21 replies to this topic

[homerjbond]

Roger Ebert's Review

He gave it 4 stars (I think GF is the only other Bond he gave 4 stars):

"Daniel Craig makes a superb Bond: Leaner, more taciturn, less sex-obsessed, able to be hurt in body and soul, not giving a damn if his martini is shaken or stirred...Daniel Craig is bloody damned great as Bond, in a movie that creates a new reality for the character."

"With "Casino Royale," we get to the obligatory concluding lovey-dovey on the tropical sands, and then the movie pulls a screeching U-turn and starts up again with the most sensational scene I have ever seen set in Venice, or most other places. It's a movie that keeps on giving."

Hope he recovers from his ailment, but I have always wondered if he was ever going to get around reviewing this...

[Vauxhall]

An excellent and very accurate review in my opinion. Thanks for posting.

[00Twelve]

Agreed. We're seeing CR through such jaded eyes by now, that it's encouraging and satisfying to see someone who's watching it for the first time and just enjoying the heck out of a great movie, one that's on a different level than Bond films have been for years and years.

(And I can't help but grin that he kinda stuck it to Ultimatum, without even applying personal opinion to it )

[Judo chop]

It

[Loomis]

I think the public is getting tired of action sequences that are created in post-production. I've been swamped with letters complaining about "The Bourne Ultimatum." One guy said, "Why don't critics admit they're tired of it?" Actually, we're tired of writing about how tired of it we are.

Ebert also gives THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM a rave review:

http://rogerebert.su...S/70710008/1023

[[dark]]

I, too, love the way that Casino Royale leads viewers into thinking the "lovey-dovey" scenes are going to mark the end of the film, just before it all kicks off again.

Interesting that Ebert cited these Venice-set scenes as such a strong point in the film (rightly so, I'm beginning to think), when many critics felt the film's third act to be its weakest and that it slightly undid much of the low-key tone established during the casino scenes.

Glad to finally have Ebert weigh in on the picture, though, particularly in such a positive manner.

[Harmsway]

A great review.

[killkenny kid]

Great to read Mr. Ebert's review.

[crheath]

It's a shame Siskel isn't around. He was the one who always complained about the Bond actors after Connery. I think he would have loved Craig.

[HH007]

It's great to see Ebert back. I knew he was a life long Bond fan, and I wondered what he would think of Casino Royale. Very thoughtful, and imho, accurate review.

[Kara Milovy]

It's a fine review, but I am so sick of reviewers of CR enumerating all the flaws of past Bond films. "Finally" a Bond film has real human emotion; forgetting, of course, all the fine work in past Bond films that, though rare, were indeed really emotional. "Finally" stunts are real, when all stunts were always real prior to DAD.

Why do you have to start a review of CR by implying that Bond before CR just wasn't good enough?

[00Twelve]

Well though, it's hard not to notice that CR came in on a different level than Bond films have assumed for years and years. It just took itself seriously in a way the Bond films haven't in a really long time. WE love our Bond movies. But there are a lot of casual moviegoers (and Ebert, while a famous critic, is one of those as it pertains to Bond) that have never looked at the Bond films as any more than fluff action movies, formulaic to the hilt. CR, however, can't be pigeon-holed so easily into that category. CR doesn't feel (IMO) like a "Bond film," but a normal film about a guy named James Bond. The signature material has been rendered to a mercifully low priority so that the story and characters could be better realized. That's how I see it anyway. Just trying to hopefully help clarify Ebert's POV, if possible.

[Bon-san]

I actually found the review to be a rather poor bit of journalism. And that's coming from someone who's been a big fan of Ebert over the years. I wasn't very impressed with the Bourne Ultimatum review either. He seems to have lost a step since his serious health problems began. Understandable, of course.

It's nice he gave CR four stars. But the review just seemed to meander. What I always found enjoyable in Ebert's writing was the seamless blend of insightful analysis, nifty prose, and easy wit, often punctuated by a lesson in film or "real life" history. Each review seemed like a prizeworthy essay, as opposed to the stream-of-consciousness spew put out by most reviewers, or, worse, the grandiose cyni-festoes rendered by the really pompous and hopelessly unhappy 'critical elite'. Perhaps I'm being too hard on ol' Roger, but his recent stuff seems more generic and less Ebertian.

All right, I'm moving on then.

[Loomis]

It's a fine review, but I am so sick of reviewers of CR enumerating all the flaws of past Bond films. "Finally" a Bond film has real human emotion; forgetting, of course, all the fine work in past Bond films that, though rare, were indeed really emotional. "Finally" stunts are real, when all stunts were always real prior to DAD.

Why do you have to start a review of CR by implying that Bond before CR just wasn't good enough?

Good points. After all, we were all devoted fans before CASINO ROYALE and Craig, were we not? And so must have found much to admire and enjoy in the series. I'd say that all the Bonds save one* have their fair share (or more than) of moments of fine work in various departments (yes, even the acting department). Even a "weak" 007 flick has its great bits.

That said, though, it would seem that most fans (myself included) agree that CR marks the highest artistic peak the series has scaled since the golden age of '60s Bondmania, or even its - forgive me - all-time high. So I guess it's understandable that the earlier outings should be dissed by implication.

*THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. But that's just MHO.

[Daddy Bond]

Agreed. We're seeing CR through such jaded eyes by now, that it's encouraging and satisfying to see someone who's watching it for the first time and just enjoying the heck out of a great movie, one that's on a different level than Bond films have been for years and years.

(And I can't help but grin that he kinda stuck it to Ultimatum, without even applying personal opinion to it )

In what way did he "stick it" to Bourne???

Just curious.

[crheath]

Agreed. We're seeing CR through such jaded eyes by now, that it's encouraging and satisfying to see someone who's watching it for the first time and just enjoying the heck out of a great movie, one that's on a different level than Bond films have been for years and years.

(And I can't help but grin that he kinda stuck it to Ultimatum, without even applying personal opinion to it )

In what way did he "stick it" to Bourne???

Just curious.

He didn't really. He just mentioned the letters and emails he was getting from his readers criticizing it. That's the problem with quoting critics. People usually misquote them.

[RazorBlade]

I haven't read many of Eberts reviews. I mostly see him on TV. He's a good guy though and liked his reviews of CR and BU. I will see BU for the fine actioner it is. But that's it.

[00Twelve]

Agreed. We're seeing CR through such jaded eyes by now, that it's encouraging and satisfying to see someone who's watching it for the first time and just enjoying the heck out of a great movie, one that's on a different level than Bond films have been for years and years.

(And I can't help but grin that he kinda stuck it to Ultimatum, without even applying personal opinion to it )

In what way did he "stick it" to Bourne???

Just curious.

He didn't really. He just mentioned the letters and emails he was getting from his readers criticizing it. That's the problem with quoting critics. People usually misquote them.

Right, that's why I said it had nothing to do with his opinion.

But the fact that he took the time to mention that showed that he was making a point by doing so. Hey, I've not even seen Ultimatum yet, and I'm sure I'll like it when I do. I'm just glad to hear some opinions other than the ones we've heard all over the place that feel the need to put the new Bond down in order to raise Bourne up.

[Qwerty]

Don't always agree with him (I suppose that's the whole point of a movie critic's opinion), but it was nice to see another glowing review for Casino Royale.

[Cruiserweight]

It's great that he gave it a good review. As for as Ebert goes i heard that he probably won't ever talk again.

Edited by Cruiserweight, 18 August 2007 - 12:49 AM.

[Turn]

Great to see Ebert back in action. He's the only critic I know who could put in a reference to the Queen Latifah movie Last Holiday in a review of a Bond film.

[MarcAngeDraco]

Agreed. We're seeing CR through such jaded eyes by now, that it's encouraging and satisfying to see someone who's watching it for the first time and just enjoying the heck out of a great movie, one that's on a different level than Bond films have been for years and years.

(And I can't help but grin that he kinda stuck it to Ultimatum, without even applying personal opinion to it )

In what way did he "stick it" to Bourne???

Just curious.

He didn't really. He just mentioned the letters and emails he was getting from his readers criticizing it. That's the problem with quoting critics. People usually misquote them.

"Recently, with the advent of portable cameras and computerized editing, action movies have substituted visual chaos for visual elegance." While not limited to or directly referenced to BU, this comment perfectly sums up my biggest complaint about Supremacy and Ultimatum. He also references being "swamped with letters complaining about The Bourne Ultimatum."

I'd say that counts as 'sticking it' to Ultimatum in particular and Bourne in general.