81 replies to this topic

[Matt_13]

Oh well, his opinion. At least he's honest about it.

[kneelbeforezod]

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.

Yes I agree. I don't think critics yearning for "old Bond" would be doing so if QOS was really thrilling or dramatic. If QOS blew people away, nobody would be missing silly villain names and innuendos. But I think these complaints are the natural result of a film that is not particularly thrilling or dramatic, and is in fact a little gloomy and flat.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a very stylish and interesting entry, but it never really got my pulse racing.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

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).

He does. Those who accuse him of being a closet XXX fan are probably the ones saying "Bond needs to change (into Jason Bourne)". They want change for change's sake. Why, indeed, is there already a thread asking which one will be the next Bond after Craig even before the second film came out? Internet is full of pedophiles passing themselves as young boys in order to get underage girls and of Jason Bourne fans passing themselves as James Bond fans to get a wider audience to their badly written money reviews.

[bondrules]

He does. Those who accuse him of being a closet XXX fan are probably the ones saying "Bond needs to change (into Jason Bourne)". They want change for change's sake.

Not at all. I don't think you understood what I said.

[HH007]

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

He lost me when he said Bond is not an action hero... huh???

And to something Safari Suit said, yes, Ebert has a very inconsistent view of what Bond should be. Try reading his TLD and LTK reviews back to back and not get confused!

[avl]

Ebert sounds as though he is hankering after that other Bond revenge classic...Diamonds are Forever

[Shot Your Bolt]

I thought you guys would agree that Bond isn't an action hero. I mean yeah, as the series went on he kept getting in bigger and bigger action set pieces, but its only when the Brosnan bonds came out that Bond went completely into action movie mode. A friend of mine had the same problem with TND("its a fine action movie, but a terrible Bond film").

[Marquis]

The same Roger Ebert who thought TWINE was "..a splendid comic thriller, exciting and graceful, endlessly inventive"?

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).

He does. Those who accuse him of being a closet XXX fan are probably the ones saying "Bond needs to change (into Jason Bourne)". They want change for change's sake. Why, indeed, is there already a thread asking which one will be the next Bond after Craig even before the second film came out? Internet is full of pedophiles passing themselves as young boys in order to get underage girls and of Jason Bourne fans passing themselves as James Bond fans to get a wider audience to their badly written money reviews.

What are you blathering on about?

[marktmurphy]

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?

His facts are wrong of course, although his point about not seeing the scenery isn't all bad- it's a very pretty bit of the world, that, and we don't see much of it in the film.

[HH007]

The same Roger Ebert who thought TWINE was "..a splendid comic thriller, exciting and graceful, endlessly inventive"?

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).

He does. Those who accuse him of being a closet XXX fan are probably the ones saying "Bond needs to change (into Jason Bourne)". They want change for change's sake. Why, indeed, is there already a thread asking which one will be the next Bond after Craig even before the second film came out? Internet is full of pedophiles passing themselves as young boys in order to get underage girls and of Jason Bourne fans passing themselves as James Bond fans to get a wider audience to their badly written money reviews.

What are you blathering on about?

Apparently anyone who likes the CraigBond films is a closet Bourne fan working with other closet Bourne fans in a coordinated effort to subvert the Bond series... or something.

One thing can be said about all this CNBers who've joined this site recently, at least they make things interesting.

[Safari Suit]

I think Ebert is a closet XXX fan.

Hardly a closet case! He gave the first one an unashamed rave. The lingering remnants of a mid-life crisis perhaps.

[avl]

Apparently anyone who likes the CraigBond films is a closet Bourne fan working with other closet Bourne fans in a coordinated effort to subvert the Bond series... or something.

One thing can be said about all this CNBers who've joined this site recently, at least they make things interesting.

Can we have a cool code name, like Quantum, or Spectre?

[bondrules]

I think Ebert is a closet XXX fan.

Hardly a closet case! He gave the first one an unashamed rave. The lingering remnants of a mid-life crisis perhaps.

That could be it.

[crheath]

Quite a strange review.

He gives it a low rating but he doesn't seem to go into what makes it so weak.

Worst title ... So what? He complains about the hero never getting hit by machine gun fire... blame all of the other films. The chase has no connection to the rest of the plot ... neither did the pre title sequence in GF. No Q or Miss Moneypenny ... again, so what?

I haven't even seen the movie and I still can't comprehend what he's complaining about. I'll see it tomorrow though finally.

Edited by crheath, 13 November 2008 - 04:50 PM.

[00Twelve]

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.

Thank you.

Read a book, Rog. The superspy is gone for now, and thankfully so. Bond is more than that.

[Mr. Blofeld]

What the...

Roger, I thought you were better than this; I'm disappointed in you. What happened to the critic who hated North because of all the cliches it contained? Was it consumed by Darth Roeper?

[The Dove]

What the...is Ebert serious??? I don't even need to read the actual review to know that it's nothing but a joke!! But then I remember what Bond said to Elliot Carver in Tomorrow Never Dies... "I never believe what I read in the press anyways!!"

[bondrules]

But then I remember what Bond said to Elliot Carver in Tomorrow Never Dies... "I never believe what I read in the press anyways!!

LOL

[Mr_Wint]

Nice review from Ebert

Maybe he isn't as bad after all.

[Mister E]

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.

Yes, the last person I am listening to a Bond film review is Roger Ebert. See his butt kissing review of NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN to see what I mean.


This was were Ebert's review really loses credibilty:

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.

Ebert seems to forget that Dr.No and Goldfinger both had relativetly unremarkable buildings for their operations.

[DR76]

Sigh! Roger Ebert! He is so full of sh**, isn't he? Still b*tching that the Bond films are not what it used to be over 40 years ago. Still living in the past. Bond isn't an action hero? Where has he been for the past 46 years? Is it any wonder that I haven't paid any attention to his reviews for the past 11 years?

Edited by DR76, 13 November 2008 - 06:42 PM.

[bond 16.05.72]

I know Ebert has a great respect amongst our US cousins and his review of CR was very good but to go from liking that to critcising QOS for not being formulaic enough is quite confusing.

Was he praising CR for being formulaic because from what I saw it had it's Bond moments but adhering to the formula it certainly didn't, I have more time for the people who criticised the too much action and the fact it went so fast and he did touch on that but to criticise it for not being part of the Bond formula just proves Ebert just doesn't get this new era.

I expected him to make the same points some of our members have pointed out that who were not happy with the film but it doesn't seem constructive at all, he just seems to have wanted the same old cliched nonsence we put up with in the Moore & Brosnan era.

Edited by bond 16.05.72, 13 November 2008 - 06:45 PM.

[Mister E]

Sigh! Roger Ebert! He is so full of sh**, isn't he? Still b*tching that the Bond films are not what it used to be over 40 years ago. Still living in the past. Bond isn't an action hero? Where has he been for the past 46 years? Is it any wonder that I haven't paid any attention to his reviews for the past 11 years?

I remember when his review of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE and he kept on saying "M's gadgets".

[DR76]

I know Ebert has a great respect amongst our US cousins and his review of CR was very good but to go from liking that to critcising QOS for not being formulaic enough is quite confusing.

Was he praising CR for being formulaic because from what I saw it had it's Bond moments but adhering to the formula it certainly didn't, I have more time for the people who criticised the too much action and the fact it went so fast and he did touch on that but to criticise it for not being part of the Bond formula just proves Ebert just doesn't get this new era.

I expected him to make the same points some of our members have pointed out tht who were not happy with the film but it doesn't seem constructive at all, he just seems to have wanted the same old cliched nonsence we put up with in the Moore & Brosnan era.

And the Connery era.

[bond 16.05.72]

I know Ebert has a great respect amongst our US cousins and his review of CR was very good but to go from liking that to critcising QOS for not being formulaic enough is quite confusing.

Was he praising CR for being formulaic because from what I saw it had it's Bond moments but adhering to the formula it certainly didn't, I have more time for the people who criticised the too much action and the fact it went so fast and he did touch on that but to criticise it for not being part of the Bond formula just proves Ebert just doesn't get this new era.

I expected him to make the same points some of our members have pointed out tht who were not happy with the film but it doesn't seem constructive at all, he just seems to have wanted the same old cliched nonsence we put up with in the Moore & Brosnan era.

And the Connery era.

GF onwards I'd agree!

[Mister E]

I know Ebert has a great respect amongst our US cousins and his review of CR was very good but to go from liking that to critcising QOS for not being formulaic enough is quite confusing.

His inconsistency for his reviews of Bond films is quite hilarous. He disapproved of both THUNDERBALL and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE but approved LICENCE TO KILL and most of the Brosnan Bonds, truly generic action films. Now he loves CASINO ROYALE and hates QUANTUM OF SOLACE because it doesn't have villians taking of the world and blasts Bond for being action hero ?

[bond 16.05.72]

I think when some critics get older they start to loose their marbles, Alexander Walkers assumptions that Fight Club was like Nazi propaganda spring to mind.

[Mister E]

I think when some critics get older they start to loose their marbles, Alexander Walkers assumptions that Fight Club was like Nazi propaganda spring to mind.

Really ? LOL !

[HH007]

I think when some critics get older they start to loose their marbles, Alexander Walkers assumptions that Fight Club was like Nazi propaganda spring to mind.

Funny, Ebert called FIGHT CLUB "the most cheerfully fascist movie since DEATH WISH." Or something to that effect.

[JohnFerguson]

Edited.

Edited by JohnFerguson, 13 November 2008 - 07:34 PM.