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

Siskel and Ebert Review A View To A Kill (1985)


6 replies to this topic

#1 Christopher006

Christopher006

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 69 posts

Posted 19 December 2008 - 02:00 AM



They review Fletch first. A View To A Kill starts at 4:35.

Judging from some of Gene's comments, it sounds like he would have liked Casino Royale and Daniel Craig.

#2 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 19 December 2008 - 08:46 AM

What I find interesting about this review is that Gene pins more or less all of the blame for this film on Moore, which is fair enough, but it makes me wonder how he could give a thumbs up to OP if he was so strongly opposed to Moore in the role.

#3 DR76

DR76

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1673 posts

Posted 19 December 2008 - 06:16 PM

What I find interesting about this review is that Gene pins more or less all of the blame for this film on Moore, which is fair enough, but it makes me wonder how he could give a thumbs up to OP if he was so strongly opposed to Moore in the role.



Because he is fickle, like a lot of other people.


As AVTAK, I liked it. I don't consider it one of the better Bond films, simply because it's not that original. To me, it's more or less a remake of GF. Whereas the 1964 film had a better score and more style, AVTAK had a better script and a more emotionally mature Bond.

#4 crheath

crheath

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 704 posts

Posted 19 December 2008 - 07:29 PM

What I find interesting about this review is that Gene pins more or less all of the blame for this film on Moore, which is fair enough, but it makes me wonder how he could give a thumbs up to OP if he was so strongly opposed to Moore in the role.


I agree. That always puzzled me about his review. All he talked about was why he didn't like Roger Moore. He didn't get into the rest of the movie, which had a lot of problems.

#5 O.H.M.S.S.

O.H.M.S.S.

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1162 posts
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 19 December 2008 - 11:53 PM

Siskel says he wants a serious and dangerous Bond, yet he gave Dalton's The Living Daylights a tumbs down and called Tim's Bond 'mousy', or something like that. That does not seem logical to me.

#6 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 20 December 2008 - 08:42 AM

He was something of a Connery purist. He said in his review of GE that "all the others have been nothing compared to him" or something along those lines. Understandable when you consider Siskel would have been in his formative years when the Connery films hit big. Still, if he was able to recommend OP he should have been able to embelish on what sunk AVTAK for him besides Moore, unless he felt Moore was so dominant in the film that he couldn't enjoy it.

#7 Major Tallon

Major Tallon

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2107 posts
  • Location:Mid-USA

Posted 20 December 2008 - 04:09 PM

Siskel's disdain for any Bond actor apart from Sean Connery was unmistakable. It's amusing, though, to hear him complain that a villain who machine-gunned a mine full of workers and had an axe fight atop the Golden Gate Bridge wasn't given enough to do.