chiffre, seeming not to have seen a script before being shoved in front of the camera. It's like a Warhol-movie moment. If you're a straight guy, Jacqueline Bisset and Barbara Bouchet are pneumatically endowed. But Peter Sellers was a major disappointment to me. Clouseau was his only character at that point, I guess. Blah.
Fun. Not Bond, but fun. Sort of.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jimmaclachlan
The first James Bond book published & the start of a wonderful series. I remember first reading the torture scene as a young teenager & being absolutely appalled, especially when I tried to fit Sean Connery or Roger Moore into it. Just didn't work - shocking. I mourned the car, too.
All in all, it
All in all, it
Show More
was an amazing ride when I first read it & has been a good re-read on several occasions. Show Less
LibraryThing member Michael.Rimmer
I came to this book, my first James Bond, with the baggage of decades of exposure to his film incarnations. Having Daniel Craig as a template for this particular outing is no bad thing, though I was intrigued to read Bond described as having a look of Hoagy Carmichael about him.
So, I went into this
Bond is suave and debonair when called for, calculating and brutal when not. The ease with which he navigates the casino high society hints at a privileged past to which this story gives us no access - which adds his glamour and mystery.
When Bond meets new people, we are shown his mental summing up of their likely character and potential motivations and, more often than not, Bond hits the nail on the head, which is one of the things that makes him such a good agent. The suspense and tension is provided by wondering whether this is one of the times Bond has miscalculated and, if so, what the consequences will be.
Although the 2006 film adaptation of Casino Royale has necessarily added much to the plot that is not given in the book, those elements it has taken are pretty faithful, which I was surprised about. Particularly the torture scene, which is really quite graphic and made me squirm in my seat (as I think it would most men!).
Fleming has taken a lot of flak for his sexist attitude but, with one shocking exception, I didn't find his attitude towards women any different to that which I'd expect from a novel of this vintage. In fact, Vesper Lynd is generally depicted as a competent and able operative. Bond's view of women is that they are a distraction and an unnecessary entanglement which will interfere with his job, which is proved correct. An alternative view is given by Bond's French contact, René Mathis, who recommends that Bond gets a wife and starts a family so that he has something personal to fight for, rather than cold ideology and patriotism. This is also shown to be correct, even if somewhat tragically.
The shocking exception is the line, "...the conquest of her body would each time have the sweet tang of rape," which is really indefensible, but whether it is purely Bond's attitude or shared by the author, I don't know.
A more complex book than I would have given credit for and, with the reservation noted above, a jolly good one. I'm now on the look-out for Live and Let Die when trawling second-hand book shops.
So, I went into this
Show More
story wondering if my preconceptions would be confirmed or confounded, and inevitably it was a mix (shaken, not stirred - yes, that line is in here) of both.Bond is suave and debonair when called for, calculating and brutal when not. The ease with which he navigates the casino high society hints at a privileged past to which this story gives us no access - which adds his glamour and mystery.
When Bond meets new people, we are shown his mental summing up of their likely character and potential motivations and, more often than not, Bond hits the nail on the head, which is one of the things that makes him such a good agent. The suspense and tension is provided by wondering whether this is one of the times Bond has miscalculated and, if so, what the consequences will be.
Although the 2006 film adaptation of Casino Royale has necessarily added much to the plot that is not given in the book, those elements it has taken are pretty faithful, which I was surprised about. Particularly the torture scene, which is really quite graphic and made me squirm in my seat (as I think it would most men!).
Fleming has taken a lot of flak for his sexist attitude but, with one shocking exception, I didn't find his attitude towards women any different to that which I'd expect from a novel of this vintage. In fact, Vesper Lynd is generally depicted as a competent and able operative. Bond's view of women is that they are a distraction and an unnecessary entanglement which will interfere with his job, which is proved correct. An alternative view is given by Bond's French contact, René Mathis, who recommends that Bond gets a wife and starts a family so that he has something personal to fight for, rather than cold ideology and patriotism. This is also shown to be correct, even if somewhat tragically.
The shocking exception is the line, "...the conquest of her body would each time have the sweet tang of rape," which is really indefensible, but whether it is purely Bond's attitude or shared by the author, I don't know.
A more complex book than I would have given credit for and, with the reservation noted above, a jolly good one. I'm now on the look-out for Live and Let Die when trawling second-hand book shops.
Show Less
LibraryThing member bcquinnsmom
Weighing in at only 181 pages, Casino Royale is the first installment of the 14-book James Bond series. The Bond of this novel will probably come across as a bit of a surprise to some readers who are familiar with his larger-than-life, superspy cinema persona, which oozes sexiness,
Casino Royale begins rather slowly, with Bond on assignment to take down Monsieur Le Chiffre, a man with adopted name whose aliases include "variations on the words 'cypher' or 'number'." He is a Soviet agent (remember -- this was written in 1953 and the Cold War is already on fire) entrusted with fifty million francs to finance a Communist-controlled trade union in France, a group which could prove troublesome as a "fifth column" in case of war with the USSR. Le Chiffre, it seems, has parlayed the trade union funds into several incredibly bad investments and is currently on the edge of financial disaster. Bond's masters believe the only way to bring him down and destroy his standing with the Soviets is to bankrupt him entirely; but to do this they need someone who can outdo him at cards -- it seems that the enigmatic Monsieur Le Chiffre has come up short and is using his skills at baccarat to try to make up his losses. Bond is the perfect man for the job; he is sent to the casino at Royale-Les-Eaux to watch Le Chiffre and then take him on at cards. One serious complication has arisen: agents from SMERSH, an acronym for Smyert Shpionam, "death to spies," have caught wind of Le Chiffre's activities and are on his tail, unbeknownst to Le Chiffre. Bond's going to need some help -- along with Mathis, a French intelligence agent, and Felix Leiter of the CIA, London sends Vesper Lynd, a sultry, sexy woman whose involvement is at first resented by Bond. This is not going to be easy -- it isn't long until there's an assassination attempt, and that's only the beginning of Bond's problems.
I must say I was a bit surprised to find a more human, fallible Bond characterized here, one whose take on women is that
"women are for recreation. On a job, they got in the way and fogged things up with sex and hurt feelings and all the emotional baggage they carried around."
This Bond also is capable of questioning the rightness of what he does, capable of reflection in a world where "the villains and heroes get all mixed up." As he notes,
"...the country-right-or wrong business is getting a little out-of-date. Today we are fighting Communism. Okay. If I'd been alive fifty years ago, the brand of Conservatism we have today would have been damn near called Communism and we should have been told to go and fight that. History is moving pretty quickly these days and the heroes and villains keep on changing parts."
At the same time, this Bond becomes the sum of his experience -- I won't say why or how, but he evolves from a man who loses himself in love into a hardhearted, cold, licensed-to-kill 007 with a single-minded mission, to "go after the threat behind the spies, the threat that made them spy."
The events in Casino Royale seem to set the foundation for Bond's long career and if you're looking for something lighter, it's actually quite a good read. It starts rather slow, but picks up quickly. In today's vast array of high-tech spy fiction, the novel may seem a bit old fashioned with little action, but more interesting here is Bond's character. Plus, the whole time I was reading this book, I was amazed at how this short little novel morphed into the action-packed thriller it became in 2006. If you're a spy fiction person, like I am, it's a definite no-miss; if you've seen the movies and want to know how it all started, this is a great resource.
Show More
indestructibility, confidence, and machismo. Here he comes across as more of a misogynistic, flawed individual, prone to self doubt and a bit of introspection at times -- more human than the often over-the-top movie portrayals have led us to believe.Casino Royale begins rather slowly, with Bond on assignment to take down Monsieur Le Chiffre, a man with adopted name whose aliases include "variations on the words 'cypher' or 'number'." He is a Soviet agent (remember -- this was written in 1953 and the Cold War is already on fire) entrusted with fifty million francs to finance a Communist-controlled trade union in France, a group which could prove troublesome as a "fifth column" in case of war with the USSR. Le Chiffre, it seems, has parlayed the trade union funds into several incredibly bad investments and is currently on the edge of financial disaster. Bond's masters believe the only way to bring him down and destroy his standing with the Soviets is to bankrupt him entirely; but to do this they need someone who can outdo him at cards -- it seems that the enigmatic Monsieur Le Chiffre has come up short and is using his skills at baccarat to try to make up his losses. Bond is the perfect man for the job; he is sent to the casino at Royale-Les-Eaux to watch Le Chiffre and then take him on at cards. One serious complication has arisen: agents from SMERSH, an acronym for Smyert Shpionam, "death to spies," have caught wind of Le Chiffre's activities and are on his tail, unbeknownst to Le Chiffre. Bond's going to need some help -- along with Mathis, a French intelligence agent, and Felix Leiter of the CIA, London sends Vesper Lynd, a sultry, sexy woman whose involvement is at first resented by Bond. This is not going to be easy -- it isn't long until there's an assassination attempt, and that's only the beginning of Bond's problems.
I must say I was a bit surprised to find a more human, fallible Bond characterized here, one whose take on women is that
"women are for recreation. On a job, they got in the way and fogged things up with sex and hurt feelings and all the emotional baggage they carried around."
This Bond also is capable of questioning the rightness of what he does, capable of reflection in a world where "the villains and heroes get all mixed up." As he notes,
"...the country-right-or wrong business is getting a little out-of-date. Today we are fighting Communism. Okay. If I'd been alive fifty years ago, the brand of Conservatism we have today would have been damn near called Communism and we should have been told to go and fight that. History is moving pretty quickly these days and the heroes and villains keep on changing parts."
At the same time, this Bond becomes the sum of his experience -- I won't say why or how, but he evolves from a man who loses himself in love into a hardhearted, cold, licensed-to-kill 007 with a single-minded mission, to "go after the threat behind the spies, the threat that made them spy."
The events in Casino Royale seem to set the foundation for Bond's long career and if you're looking for something lighter, it's actually quite a good read. It starts rather slow, but picks up quickly. In today's vast array of high-tech spy fiction, the novel may seem a bit old fashioned with little action, but more interesting here is Bond's character. Plus, the whole time I was reading this book, I was amazed at how this short little novel morphed into the action-packed thriller it became in 2006. If you're a spy fiction person, like I am, it's a definite no-miss; if you've seen the movies and want to know how it all started, this is a great resource.
Show Less
LibraryThing member alanteder
Excellent reading by actor Dan Stevens in the first volume of the recent (2014) celebrity narrations edition of the original James Bond series by Ian Fleming. Especially fun to be reacquainted with the character as he was first envisaged by Fleming (looking like Hoagy Carmichael) and be reminded
Show More
that Felix Leiter was from Texas ;) Show Less
LibraryThing member BooksForDinner
Surprised that I've never read a Bond book before this. Very fun stuff, the writing is better than I thought it would be...I guess I was so ready for the camp of the movies that I just assumed the books would be the same. A bit dated in places, but fun all the same.
LibraryThing member cybercarotte
Actually, this is the 2nd time I've read this book - first time was nearly 30 years ago, and I'd read a French translation... Interestingly (in a way) the only part of the book I remembered was when Bond is tortured. I recall, the first time I saw the movie adaptation, I wondered if they were going
I suppose the fact that I remembered nothing except the torture scene is because most of the rest is really pretty unremarkable... It's not a fabulous book, by any stretch of the imagination - I remember preferring other Bond novels to this one by far - but it's not bad though, especially as a sort of "period piece", a sort of snapshot into spy novels of the 1950s, which as such makes it an interesting read.
I'm curious to see how much of the other novels I still remember from when I read them as a teenager. I expect not a whole lot more than I did this one... ;)
Show More
to have that scene in it, and figured they wouldn't...and watching it, I was pretty sure that the scene in the book was only very slightly different (and I was right about that, looks like.)I suppose the fact that I remembered nothing except the torture scene is because most of the rest is really pretty unremarkable... It's not a fabulous book, by any stretch of the imagination - I remember preferring other Bond novels to this one by far - but it's not bad though, especially as a sort of "period piece", a sort of snapshot into spy novels of the 1950s, which as such makes it an interesting read.
I'm curious to see how much of the other novels I still remember from when I read them as a teenager. I expect not a whole lot more than I did this one... ;)
Show Less
LibraryThing member deslni01
"Bond - James Bond", one of the most well-known quotes in the Western world spoken by one of the most well-known characters to ever grace the pages and screens. Casino Royale is Sir Ian Fleming's introduction to the character of Bond, and sets the stage for the many successful and popular sequels
James Bond - Agent 007 - must play a high-stakes game of Baccarat against a Russian named Le Chiffre, and must prevent him from winning roughly 50 million francs. Bond's sole objective is to prevent Le Chiffre from obtaining that money, which would result in a fate worse for Le Chiffre than merely death.
It seems difficult to make a game of Baccarat interesting, yet Fleming did just that and more, adding a great deal of suspense and action, as well as a woman typical of the Bond franchise. The books offer a different glimpse into the life of Bond than the movies, in that the reader is able to understand the thought process of Bond, rather than just witness his actions. This provides a compelling tale of the most famous secret agent in the world, and Casino Royale provides a glimpse into what turns him into the womanizing man he is famous for - especially the chilling last line of the novel.
Show More
to follow.James Bond - Agent 007 - must play a high-stakes game of Baccarat against a Russian named Le Chiffre, and must prevent him from winning roughly 50 million francs. Bond's sole objective is to prevent Le Chiffre from obtaining that money, which would result in a fate worse for Le Chiffre than merely death.
It seems difficult to make a game of Baccarat interesting, yet Fleming did just that and more, adding a great deal of suspense and action, as well as a woman typical of the Bond franchise. The books offer a different glimpse into the life of Bond than the movies, in that the reader is able to understand the thought process of Bond, rather than just witness his actions. This provides a compelling tale of the most famous secret agent in the world, and Casino Royale provides a glimpse into what turns him into the womanizing man he is famous for - especially the chilling last line of the novel.
Show Less
LibraryThing member theokester
I've been a fan of the James Bond movies for a long, long time. I finally decided to read some of the books that inspired the movies and where better to start than with the first book in the James Bond series? When Casino Royale came to theaters a few years back, I was a little nervous at first
As is expected with any book-->movie scenario, there were a few notable differences between the book and the movie. Some of the action scenes were different. A little bit of the flow of the book was different. The interaction between Bond and the other major characters was a little more withdrawn in the book.
Another notable difference was that instead of playing Texas Hold 'Em (as they did in the movie), Bond played High Stakes Baccarat. I'd seen Baccarat played in some earlier Bond movies but I've never played or learned to play. Flemming did a fabulous job of not only teaching the reader the game of Baccarat but in doing so in such a way that felt natural to the narrative of the story.
The action sequences were fast paced and interesting without becoming terribly graphic or gory. Even the scene where Bond is tortured extensively is done in such a way that it makes the reader squirm but through higher level narrative or inferences rather than graphic descriptions. Don't get me wrong, there is definitely some lower level fighting and violence but it's done in a way that shouldn't turn the reader off.
Except for Bond, the characters were a little flat, stereotyped and predictable. There were some interesting character interactions and motivations, but generally speaking the book felt like Bond's story was a one-man-show and even though the characters were there, they were just window dressing for him. Bond was a bit flat at times as well…his character being the stereotypical "hard man" who doesn't really like authority, women, or process. He's cold and methodical and gets the job done.
If you've seen the movies, you'll know Bond's reputation as a ladies man. Interestingly, in this novel, he seemed very much against the idea of mixing business with pleasure. He commented that he didn't like having women around to distract him while on a job. He stayed cool and distant towards Vesper. They had a couple of scenes that should have been brimming with romantic tension but instead had a cold and distant bond beside a semi-confused Vesper. We came away from those scenes with a degree of tension but more with a sense of frustration for the romantic connection that could have been.
Bond's interaction with the local authorities and with the Americans was played a little different in the book than in the movie. Once again, Bond was the center of attention and the external forces were wholly peripheral and seemed to exist only to play on Bond's needs. And when Bond needed them, they suddenly arrived just in time with all of the proper resources and aid. This again felt a bit strained, but still worked in the sense of the novel.
When Bond finally did warm to Vesper and their romance bloomed, it seemed a little forced/manipulated. While there was a sense of realism to the nature of his growing to like her, the way it was written left me feeling unconvinced. The ending of the book was much less action packed than the movie but followed a fairly similar plot arc. I didn't feel the same sense of Bond's loss as in the movie. In fact, in the book Bond seemed almost less effected. I think that was largely due to the distant nature of his character through the book.
Interestingly as I look back at my thoughts/review, I feel like I am coming off as extremely negative towards the book. I agree that the book wasn't as good as I'd hoped but it was still entertaining and still pure James Bond adventure. I give it a little leeway knowing that this was the first book in what would become a long-lived series of novels.
I also acknowledge that this is definitely a genre novel that isn't really trying to be anything more than an exciting spy adventure. I think partly I was hoping for more dynamic intrigue or conspiracy. Considering the size of the book (just under 200 pages), it does quite a lot in a short space. It did briefly introduce the concept of a few "spy killer" organizations that could come into play in future books and make things rather interesting. But generally the story and plot were pretty straightforward and unremarkable.
Overall I enjoyed the book and will likely seek out and read more James Bond. It's not deep writing by any means but it is a fun, quick adventure that's just gritty enough to not be "fluff" but not so gritty as to be off-putting.
***
3 out of 5 stars
Show More
about the new "grittier" bond. I'd always enjoyed the cheesy humor. But I really felt like Daniel Craig did a great job in Casino Royale and I look forward to seeing future movies.As is expected with any book-->movie scenario, there were a few notable differences between the book and the movie. Some of the action scenes were different. A little bit of the flow of the book was different. The interaction between Bond and the other major characters was a little more withdrawn in the book.
Another notable difference was that instead of playing Texas Hold 'Em (as they did in the movie), Bond played High Stakes Baccarat. I'd seen Baccarat played in some earlier Bond movies but I've never played or learned to play. Flemming did a fabulous job of not only teaching the reader the game of Baccarat but in doing so in such a way that felt natural to the narrative of the story.
The action sequences were fast paced and interesting without becoming terribly graphic or gory. Even the scene where Bond is tortured extensively is done in such a way that it makes the reader squirm but through higher level narrative or inferences rather than graphic descriptions. Don't get me wrong, there is definitely some lower level fighting and violence but it's done in a way that shouldn't turn the reader off.
Except for Bond, the characters were a little flat, stereotyped and predictable. There were some interesting character interactions and motivations, but generally speaking the book felt like Bond's story was a one-man-show and even though the characters were there, they were just window dressing for him. Bond was a bit flat at times as well…his character being the stereotypical "hard man" who doesn't really like authority, women, or process. He's cold and methodical and gets the job done.
If you've seen the movies, you'll know Bond's reputation as a ladies man. Interestingly, in this novel, he seemed very much against the idea of mixing business with pleasure. He commented that he didn't like having women around to distract him while on a job. He stayed cool and distant towards Vesper. They had a couple of scenes that should have been brimming with romantic tension but instead had a cold and distant bond beside a semi-confused Vesper. We came away from those scenes with a degree of tension but more with a sense of frustration for the romantic connection that could have been.
Bond's interaction with the local authorities and with the Americans was played a little different in the book than in the movie. Once again, Bond was the center of attention and the external forces were wholly peripheral and seemed to exist only to play on Bond's needs. And when Bond needed them, they suddenly arrived just in time with all of the proper resources and aid. This again felt a bit strained, but still worked in the sense of the novel.
When Bond finally did warm to Vesper and their romance bloomed, it seemed a little forced/manipulated. While there was a sense of realism to the nature of his growing to like her, the way it was written left me feeling unconvinced. The ending of the book was much less action packed than the movie but followed a fairly similar plot arc. I didn't feel the same sense of Bond's loss as in the movie. In fact, in the book Bond seemed almost less effected. I think that was largely due to the distant nature of his character through the book.
Interestingly as I look back at my thoughts/review, I feel like I am coming off as extremely negative towards the book. I agree that the book wasn't as good as I'd hoped but it was still entertaining and still pure James Bond adventure. I give it a little leeway knowing that this was the first book in what would become a long-lived series of novels.
I also acknowledge that this is definitely a genre novel that isn't really trying to be anything more than an exciting spy adventure. I think partly I was hoping for more dynamic intrigue or conspiracy. Considering the size of the book (just under 200 pages), it does quite a lot in a short space. It did briefly introduce the concept of a few "spy killer" organizations that could come into play in future books and make things rather interesting. But generally the story and plot were pretty straightforward and unremarkable.
Overall I enjoyed the book and will likely seek out and read more James Bond. It's not deep writing by any means but it is a fun, quick adventure that's just gritty enough to not be "fluff" but not so gritty as to be off-putting.
***
3 out of 5 stars
Show Less
LibraryThing member LibraryLou
I re-read this after watching the new film (Daniel Craig has way exceeded my expectations as the new Bond, taking him back to the character Fleming originally portrayed him as.)As exciting and thrilling as a book gets. Ian Fleming has a real way with words that allow you to be part of the action.
LibraryThing member lightparade
In came Daniel Craig, so I thought, let's read a Bond novel, never done that before, never say never again (ha ha). Got myself a Penguin and got to work.
Well, that was it. Read the first eight Bond novels end-to-end in about three weeks, and have since completed the canon (well, I aborted The Spy
Well, that was it. Read the first eight Bond novels end-to-end in about three weeks, and have since completed the canon (well, I aborted The Spy
Show More
Who Loved Me). Despite the nonsense (the train in Diamonds..., the entire premise of Moonraker), these are marvellous books, but Casino Royale is perhaps the best and the most human, as Fleming pieced together his creation with no idea of where it might all lead! Yes, Le Carre is the "better writer", but Bond is the one, and I can't wait for the Sebastian Faulkes take in May... Show Less
LibraryThing member cinesnail88
'm not a huge fan of the Bond movies, I've been known to like a few, particularly the recent Casino Royale. This, however, was not what led me to begin reading Ian Fleming's infamous series. I was at the bookstore, my boyfriend said he would buy me a book because he's a sweetheart, etc etc. So I
I was really impressed with how well written this was and how much I enjoyed it. Kudos to Ian Fleming for creating a macho male character that I felt I could somewhat relate to.
Show More
was roaming, and I suddenly saw the spines of all these books with really awesome cover art. And they were the Bond books. I bought the first few, and I absolutely have to go back and buy the rest so I'll have them. The cover art is so great on all of them. Anyways...I was really impressed with how well written this was and how much I enjoyed it. Kudos to Ian Fleming for creating a macho male character that I felt I could somewhat relate to.
Show Less
LibraryThing member drneutron
My favorite Bond book, and one of the books I come back to occasionally.
LibraryThing member soylentgreen23
They've made another film of this, Fleming's first outing for James Bond; this time we have Daniel Craig to watch instead of Peter Sellers or David Niven - a big improvement given the expectations of the genre.
I was suitably impressed with "Casino Royale" - the book and the film, I should add. The
I tried reading another Fleming work - the one about Bond versus the Voodoo people in the deep South - and it was too difficult so I gave up. But at least I've read something.
I was suitably impressed with "Casino Royale" - the book and the film, I should add. The
Show More
book is quite daring at times, especially with that scene - you know the one I mean - and I am pleased that this is how the Bond phenomenon started. I tried reading another Fleming work - the one about Bond versus the Voodoo people in the deep South - and it was too difficult so I gave up. But at least I've read something.
Show Less
Subjects
Awards
British Book Award (Shortlist — Audiobook — 2012)
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
1953-04-13
Physical description
220 p.; 18.5 cm
Local notes
Omslag: Ikke angivet
Omslaget viser en ung kvinde med en lang rød fjerboa. I forgrunden ses stakke af jetons
Indskannet omslag - N650U - 150 dpi
James Bond, bind 1
Megen omtale af forskellige spil, shemmy/shimmy, trente-et-quarante, baccarat, chemin-de-fer
Oversat fra engelsk "Casino Royale" af Grete Juel Jørgensen
Side 20: La Loi Marthe Richard
Side 140: Le Chiffre tændte en cigaret og drak en mundfuld kaffe af glasset. Så tog han tæppebankeren og anbragte den med skaftet hvilende på sine knæ og den trekantede slagflade på guldvet lige under Bonds stol.
Side 141: Han så Bond ind i øjnene, granskende, næsten dvælende. Så løftede han pludselig med et ryk den hånd, der lå på hans knæ.
Resultatet var forfærdende.
Hele Bonds krop spændtes som i krampe. Hans ansigt fortrak sig som i et lydløst skrig, og hans læber krængedes tilbage fra tænderne. Samtidig kastede han hovedet bagover med et ryk, så senerne på hans hals spændte som tove. Et øjeblik trak alle musklerne i hans krop sig sammen som knuder, og fingre og tæer krummedes, til de blev blodløse og hvide. Så sank han sammen, og sveden begyndte at hagle ned ad ham. Han udstødte en dyb stønnen.
Side 145: Det er højst uheldigt for Dem, at vi ikke fandt check'en. Hvis vi havde fundet den, havde De nu kunnet ligge trygt i Deres seng, sandsynligvis sammen med den smukke miss Lynd - i stedet for denne her.
Side 145: Han bevægede igen hånden, og tæppebankeren svirpede opad.
Side 145: Jeg skal nemlig sige Dem, min kære Bond, at over for en mand, er det ganske unødvendigt at bruge raffinerede metoder. Med dette enkle redskab, ja med bogstavelig talt en hvilken som helst anden genstand, kan man påføre en mand tilstrækkeligt store lidelser. Tro ikke, hvad De læser i romaner eller bøger om krigen. Der gives intet værre end dette. Her er det ikke alene smerten, man føler i øjeblikket, som gør sig gældende, men også tanken om, at ens manddom gradvis tilintetgøres, og at man til sidst - hvis man ikke giver efter - ikke længere er en mand.
Bogen var baggrund for en spionkomedie "Casino Royale (1967)" instrueret af Val Guest og med David Niven, Peter Sellers, Woody Allen, Orson Welles og Ursula Andress i nogle af hovedrollerne.
Omslaget viser en ung kvinde med en lang rød fjerboa. I forgrunden ses stakke af jetons
Indskannet omslag - N650U - 150 dpi
James Bond, bind 1
Megen omtale af forskellige spil, shemmy/shimmy, trente-et-quarante, baccarat, chemin-de-fer
Oversat fra engelsk "Casino Royale" af Grete Juel Jørgensen
Side 20: La Loi Marthe Richard
Side 140: Le Chiffre tændte en cigaret og drak en mundfuld kaffe af glasset. Så tog han tæppebankeren og anbragte den med skaftet hvilende på sine knæ og den trekantede slagflade på guldvet lige under Bonds stol.
Side 141: Han så Bond ind i øjnene, granskende, næsten dvælende. Så løftede han pludselig med et ryk den hånd, der lå på hans knæ.
Resultatet var forfærdende.
Hele Bonds krop spændtes som i krampe. Hans ansigt fortrak sig som i et lydløst skrig, og hans læber krængedes tilbage fra tænderne. Samtidig kastede han hovedet bagover med et ryk, så senerne på hans hals spændte som tove. Et øjeblik trak alle musklerne i hans krop sig sammen som knuder, og fingre og tæer krummedes, til de blev blodløse og hvide. Så sank han sammen, og sveden begyndte at hagle ned ad ham. Han udstødte en dyb stønnen.
Side 145: Det er højst uheldigt for Dem, at vi ikke fandt check'en. Hvis vi havde fundet den, havde De nu kunnet ligge trygt i Deres seng, sandsynligvis sammen med den smukke miss Lynd - i stedet for denne her.
Side 145: Han bevægede igen hånden, og tæppebankeren svirpede opad.
Side 145: Jeg skal nemlig sige Dem, min kære Bond, at over for en mand, er det ganske unødvendigt at bruge raffinerede metoder. Med dette enkle redskab, ja med bogstavelig talt en hvilken som helst anden genstand, kan man påføre en mand tilstrækkeligt store lidelser. Tro ikke, hvad De læser i romaner eller bøger om krigen. Der gives intet værre end dette. Her er det ikke alene smerten, man føler i øjeblikket, som gør sig gældende, men også tanken om, at ens manddom gradvis tilintetgøres, og at man til sidst - hvis man ikke giver efter - ikke længere er en mand.
Bogen var baggrund for en spionkomedie "Casino Royale (1967)" instrueret af Val Guest og med David Niven, Peter Sellers, Woody Allen, Orson Welles og Ursula Andress i nogle af hovedrollerne.
Similar in this library
Pages
220
DDC/MDS
| 823.914 |