51 replies to this topic

[triviachamp]

These two seem unable to review the film as it stands (is it entertaining? Is it exciting?) and just continually compare it to Goldfinger, which isn't especially helpful or insightful.

I remember when Siskel and Ebert reviewed Never Say Never Again. Basically, they said it was great because it had Sean Connery. Period. That was it. Nothing terribly insightful at all.

It seems that is what reviewers of the time said about NSNA in general. Didn't Moore quip that it was the first time he was panned for a film he wasn't in?

[Solex Agitator]

Thank for bringing these old review clips to light. I have really enjoyed watching them. Siskel's comments about LTK's art direction are spot on and a very interesting observation indeed.

[Stephen Spotswood]

I believe Siskel and Ebert were among those who called for the Bond series to stop, because without a Cold War, who was he fighting?

This just goes to show most movie critics aren't particularly knowledgeable, but privy to movie studios press kits.

Now the show is known as Ebert and Whassis Name?

[connery&dalton]

I believe Siskel and Ebert were among those who called for the Bond series to stop, because without a Cold War, who was he fighting?

Siskel and Ebert didn't care about the relationship between the Cold War and James Bond. Ebert only saw the series as a bunch of outrageous gadgets, improbable situations, weird villains wanting to take control of the world from some hidden base or lair, tons of sexual innuendos, and jokes. He believed Bond movies were intended to be jokes, and that you didn't understand the series unless you appreciated its humor.

You are right in saying they wanted the series to end, but that is because they felt it was a tired formula. Gene Siskel also believed that Connery was the only true Bond; Ebert kind of warmed up to Moore after a while. Siskel and Ebert were just film critics who naturally judged Bond films based on whether or not they worked as movies; or if the formula worked. They did not judge them in relation to Ian Fleming novels or the Cold War. Ian Fleming is the furthest thing from a movie critic's mind when reviewing a Bond picture.

Edited by connery&dalton, 27 November 2007 - 02:37 AM.

[Vauxhall]

Ian Fleming is the furthest thing from a movie critic's mind when reviewing a Bond picture.

A very good post I think this line (above) is the most crucial thing that we as Bond fans should remember. It is easy to forget this at times when we discuss our favourite movies in relation to Fleming's work.

[Stephen Spotswood]

I believe Siskel and Ebert were among those who called for the Bond series to stop, because without a Cold War, who was he fighting?

Ian Fleming is the furthest thing from a movie critic's mind when reviewing a Bond picture.

Funny thing is that the Cold War often seemed the furthest thing from the movie makers minds as well. The Soviet agency SMERSH never showed up, except in a brief reference if memory serves, in FRWL, and that was to Rosa Klebb while she was recruiting Tanya. The movies always seemed to prefer Kevin McClory's SPECTRE.

[Napoleon Solo]

I believe Siskel and Ebert were among those who called for the Bond series to stop, because without a Cold War, who was he fighting?

This just goes to show most movie critics aren't particularly knowledgeable, but privy to movie studios press kits.

Now the show is known as Ebert and Whassis Name?

Ebert and Roeper, the latter refering to Richard Roeper (not sure of the spelling), who is a columnist at the Chicago Sun-Times, the same paper Ebert works for.

Siskel died, I think, in 1999. One thing that made the Siskel and Ebert pairing work was the fact they were at competing papers (Siskel was movie critic of the Chicago Tribune). So they were, in fact, rivals and each thought of himself as the better film critic. They were friends (at least at some level) but clearly wanted to one-up the other. So it made for entertaining television.

S&E moved from Chicago's public television station to Tribune's TV division. But then the two bolted for Disney, who offered more money. As a result, the Trib said Siskel could no longer be the primary movie critic.

[Turn]

I can't say I ever put much value on their opinions. As they've tried ridiculing some fine films IMO. They're simply an overrated bunch in a ridiculous profession. That would not be what I would want my legacy to consist of.

A ridiculous profession they obviously get paid handsomely for (or did), made them famous and some of the most recognizable names in the country.

Their legacy is made, like it or not and possibly the most famous critics of all time. And Ebert is a Pulitzer Prize winner.

I'd do that ridiculous work for that kind of recognition and money.

[Judo chop]

I'd do that work for my current salary and no recognition.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I'd do that work for free.

[Judo chop]

I'd pay Mr. Blofeld my current salary to do that work!

(top THAT, sucka!)

[Napoleon Solo]

Hey, don't forget that Roger Ebert, in addition to be a Pulitzer Prize winner, is also an accomplished screenwriter.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065466/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078846/

[O.H.M.S.S.]

I never heard of this Siskel, who is this guy? He sounds like an idiot there. While Ebert isn't all in favor of Dalton either he still says he had a mixed feeling about him, but this Siskel just called Dalton's Bond a mouse. Strange, Dalton did great I think.

[Daddy Bond]

Well, personally, I frequently disagreed with Siskel and Ebert. I have always ignored their reviews as I found that their opinion differed from mine about a movie over half the time. Thus, for me, their reviews were useless. I try to find reviewers that I generally agree with in helping me make movie decisions.

[Calypso Vermouth]

What makes these 'critics' opinions any more valid than anyone who posts in this forum? After all, they're just opinions, and to quote Clint Eastwood, "like s, everyone has one!"

In case that quote is censored let's try bum holes!

[Napoleon Solo]

I never heard of this Siskel, who is this guy? He sounds like an idiot there. While Ebert isn't all in favor of Dalton either he still says he had a mixed feeling about him, but this Siskel just called Dalton's Bond a mouse. Strange, Dalton did great I think.

Siskel, when the show began on U.S. public television, was movie critic for the Chicago Tribune.

What makes these 'critics' opinions any more valid than anyone who posts in this forum? After all, they're just opinions, and to quote Clint Eastwood, "like s, everyone has one!"

In case that quote is censored let's try bum holes!

The critic would answer soemthing to the effect they see hundreds of movies a year, that they spend more time studying film, interviewing directors and actors, etc. and their views, whether you agree or not, are the product of more time and consideration that postings on message boards.

Whether you concur or not, is up to you. But that's more or less what a professional critic would say.

[Turn]

Reading a critic's reviews, especially in the case of Ebert, can be more enlightening than watching a review on television, which can be edited anyway. Ebert's print reviews are actually entertaining reading and help you understand where he is coming from. For instance, he named Minority Report his favorite film of 2002. I didn't particularly care for the film, but after reading his review it gave me insight as to why.

He has printed compilations of reviews of his least liked films and those are sometimes the most amusing.

So disagreeing with critics is as much of a game as being a Monday morning quarterback for football or second guessing a manager's moves in baseball. Nobody has to listen to critics.

[Napoleon Solo]

Reading a critic's reviews, especially in the case of Ebert, can be more enlightening than watching a review on television, which can be edited anyway. Ebert's print reviews are actually entertaining reading and help you understand where he is coming from. For instance, he named Minority Report his favorite film of 2002. I didn't particularly care for the film, but after reading his review it gave me insight as to why.

He has printed compilations of reviews of his least liked films and those are sometimes the most amusing.

So disagreeing with critics is as much of a game as being a Monday morning quarterback for football or second guessing a manager's moves in baseball. Nobody has to listen to critics.

Very true. Ebert gets a chance to really show off his knowledge when writing a review or longer essay. When he's on TV, it's really Ebert-lite (and that's true of any good critic who also has a broadcast gig).

[WatchtheBirdy]

I think they're trashing Dalton because they probably have never read the Fleming books. Oh well.

[Napoleon Solo]

I think they're trashing Dalton because they probably have never read the Fleming books. Oh well.

Film critics are supposed to evaluate whether a movie works as a film. Also, let's face it, lots of movies based on novels and plays have made major departures from their source materials. Some work as movies, others don't.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I think they forgot that Connery was not the end-all be-all of Bond.

[Napoleon Solo]

I think they forgot that Connery was not the end-all be-all of Bond.

At least until Siskel got his fixation on how Denzel Washington should be Bond. :-)