81 replies to this topic

[Skudor]

Nice little read. I think it nicely illustrates the nature of QoS -> those who are hoping for Moonraker (which is what he seems to be doing) or any other template Bond film simply will not like this film. It's sad that he doesn't even try to review it based on its own merits, though. It's not the same as Goldfinger, therefore it's not good.

[JeffWest]

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

What Roger is saying is that Bond shouldn't be a run-of-the-mill action hero. And there are moments in "Quantum of Solace" that come dangerously close to it. So I agree with him there.

[MattofSteel]

This is just depressing. I almost always agree with Ebert, I think he's perhaps the best film critic out there - but I saw the film last night, and I colossally disagree with quite a pile of what he's said here.

[Safari Suit]

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.

Yes, I was going to mention that. Death Wish is hardly fascistic either, strongly right-leaning on the issue of crime certainly, but not fascist; probably anarchic more than anything!

[J.B.]

After having read all of these comments regarding Ebert's assessment of QOS there is one thing that everyone needs to realize: He is not the only one saying these things about it. Nearly every review is saying the same types of things. Now, some are still liking the film while others are ready for things to move back to the center with the balance and distinctives that Bond of old brought to the success of the franchise.

Not having seen it yet, I will be the first in line tomorrow in my area at the first viewing. Of course, this is after spending the morning rewatching CR (which by the way, I have already seen twice this week!)

[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.

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

Yes, I was going to mention that. Death Wish is hardly fascistic either, strongly right-leaning on the issue of crime certainly, but not fascist; probably anarchic more than anything!

Yeah facism is an extreme word.

[HildebrandRarity]

After having read all of these comments regarding Ebert's assessment of QOS there is one thing that everyone needs to realize: He is not the only one saying these things about it. Nearly every review is saying the same types of things. Now, some are still liking the film while others are ready for things to move back to the center with the balance and distinctives that Bond of old brought to the success of the franchise.

Not having seen it yet, I will be the first in line tomorrow in my area at the first viewing. Of course, this is after spending the morning rewatching CR (which by the way, I have already seen twice this week!)

I actually have avoided watching CR since I first found out that Eon Productions had no interest in making another CR-like movie.

I think you may have done a dis-service to yourself because Q0S is supposed to be nothing like CR. It's like Wine vs a Vodka Martini.

There are only a couple things you need to know from CR:

1. Vesper betrays Bond and then commits suicide in front of him.

2. Bond knee-caps Mr White

I think that about covers it.

[HH007]

After having read all of these comments regarding Ebert's assessment of QOS there is one thing that everyone needs to realize: He is not the only one saying these things about it. Nearly every review is saying the same types of things. Now, some are still liking the film while others are ready for things to move back to the center with the balance and distinctives that Bond of old brought to the success of the franchise.

Not having seen it yet, I will be the first in line tomorrow in my area at the first viewing. Of course, this is after spending the morning rewatching CR (which by the way, I have already seen twice this week!)

I actually have avoided watching CR since I first found out that Eon Productions had no interest in making another CR-like movie.

I think you may have done a dis-service to yourself because Q0S is supposed to be nothing like CR. It's like Wine vs a Vodka Martini.

There are only a couple things you need to know from CR:

1. Vesper betrays Bond and then commits suicide in front of him.

2. Bond knee-caps Mr White

I think that about covers it.

You have a point. Although, and I hate to make generalizations, I have been led to believe that "the average moviegoer" will be a little lost in this flick if he/she doesn't have CR fresh in their memory.

This is just depressing. I almost always agree with Ebert, I think he's perhaps the best film critic out there - but I saw the film last night, and I colossally disagree with quite a pile of what he's said here.

Well, to each his own, but I've always found Ebert to be over-rated (now I'm rating a critic, oh the irony). The guy gives out four star reviews like they're Halloween candy, whenever he tries to quote a line from a movie, he most usually gets it wrong, and he's given out one star ratings to films like BLUE VELVET and THE TENANT.

I'll take Leonard Maltin over him any day of the week. (But I'm glad to see you disagree with Ebert here, as I disagreed with Maltin on THE DARK KNIGHT)

[J.B.]

Well, one thing will be certain with me watching CR before QOS. I will definitely be able to see the differences in quality of script and film (if the critics are all right.)!

Right now, I am watching TND on USA Network. THey have been showing the Broz bond movies all day with QOS sneak previews during commercial times...being a fan of the Broz era this has been a great way to make the most of a rainy day.

[dee-bee-five]

Well, one thing will be certain with me watching CR before QOS. I will definitely be able to see the differences in quality of script and film.

Comparisons between the two films are as pointless as they are invidious. It's like trying to compare Much Ado About Nothing and Hamlet. I can't say whether QoS is better or worse than CR because it's so different. But I like it as much.

[Loomis]

Comparisons between the two films are as pointless as they are invidious. It's like trying to compare Much Ado About Nothing and Hamlet. I can't say whether QoS is better or worse than CR because it's so different.

I see where you're coming from, but by that logic is it illegitimate to compare anything to something else? I mean, being as how all things are different and unique.

[HH007]

Comparisons between the two films are as pointless as they are invidious. It's like trying to compare Much Ado About Nothing and Hamlet. I can't say whether QoS is better or worse than CR because it's so different.

I see where you're coming from, but by that logic is it illegitimate to compare anything to something else? I mean, being as how all things are different and unique.

I think what dee-bee-five is saying, and forgive me for using this cliche, is that comparing CR to QoS is like comparing apples and oranges. However, Loomis, I think your point is perfectly valid. It's human nature, and I don't mean to wax philosophical, to compare things, no matter how different they are. God knows I've compared DAD to CR a number of times.

[Mister E]

Comparisons between the two films are as pointless as they are invidious. It's like trying to compare Much Ado About Nothing and Hamlet. I can't say whether QoS is better or worse than CR because it's so different.

I see where you're coming from, but by that logic is it illegitimate to compare anything to something else? I mean, being as how all things are different and unique.

I think what dee-bee-five is saying, and forgive me for using this cliche, is that comparing CR to QoS is like comparing apples and oranges. However, Loomis, I think your point is perfectly valid. It's human nature, and I don't mean to wax philosophical, to compare things, no matter how different they are. God knows I've compared DAD to CR a number of times.

I don't see how you can't. All James Bond films have the same goal and to compare them isn't outrageous.

[Jericho_One]

Obviously, and as much as I respect him, Ebert missed the point.

Interestingly enough, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who heard this (far from it, actually), almost everyone I know wich isn't a Bond fan complained about the lack of the line "The name's Bond, James Bond". I think Ebert would actually appreciate a "James Bond on Ice" Disney show.

[Mister E]

Obviously, and as much as I respect him, Ebert missed the point.

Interestingly enough, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who heard this (far from it, actually), almost everyone I know wich isn't a Bond fan complained about the lack of the line "The name's Bond, James Bond". I think Ebert would actually appreciate a "James Bond on Ice" Disney show.

All non fans are willing to watch a Bond film but they will question the lack of the popular trademarks because they don't know anything about Bond.

[dee-bee-five]

Comparisons between the two films are as pointless as they are invidious. It's like trying to compare Much Ado About Nothing and Hamlet. I can't say whether QoS is better or worse than CR because it's so different.

I see where you're coming from, but by that logic is it illegitimate to compare anything to something else? I mean, being as how all things are different and unique.

Well, of course you're right. And I was perhaps being a tad too simplistic. But the point I was trying to make is that I believe some people have been disappointed in QoS because they've gone in expecting Casino Royale II and if there's one thing we can all agree on it's that Qos isn't that. It's like comparing FRWL and Moonraker (particularly if one can imagine their being released one after the other). Now I love those Bond films equally, but for very, very different reasons.

[Major Tallon]

In 1967, Ebert was the recently hired film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times when he reviewed You Only Live Twice, giving it an unfavorable review. I'd just seen it and thought it was a fantastic movie, so I was mightily offended by his review. I was struck at the time that he spent most of his review carping about the fact that Little Nellie had been pressed into service immediately after it was introduced into the film, rather than being shown at one point and being woven into the story, to be used later (like the FRWL attache case). This struck me as such a minor point that it negated his entire review. It was only later that I realized that his star rating reflected his overall impression, whereas his narrative didn't necessarily attempt to justify the rating but rather was an essay on some aspect of the film that he thought worthy of comment. It wasn't until he gave OHMSS a big thumbs up that I forgave him.

Over the years, and there have been a lot of years, I've come to have considerable regard for his writing, even if I don't agree with his views on a number of movies. As regards James Bond, he has an unmistakable expectation: he expects the movies to be comic thrillers. That's not to say that he'll dump on a movie like Casino Royale, that he recognized to be of outstanding quality, but his expectations for a Bond movie run toward spoofery.

When Ebert and Gene Siskel were set to review The Living Daylights on their TV show, I forecast that Siskel would complain that Dalton wasn't Connery, and Ebert would say that it wasn't funny enough. Sure enough, that's precisely what they said. I even recall Ebert saying, "The last thing I want from a James Bond movie is realism."

So, I suspect that Ebert disliked Quantum of Solace for reasons going beyond the ones he set out in his review, but underlying a lot of what he wrote is the fact that QOS isn't a spoof.

I'll be seeing QOS tomorrow, and I admit to being a bit concerned by some of the negative comments I've read. Still, I trust the people involved in bringing Quantum of Solace to the screen. As for Ebert's review, I'm not concerned. I've enjoyed the Bond films' light touches over the years, but I'll be perfectly happy to have EON serve up a real thriller with the character of James Bond at its core.

[RivenWinner]

I think a lot of what he has to say, as do other many critics and fans, is that Quantum emulates Bourne to a point that it's not even fitting for the 40+ year old franchise. Don't get me wrong, the Bourne films are pretty solid, and I enjoy them, however, it's something different than Bond, and it should remain that way.

There's nothing wrong with Bond films taking inspiration from elsewhere, it's happened many times before, and it will happen again. "Live and Let Die" was heavily influenced by blaxpolitation films, "Moonraker" was influenced by "Star Wars" and the popularity of science fiction films. "Die Another Day" was essentially made for the MTV generation, the "XXX" fans (which was obviously a terrible idea).

Quantum is a solid Bond film, yet, I'm still somewhat disappointed that the filmmakers had to rely so much on Bourne.

Furthermore, I think what Ebert's problem is (or rather, his opinion) is that film Bond and literary Bond are two entirely different things. Hardcore Bond fans, obiously, have been quite aware of that. For most of the general public, James Bond is the film Bond, as produced by EON for over four decades. Bond is his own genre. There are certain characteristics, characters, plot points, cliches, etc. that are expected to appear in Bond films. Why? Because millions of people have grown up watching Bond like that, and millions have raised their children watching Bond like that.

During these last few years, EON is changing things up. Whether it's a good or bad thing is entirely debatable by the millions of Bond fans out there. Obviously, literary Bond fans are quite pleased with the progress being made, although some (like myself) are somewhat sad to see certain film elements dropped, simply because we've grown up with them and we've come to expect them in Bond films.

[Mister E]

Quantum is a solid Bond film, yet, I'm still somewhat disappointed that the filmmakers had to rely so much on Bourne.

I don't think the Bourne influence as bad as people say it is. You can trace back the history of Bond films and at some point they followed the popular trends. However for first time in decades, they are following a trend and yet not sacrificing the quality.

[MattofSteel]

Quantum is a solid Bond film, yet, I'm still somewhat disappointed that the filmmakers had to rely so much on Bourne.

I don't think the Bourne influence as bad as people say it is. You can trace back the history of Bond films and at some point they followed the popular trends. However for first time in decades, they are following a trend and yet not sacrificing the quality.

It's not. I mentioned the issue in my review. I'm not universally accusing every reviewer of this who cites it, but I think the whole concept is a massive, blown-out-of-proportion bandwagon jumping kind of thing.

Bourne is done in a very contemporary way, Bond was forced to change its cinematic palette with CR to standardize itself with every. major. action. franchise. alive.

QoS is no more like any Bourne film than CR was. That being, not at all - in my opinion.

Well, one thing will be certain with me watching CR before QOS. I will definitely be able to see the differences in quality of script and film.

Comparisons between the two films are as pointless as they are invidious. It's like trying to compare Much Ado About Nothing and Hamlet. I can't say whether QoS is better or worse than CR because it's so different. But I like it as much.

They are kind of, somewhat comarable. But I agree with what you're saying here. The filmmakers' respective intent with CR and QOS was so different, it's tough to isolate means of comparison.

[J.B.]

Comparisons between the two films are as pointless as they are invidious. It's like trying to compare Much Ado About Nothing and Hamlet. I can't say whether QoS is better or worse than CR because it's so different.

I see where you're coming from, but by that logic is it illegitimate to compare anything to something else? I mean, being as how all things are different and unique.

Think for a moment about what you are writing here. "Pointless" and "illegitimate" to compare QOS with CR? This whole website does that about everything from Bond's hair color to lines he quotes from different films. The comparison of films and actors with ideas and thoughts are what drives this entire website. There is nothing wrong with doing it and it is especially warranted here in that these films are direct sequels of each other. They go together. Now, compare DAD with CR and you might be able to argue the validity of how pointless it is to compare those two films. But, it still hasnt stopped the pages of forums where folks have compared them slamming one over the other.

[Peckinpah1976]

Nice review from Ebert

Maybe he isn't as bad after all.

That'd be the same Ebert who gave For Your Eyes Only & The Living Daylights two stars each and Licence to Kill 3.5, would it? (And I know how fond you are of that last one. )

I actually respect his views in general but when it comes to Bond he's wildly inconsistent in his opinions of what the series/character should and shouldn't be.