18 replies to this topic

[casinoroyale11234]

What do you think Ebert & Roper are going to say? or .

[Gobi-1]

Well Ebert has given thumbs up to every Brosnan Bond film while Roeper gave Die Another Day a thumbs down. Roeper wasn't on the show at the time GE, TND and TWINE came out. I do know that the late Gene Sikel also gave TND a thumbs up.

It's really far to early to worry about what they're going to say and it doesn't really matter anyway. I feel Ebert will like it but if he doesn't no big deal.

For those interested you can read Ebert's Bond reviews at http://rogerebert.su...s.dll/frontpage

[Tarl_Cabot]

Ebert is a strange guy: He gave Spiderman thumbs down but gave Daredevil thumbs up. He said Spiderman 2 was the top 4 films out of 10 of the year...he gave Supes and Fast Furious Tokyo drift ...the point is don't panic if he gives Casino a thumbs down.

I predict both will give it thumbs up, albiet not gush over it.

[luciusgore]

I read he gave Die Another Day a thumbs up. He even liked TWINE: "'The World Is Not Enough' is a splendid comic thriller, exciting and graceful, endlessly inventive. Because it is also the 19th James Bond movie, it comes with so much history that one reviews it like wine, comparing it to earlier famous vintages; I guess that's part of the fun. This is a good one."

Given this, if he doesn't like CR, it's a pretty bad sign in my book. Ultimately it'll depend whether CR is a good movie or not. He gave Layer Cake 3 1/2 stars, same as TWINE, and had this to say about Craig at the time:

"Daniel Craig was said to be the front-runner for the next James Bond, until it began to be said that Pierce Brosnan might return for a farewell lap. My own money is on Clive Owen, but who would wish James Bond on anyone? Craig is fascinating here as a criminal who is very smart, and finds that is not an advantage because while you might be able to figure out what another smart person is about to do, dumbos like the men he works for are likely to do anything."

[K1Bond007]

Well, I was going to say Ebert will probably like it, but forget it. Now I'm saying Ebert. Seriously though, he rated both Casino Royale (67) and The Living Daylights a 2. So, him. Forget him. TLD rated a 2 or rather just anywhere in the realm of comparison to the 1967 Casino Royale is just absolute lunacy.

Ebert's History:

Stars:
---
YOLT: 2.5
DAF: 3
NSNA: 3.5
---
CR1967: 2
---
LALD: 2.5
MR: 3
FYEO: 2
---
TLD: 2
LTK: 3.5
---
GE: 3
TND: 3
TWINE: 3.5
DAD: 3

[Pussfeller]

FYEO is a 2 and MR is a 3? LTK is 1.5 better than TLD?? There's no rhyme or reason to these judgments. He's way too charitable with Brosnan's outings, none of which should have ranked above 2.

[A Kristatos]

FYEO is a 2 and MR is a 3? LTK is 1.5 better than TLD?? There's no rhyme or reason to these judgments. He's way too charitable with Brosnan's outings, none of which should have ranked above 2.

Agreed Pussfeller. So, I like NSNA, but what does everyone think of Ebert's 3.5 stars for that movie?

Oh what the heck! While I'm at it, here;s my star rating for all of the Bonds:


CR (1954 TV special): 3
DN: 3
FRWL: 4
GF: 3
TB: 3.5
YOLT: 2
CR (1967): 0.5 (Yes, it was that dreadful!)
OHMSS: 3.5
DAF: 3
LALD: 2
TMWTGG: 3
TSWLM: 3
MR: 1.5
FYEO: 3.5
OP: 2
NSNA: 3.5 (Yes, I actually agree with Ebert on this one! I rank it 7th)
AVTAK: 2
TLD: 3.5
LTK: 3
GE: 2.5
TND: 3
TWINE: 3.5
DAD: 2

[Loeffelholz]

Best to keep in mind what they say about opinions and a**holes...everybody's got one...

Sometimes Ebert and I are in sync on a film, sometimes we are wildly separated in opinion. Critics DO have an impact on a film's business, but Bond has always been critic-proof to some degree. We shall see.

[crheath]

I think we can safely say they will both give it "thumbs up".
Ebert has been giving the last several ones positive reviews. Roeper will like the change in direction which he has been rooting for.
Also, critics like Craig alot.

[JimmyBond]

FYEO is a 2 and MR is a 3? LTK is 1.5 better than TLD?? There's no rhyme or reason to these judgments. He's way too charitable with Brosnan's outings, none of which should have ranked above 2.

It's important to read his reviews to understand his reasonings (even if he's not consistent):

-He liked Moonraker because of the special effects.

-He disliked FYEO because he felt it was too basic (he really didnt like the down to Earth approach).

-In TLD he felt Dalton made Bond too real...

-Yet by LTK he ignores that prior criticism and enjoys LTK for it's Bond cliches.

[Licensed to kill]

I can't understand why anyone gives Ebert ANY credit at all. He's the worst movie critic ever. That's a strong statement to make, but consider this...

He gave a positive review to the remake of "The Haunting", which is universally considered a terrible movie. He even found a number of positive things to say about "Gigli" (considered by many to be the worst movie ever). He doesn't like classics like Die Hard, Godfather 2, and he often gripes about insignificant details in Bond films. I'm typing all of this on the spur of the moment so forgive me if I don't give any more examples here, but do the research and you'll find that Ebert has become a movie critic whose reviews have become less trustworthy over time. He's irrelevant. He hates any film that wasn't directed by Woody Allen, Ingmar Bergman, or Orson Welles.

CR should do fine no matter what Ebert thinks.

[EyesOnly]

I always go by if the critics hate it, then i'll probably enjoy it. I'm not saying I like horribly made films, I like a well made movie like the rest. But critics look for alot in film. Sometimes I don't think they view it as a movie, but art. So how are we as the public (Mainly going to see....a movie) suppose to take their reviews seriously?

[Flash1087]

Wasn't Leonard Maltin's guide also oddly skewed toward certain movies? I haven't seen an edition of his movie guide past Goldeneye, but he really liked Goldeneye and gave pretty abysmal scores to all of the 80's Bonds.

[JimmyBond]

Wasn't Leonard Maltin's guide also oddly skewed toward certain movies? I haven't seen an edition of his movie guide past Goldeneye, but he really liked Goldeneye and gave pretty abysmal scores to all of the 80's Bonds.

His guide's are written by a staff. A lot of the films in the book Maltin has never seen. It's a bit of false advertising, but I guess it sells more if it's "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide" rather than "Leonard Maltin, and Comittee's Movie Guide."

[Flash1087]

Wasn't Leonard Maltin's guide also oddly skewed toward certain movies? I haven't seen an edition of his movie guide past Goldeneye, but he really liked Goldeneye and gave pretty abysmal scores to all of the 80's Bonds.

His guide's are written by a staff. A lot of the films in the book Maltin has never seen. It's a bit of false advertising, but I guess it sells more if it's "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide" rather than "Leonard Maltin, and Comittee's Movie Guide."

I feel a touch cheated now. Any comittee that scores The Living Daylights that low obviously can't be trusted.

[JimmyBond]

I've noticed quite a few number of people scored Living Daylights low at the time, yet scored LTK higher. I'm thinking it might have to do with expectations, at the time they were expecting another Moore style romp. By the time LTK came around they knew what to expect.

[crheath]

I can't understand why anyone gives Ebert ANY credit at all. He's the worst movie critic ever. That's a strong statement to make, but consider this...

He gave a positive review to the remake of "The Haunting", which is universally considered a terrible movie. He even found a number of positive things to say about "Gigli" (considered by many to be the worst movie ever). He doesn't like classics like Die Hard, Godfather 2, and he often gripes about insignificant details in Bond films. I'm typing all of this on the spur of the moment so forgive me if I don't give any more examples here, but do the research and you'll find that Ebert has become a movie critic whose reviews have become less trustworthy over time. He's irrelevant. He hates any film that wasn't directed by Woody Allen, Ingmar Bergman, or Orson Welles.

CR should do fine no matter what Ebert thinks.

If he's so untrustworthy and bad, why do you read his reviews?

Put it this way: Why is he so popular that a thread has been created with so many people commenting on him?

[Qwerty]

FYEO is a 2 and MR is a 3?

Sounds good to me...

CR should do fine no matter what Ebert thinks.

Agreed with this as well.

[Dmitri Mishkin]

I think Ebert will like it just fine. He has given 3 or more stars to the Brosnan pictures, and what I glean from that is that he appreciates all sorts of Bond films, from the fantastic to the serious. I think there's a certain nostalgia for Bond that plays into his reviews too (he's referenced Bond as being the origin of the "Talking Killer" villains, etc).