casino royale book historically inaccurate

Mads, who appears to be roughly DC's age, would have looked very odd calling him 'My dear boy' and telling him that he's in a game for grown-ups. I think it would have worked if they decided to make Le Chiffre an older villain.

Although I still see Craig as being a little long in the tooth to play a spy at the beginning of his career(should be closer to 30), I can at l east judge him and the film more objectively and I put in up in my top 5 films along side OHMSS, TLD, LTK and FRWL, replacing Goldfinger in the list. Not having that made part of the film was more disappointing than I realized and ended up coloring my judgement. Then that last line in the chapter as he reaches for the knife on the table 'Say goodbye to it, Bond'. The whole ritual of Le Chiffre sitting down and pouring then drinking coffee while explaining how Bond was an amateur using childish hiding places and there was no rescue coming then describing how Bond would be tortured would have fit in well with the premise that the film is a reboot and Bond is in the beginning of his career. In the book, Le Chiffre is rather condescending towards Bond, calling him 'my dear boy'(a chapter title) and telling Bond the game of Red Indians is over and that he has stumbled into a game for grownups. It is because I read the book before seeing the film and I was disappointed because as close as the script hewed to the book once reaching the casino, the final encounter with le Chiffre was very different.

Having watched the film 4 times now, 3 in the theater and once on the DVD, I realized why I had not warmed up to Daniel Craig as much as I think I should be considering he is the closest to Fleming's Bond since Timothy Dalton.

Casino royale book historically inaccurate