Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Ebert's review is here


81 replies to this topic

#1 Colossus

Colossus

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1490 posts
  • Location:SPECTRE Island

Posted 13 November 2008 - 08:20 AM

http://rogerebert.su...VIEWS/811129989

OK, I'll say it. Never again. Don't ever let this happen again to James Bond. "Quantum of Solace" is his 22nd film and he will survive it, but for the 23rd it is necessary to go back to the drawing board and redesign from the ground up. Please understand: James Bond is not an action hero! He is too good for that. He is an attitude. Violence for him is an annoyance. He exists for the foreplay and the cigarette. He rarely encounters a truly evil villain. More often a comic opera buffoon with hired goons in matching jump suits.

"Quantum of Solace" has the worst title in the series save for "Never Say Never Again," words that could have been used by Kent after King Lear utters the saddest line in all of Shakespeare: "Never! Never! Never! Never! Never!" The movie opens with Bond involved in a reckless car chase on the tollway that leads through mountain tunnels from Nice through Monte Carlo and down to Portofino in Italy, where Edward Lear lies at rest with his cat, Old Foss. I have driven that way many a time. It is a breathtaking drive.

You won't find that out here. The chase, with Bond under constant machinegun fire, is so quickly cut and so obviously composed of incomprehensible CGI that we're essentially looking at bright colors bouncing off each other, intercut with Bond at the wheel and POV shots of approaching monster trucks. Let's all think together. When has an action hero ever, even once, been killed by machinegun fire, no matter how many hundreds of rounds? The hit men should simply reject them and say, "No can do, Boss. They never work in this kind of movie."

The chase has no connection to the rest of plot, which is routine for Bond, but it's about the movie's last bow to tradition. In "Quantum of Solace" he will share no cozy quality time with the Bond girl (Olga Kurylenko). We fondly remember the immortal names of Pussy Galore, Xenia Onatopp and Plenty O'Toole, who I have always suspected was a drag queen. In this film, who do we get? Are you ready for this? Camille. That's it. Camille. Not even Camille Squeal. Or Cammy Miami. Or Miss O'Toole's friend Cam Shaft.

Daniel Craig remains a splendid Bond, one of the best. He is handsome, agile, muscular, dangerous. Everything but talkative. I didn't count, but I think M (Judi Dench) has more dialogue than 007. Bond doesn't look like the urge to peel Camille has even entered his mind. He blows up a hotel in the middle of a vast, barren, endless Bolivian desert. It's a luxury hotel, with angular W Hotel-style minimalist room furniture you might cut your legs on, and a bartender who will stir or shake you any drink, but James has become a regular bloke who orders lager. Who are the clients at this highest of high-end hotels? Lawrence of Arabia, obviously, and millionaires who hate green growing things. Conveniently, when the hotel blows up, the filmmakers don't have to contend with adjacent buildings, traffic, pedestrians, skylines or anything else. Talk about your blue screen. Nothing better than the azure desert sky.

Why is he in Bolivia? In pursuit of a global villain, whose name is not Goldfinger, Scaramanga, Drax or Le Chiffre, but ... Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric). What is Dominic's demented scheme to control the globe? As a start, the fiend desires to corner the water supply of ... Bolivia. Ohooo! Nooo! This twisted design, revealed to Bond after at least an hour of death-defying action, reminds me of the famous laboratory mouse who was introduced into a labyrinth. After fighting his way for days through baffling corridors and down dead ends, finally, finally, parched and starving, the little creature crawled at last to the training button and hurled his tiny body against it. And what rolled down the chute as his reward? A licorice gum ball.

Dominic Greene lacks a headquarters on the moon, or on the floor of the sea. He operates out of an ordinary shipping warehouse with loading docks. His evil transport is provided by fork lifts and pickup trucks. Bond doesn't have to creep out on the ledge of an underground volcano to spy on him. He just walks up to the chain-link fence and peers through. Greene could get useful security tips from Wal-Mart.

There is no Q in "Quantum of Solace," except in the title. No Miss Moneypenny at all. M now has a male secretary. That Judi Dench, what a fox. Bond doesn't even size her up. He learned his lesson with Plenty. This Bond, he doesn't bring much to the party. Daniel Craig can play suave and he can be funny and Brits are born doing double entendre. Craig is a fine actor. Here they lock him down. I repeat: James Bond is not an action hero! Leave the action to your Jason Bournes. This is a swampy old world. The deeper we sink in, the more we need James Bond to stand above it.


Enjoyable and insightful read as always by the man.

Edited by Colossus, 13 November 2008 - 08:21 AM.


#2 Lounge Lizard

Lounge Lizard

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Location:Amsterdam, Netherlands

Posted 13 November 2008 - 08:38 AM

Enjoyable, yes, but Ebert is by now so trapped in his own narrow system of rules for what makes 'A Good Film' / 'A Good Bond Film', it's a bit sad.

Edited by Lounge Lizard, 13 November 2008 - 08:39 AM.


#3 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 13 November 2008 - 08:42 AM

The movie opens with Bond involved in a reckless car chase on the tollway that leads through mountain tunnels from Nice through Monte Carlo and down to Portofino in Italy, where Edward Lear lies at rest with his cat, Old Foss. I have driven that way many a time. It is a breathtaking drive


So often he cannot recognise it for what it isn't?

What a curious review. Yeah, bring on the tired old Bond film rubbish.

#4 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 13 November 2008 - 08:59 AM

The movie opens with Bond involved in a reckless car chase on the tollway that leads through mountain tunnels from Nice through Monte Carlo and down to Portofino in Italy, where Edward Lear lies at rest with his cat, Old Foss. I have driven that way many a time. It is a breathtaking drive


So often he cannot recognise it for what it isn't?

What a curious review. Yeah, bring on the tired old Bond film rubbish.


Exactly. Ebert unfortunately yearns for the old clichés. And saying that James Bond is no action man... Excuse me, but every Bond film consists of breathtaking action sequences. I´d say it´s the main attraction for the mass audience.

So, for the naysayers it will be: HEY, EBERT IS ON OUR SIDE SO THIS IS THE TRUTH!

And for the others like me it will be: Ebert does not embrace change and looks at QOS with prejudices and preconceptions, thereby forgetting to judge a film fairly. Criticizing QOS because Camille is named just Camille and does not feature a "Stephanie Broadchest" kind of name... well, that is very disappointing for a respected film critic.

IMO, Ebert (as a critic) is long past his prime. The recent outrage at him writing a review about a film that he only saw 8 minutes of goes to show that he has lost his objectivity.

#5 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 November 2008 - 09:04 AM

Ebert unfortunately yearns for the old clichés.


Except that he gave CR a better review than any other Bond film. Come on, I disagree with this review (at least) as much as you, but be fair.

Having said that, his view on Bond films over the last twenty five years have been astoundingly inconsistent.

And saying that James Bond is no action man... Excuse me, but every Bond film consists of breathtaking action sequences. I´d say it´s the main attraction for the mass audience.

So, for the naysayers it will be: HEY, EBERT IS ON OUR SIDE SO THIS IS THE TRUTH!


OK, this I agree with.

#6 JADSTERSDAD

JADSTERSDAD

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 144 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 09:07 AM

I think he hits the nail, as usual. There's much that is great about Q, but what is not great is highlighted here. Ebert is not afraid to go against the mob (check his review of The Happening, which I also like).

#7 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 13 November 2008 - 09:16 AM

Except that he gave CR a better review than any other Bond film. Come on, I disagree with this review (at least) as much as you, but be fair.


I really try to be fair, Safari. But Ebert giving CR a better review does not excuse the way he prefers silly sexist female names for the Bond girl or silly, outrageous names for the villain. Also, the fact that he considers Greene´s plan boring (and not realistic) and prefers obviously the hollowed-out-volcano-scenarios does not imply that he understood what the reboot of Bond was all about. And the lack of "cozy quality time with the Bond girl" does not either - I had expected him to understand why Bond cannot and must not seduce Camille.

So, I´m really disappointed by the review. Not because it is not favorable in regard to the film. But because it shows how little effort Ebert was actually putting into it.

I read Ebert´s reviews very often and find him a very interesting critic, better then most of his colleagues. However, sometimes he just seems to lose control and has to bash something completely - maybe it´s just a reflex to recharge his creative batteries? :(

#8 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 November 2008 - 09:25 AM

Well I apologise. He does, as I said, seem to have an astoudingly inconsistent and incoherent view of what a Bond film should be if you compare his reviews of TLD, TWINE and now QOS with his reviews of LTK and CR.

#9 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 13 November 2008 - 09:35 AM

No need to apologise, Safari. :(

#10 avl

avl

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 13 November 2008 - 09:35 AM

That "review" is to film what Michael Winner's are to restaurants

#11 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 09:48 AM

He lost me on "Quantum of Solace" has the worst title in the series save for "Never Say Never Again".

#12 Whalltt

Whalltt

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 230 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 09:50 AM

Do you believe how many of the bad reviewers, just want a Bond movie to have lasers from space, Bond going to bed with every female-with-strange-name in sight, no matter if there is a reason for it, stupid puns.

I wonder what these people would say if they got that for Bond22, 23, 24...
Probably: "Same old cliches, Bond is dead, move on..."

This arguments I wasn't expecting. Not when CR went away from that, and had so good reviews.

#13 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 November 2008 - 09:55 AM

He lost me on "Quantum of Solace" has the worst title in the series save for "Never Say Never Again".


Agreed. Never Say Never Again is a damn fine title!

#14 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 09:58 AM

He lost me on "Quantum of Solace" has the worst title in the series save for "Never Say Never Again".


Agreed. Never Say Never Again is a damn fine title!

No. I wasn't quite endorsing the 1983 TV movie Bond there....!

#15 Bradley De La Cloche

Bradley De La Cloche

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 175 posts
  • Location:Jersey

Posted 13 November 2008 - 10:09 AM

Since when was there CGI in the car chase? :(

#16 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 13 November 2008 - 10:21 AM

What an odd review- I don't think the film succeeds either but not for the reasons he gives here: he's just bemoaning it for not being an old Bond film, which is very odd for someone who liked Casino Royale.
Maybe it's because QoS is an awkward halfway house between CR and oldBond: the villain and problem in CR was strong and fresh enough to work despite being an unusually powerless one: in QoS we have an old-style Bond villain complete with Evil Plan; but the plan just ain't as evil as they used to be, and seems to have set Ebert back a bit and confused him. Which isn't his fault: the film is flawed.

#17 dee-bee-five

dee-bee-five

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2227 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 10:37 AM

The movie opens with Bond involved in a reckless car chase on the tollway that leads through mountain tunnels from Nice through Monte Carlo and down to Portofino in Italy, where Edward Lear lies at rest with his cat, Old Foss. I have driven that way many a time. It is a breathtaking drive


So often he cannot recognise it for what it isn't?

What a curious review. Yeah, bring on the tired old Bond film rubbish.


Quite. And isn't it odd how some reviewers write with such authority about what Bond is/should be, but clearly reveal they have no idea of what Fleming's Bond was.

Oh well. It's his opinion. No more, or less, important than yours, mine or anyone else's. But perhaps with more than a whiff of an old man's lament for remembered pleasures, rather than an objective assessment of what is now.

#18 BoogieBond

BoogieBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 834 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 10:38 AM

What an odd review- I don't think the film succeeds either but not for the reasons he gives here: he's just bemoaning it for not being an old Bond film, which is very odd for someone who liked Casino Royale.
Maybe it's because QoS is an awkward halfway house between CR and oldBond: the villain and problem in CR was strong and fresh enough to work despite being an unusually powerless one: in QoS we have an old-style Bond villain complete with Evil Plan; but the plan just ain't as evil as they used to be, and seems to have set Ebert back a bit and confused him. Which isn't his fault: the film is flawed.


I liked the film. But this halfway house I can agree with. I hope that now Bond has the issue with Vesper resolved, we can look at developing the Bond character a bit more. He's still not the finished article (He's still too raw, the finished article at the end of Craigs tenure I think will be Connery in Dr. No) and it will be interesting seeing him continuing developing for instance his taste for fine food and wine, perhaps reference or show a bit of his everyday life as per the beginning of the moonraker novel, and hopefully Craig will get the opportunity to be particular about how he wants his food and drink and other things.

Edited by BoogieBond, 13 November 2008 - 10:43 AM.


#19 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 10:50 AM

hopefully Craig will get the opportunity to be particular about how he wants his food and drink and other things.

I think he is already quite cultured. In Casino Royale he ordered champagne and caviar. Just because he doesn't spout these lines all the time doesn't mean his lacks this. He's too busy fighting Quantum. :(

#20 BoogieBond

BoogieBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 834 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 11:03 AM

hopefully Craig will get the opportunity to be particular about how he wants his food and drink and other things.

I think he is already quite cultured. In Casino Royale he ordered champagne and caviar. Just because he doesn't spout these lines all the time doesn't mean his lacks this. He's too busy fighting Quantum. :)

:(
While beating a baddie up he could say, large vodka martini with crushed ice, I would prefer Russian or Polish vodka. :)
I hope Craig starts to be particular and a bit fussy about what he wants in Bond 23. Perhaps we can see him acquiring these tastes in Bond 23, so he can continue into the Bond we all know and love, without quite getting there.

Edited by BoogieBond, 13 November 2008 - 11:03 AM.


#21 Elvenstar

Elvenstar

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 294 posts
  • Location:nowhere

Posted 13 November 2008 - 12:57 PM

While beating a baddie up he could say, large vodka martini with crushed ice, I would prefer Russian or Polish vodka. :(
I hope Craig starts to be particular and a bit fussy about what he wants in Bond 23. Perhaps we can see him acquiring these tastes in Bond 23, so he can continue into the Bond we all know and love, without quite getting there.

I think we already see this in QOS. Look at the scene with Fields' cheap hotel (btw What a hilarious joke about teachers ;) ) He clearly prefers quality!

Next lesson must be to get info by trying something more effective
than straightforward questions like "Who do you work 4?" (with immediate killing the lead afterwards :)) Less relying on his muscules but rather his brain and wits. Now he is emotionally controlled, he will learn to use women (unfortunately for me :D cause I loved how tender and caring he was to women in Qos), be cold and rational, and probably enjoy his work somehow.

P.S. Oh it's a thread about Ebert's review I suppose! Forgot about it :)
So strange that I come to this point in time when I actually stopped caring about reviews, RT, IMDB etc etc etc. Im so happy that I loved Qos myself that even Ebert with his so called review can't ruin this wonderful feeling. :) I dont care that it's negative but I thought he could write something less boring and predictable...

Edited by Elvenstar, 13 November 2008 - 01:04 PM.


#22 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 November 2008 - 12:57 PM

He lost me on "Quantum of Solace" has the worst title in the series save for "Never Say Never Again".


Agreed. Never Say Never Again is a damn fine title!

No. I wasn't quite endorsing the 1983 TV movie Bond there....!


But the title?...

#23 Publius

Publius

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3225 posts
  • Location:Miami

Posted 13 November 2008 - 02:17 PM

You'll have to excuse me if I think this review reads like a parody of the negative reviews coming from several bottom of the barrel critics.

#24 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 02:19 PM

You'll have to excuse me if I think this review reads like a parody of the negative reviews coming from several bottom of the barrel critics.

Agreed.

#25 R. Dittmar

R. Dittmar

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:Garnet Valley, PA

Posted 13 November 2008 - 02:39 PM

Ebert suffers from so many politically correct tics and obsessive actress fetishes that his reviews no longer mean anything. Remember this is the guy who went on and on about how great the dialogue in Gigli was because the movie featured Jennifer Lopez` bum. Memo to EON, if you want to get in Ebert's good graces then hire out Lopez` tuchas for Bond 23.

(He also has the hots for Rob Zombie's wife. Check out his review of the grotty repulsive gore-feast The Devil's Rejects. Thumbs up because Sherry Moon is it!)

#26 sorking

sorking

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 November 2008 - 02:47 PM

The chase, with Bond under constant machinegun fire, is so quickly cut and so obviously composed of incomprehensible CGI


In the car chase? Genius. Thanks for playing, Roger - time to retire.

I never, ever take anything from critics who begin by stating what a film should and should be. Living up to every person's preconceptions is impossible. And the only way, as an audience, I get what I want occasionally - and right now that's a gritty, credible 007 with a dramatic edge - is to acknowledge that you get what you want sometimes, too.

You get TSWLM, I get TLD. You get YOLT, I get OHMSS.

I've no issue with people who prefer 'fun', iconography-based Bonds, with people who want pun-based names and bad guys who can be knocked out with a single kick in the chest. I DO have an issue with those who see an attempt to do otherwise as 'wrong'.

#27 bondrules

bondrules

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2190 posts
  • Location:America

Posted 13 November 2008 - 02:51 PM

I loved the car chase in QoS. The scenery was pretty original. I don't see anything wrong with the way it was edited either. I didn't see the CGI on that chase. Where was it?

I respect Ebert, but his review missed the mark.

Edited by bondrules, 13 November 2008 - 02:52 PM.


#28 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 13 November 2008 - 02:51 PM

Don't ever let this happen again to James Bond.

He exists for the foreplay and the cigarette. He rarely encounters a truly evil villain. More often a comic opera buffoon with hired goons in matching jump suits.

We fondly remember the immortal names of Pussy Galore, Xenia Onatopp and Plenty O'Toole, who I have always suspected was a drag queen. In this film, who do we get? Are you ready for this? Camille. That's it. Camille. Not even Camille Squeal. Or Cammy Miami. Or Miss O'Toole's friend Cam Shaft.

Who are the clients at this highest of high-end hotels? Lawrence of Arabia, obviously, and millionaires who hate green growing things. Conveniently, when the hotel blows up, the filmmakers don't have to contend with adjacent buildings, traffic, pedestrians, skylines or anything else. Talk about your blue screen. Nothing better than the azure desert sky.

Why is he in Bolivia? In pursuit of a global villain, whose name is not Goldfinger, Scaramanga, Drax or Le Chiffre, but ... Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric). What is Dominic's demented scheme to control the globe? As a start, the fiend desires to corner the water supply of ... Bolivia. Ohooo! Nooo!

Dominic Greene lacks a headquarters on the moon, or on the floor of the sea. He operates out of an ordinary shipping warehouse with loading docks. His evil transport is provided by fork lifts and pickup trucks. Bond doesn't have to creep out on the ledge of an underground volcano to spy on him. He just walks up to the chain-link fence and peers through. Greene could get useful security tips from Wal-Mart.

There is no Q in "Quantum of Solace," except in the title. No Miss Moneypenny at all.


:)

I imagine they'll have to do The Spy Who Loved Me II for Bond 23 - and give Craig a pack of Dunhills - to make old Fatty happy.

:(

#29 Kristian

Kristian

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 698 posts
  • Location:West Coast U.S.A.

Posted 13 November 2008 - 03:08 PM

The movie opens with Bond involved in a reckless car chase on the tollway that leads through mountain tunnels from Nice through Monte Carlo and down to Portofino in Italy, where Edward Lear lies at rest with his cat, Old Foss. I have driven that way many a time. It is a breathtaking drive


So often he cannot recognise it for what it isn't?

What a curious review. Yeah, bring on the tired old Bond film rubbish.


Exactly. Ebert unfortunately yearns for the old clichés. And saying that James Bond is no action man... Excuse me, but every Bond film consists of breathtaking action sequences. I´d say it´s the main attraction for the mass audience.

So, for the naysayers it will be: HEY, EBERT IS ON OUR SIDE SO THIS IS THE TRUTH!

And for the others like me it will be: Ebert does not embrace change and looks at QOS with prejudices and preconceptions, thereby forgetting to judge a film fairly. Criticizing QOS because Camille is named just Camille and does not feature a "Stephanie Broadchest" kind of name... well, that is very disappointing for a respected film critic.

IMO, Ebert (as a critic) is long past his prime. The recent outrage at him writing a review about a film that he only saw 8 minutes of goes to show that he has lost his objectivity.


What a disappointment. I used to respect Ebert for his ability to see the humanity in even the most middling films. If there was anyone whom I would have thought would have tried to understand QOS, it was him. Sigh.

Oh, well..... His loss.

#30 bondrules

bondrules

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2190 posts
  • Location:America

Posted 13 November 2008 - 03:13 PM

What a disappointment. I used to respect Ebert for his ability to see the humanity in even the most middling films. If there was anyone whom I would have thought would have tried to understand QOS, it was him. Sigh.

Oh, well..... His loss.



Precisely. I think Ebert is a closet XXX fan. I heard they are making a third.