25 replies to this topic

[THX-007]

Here are the reviews by Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel on the Bond films. I'm only including the ones done by Gene Siskel's death when the show was called Siskel & Ebert

James Bond Special

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

The Living Daylights

Gene Siskel calls Dalton a mouse and suggests that Pierce Brosnan would've made a better Bond. Complaints about how Dalton is too serious, doesn't sleep around, and lacks humor.

License to Kill
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related
Complaints about how Sanchez is a just a drug dealer and doesn't have plans to take over the world.

Goldeneye
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related
After Siskel wanted Brosnan to be Bond in 1987 he hates his performance in Goldeneye. He basically says that Connery was great and all other Bonds are horrible in the role.

Tomorrow Never Dies
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related
Finally a two thumbs up from both critics

I really enjoy watching Ebert and Siskel's reviews even lots of times I don't agree with them. Gene Siskel was always the more nitpicking than Ebert which would explain the more criticism of non-Connery Bonds.

I think there is a love affair that some critics have with Connery. Connery could be in a horrible film but his presence would gain positive points. Roger even gave the acid film Zardoz and Never Say Never Again positive reviews. Not that I don't like Sean, the first three Bond movies are classic films. But I found it extremely unfair that every Bond actor from here to eternity must be compared with Connery. Whenever I watch a Bond film I don't think of previous actors or films. When I watched OHMSS I didn't think of Connery and its my favorite film. Same goes for Moore's, Dalton's, Brosnan's and Craig's.
The only case I did was DAF which I first saw before OHMSS. I didn't like then and don't like it now. I guess because OHMSS had a impact on me that I frown on DAF as sequel. But even if I had never seen OHMSS, I would still hold DAF in a negative light.

Edited by THX-007, 21 June 2010 - 03:44 AM.

[Major Tallon]

Both of these guys held strong preconceptions of what a Bond film should be like, and those attitudes have colored their reviews considerably. Siskel could never get over the fact that Connery no longer held the role and would have been just as happy for the producers to stop making Bond movies. In his later years, he called for Denzel Washington to be cast in the part.

Ebert basically wants Bond movies to be spoofs, with over-the-top characters and plots. He's willing to recognize some of the more serious films, such as OHMSS, FYEO, and CR, when they've got particular merit, but he's on record as saying, "The last thing I want is realism in a James Bond film."

Of the two critics, I've got more regard for Ebert, but I can't give either a thumbs up in their views of Bond.

[DaltonCraig]

After beating up Dalton in in the review for TLD, Siskel and Ebert both say they like Dalton in LTK. They are all over the place. They also complain about Moore being too over the top, but when the series goes serious they complain about it. Nuts!

Edited by DaltonCraig, 21 June 2010 - 01:25 PM.

[Lachesis]

After beating up Dalton in in the review for TLD, Siskel and Ebert both say they like Dalton in LTK. They are all over the place. They also complain about Moore being too over the top, but when the series goes serious they complain about it. Nuts!

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but its not unusual to reasses your opinion in the light of a later change. There is also the evolution of trends and the like, as you age there is a lag and resistance to accepting them...sometimes you end up unconsciously accepting them and still knowing deep down you dont like it but you can't fight the passage of time...........oh dear I am depressing myself..damn youngsters get off the grass.

In the end I find their comments and banter are fun even when I disagree with both, sometimes I agree with something they say but it still doesn't matter enough to make my overall opinion change, all of which is cool.... my opinion is still way better than their's or anyone else's - at least for me at any rate

[David_M]

I don't regard any critic's views as the final word on anything, but the best ones sometimes give you new ways to think about a film you might not have considered. Also once you've seen enough of a reviewer's work, you learn how to interpret what they say. For instance, we had a local reviewer who always held the opposite opinion to my own on everything, so if he hated a movie I rushed out to see it, and loved it. Never failed.

I confess it is pretty frustrating to see "professional" reviewers so caught up in the Connery mystique. What they're really saying is there's only one way to make a Bond film, and one actor for the role, which history has shown is patently false. It comes down to the bias of personal nostalgia outweighing the objectivity of rational analysis, a fatal shortcoming for any reviewer of anything. You expect the "man on the street" to say "They did it better in my day," but it's a drag to see a supposed expert be equally closed-minded.

[Matt_13]

"We'll be reviewing a completely different kind of movie in Toy Story, a movie made with computers!"

That's very neat.

[Guy Haines]

I can remember when some, but not all, UK critics blasted Timothy Dalton for his two performances, on this basis (simplified here, but this was the gist of it) - not only that he wasn't Bond because he wasn't Connery, but also he wasn't Bond because he wasn't Moore either! Dalton wasn't Bond because he didn't conform to two completely different versions of the character which were considered by the film critics circle as being "James Bond". Try to square that. I certainly couldn't.

Something else amuses me about the attitude of the critics. I've mentioned this elsewhere, but its the gushing "breath of fresh air" view whenever a new Bond comes along - resulting in the immediate predecessor in the role getting an implied trashing.

Thus Dalton was, for some, a breath of fresh air compared with the too comedic Moore - then Brosnan was a "breath" compared with the too dour Dalton - and then Craig was "the best Bond in decades", whilst by comparison Brosnan was too smooth, too bland, too......too!

What's obvious to me is that critics rarely read their own reviews!

[THX-007]

I think the late Peter Hunt said it best. "Who is James Bond? Its not Sean Connery, its not Roger Moore, its not any of the others. Its James Bond."

[AMC Hornet]

There was a local reviewer in my city who figured it was his job to disagree with anyone who hypes a popular movie. He said that FYEO was the worst excuse for a Bond movie ever ("...and remember, I've seen OHMSS"), then goes on to refer to Bond's late wife as 'Tessa.' Are you sure you've seen OHMSS? Later, reviewing Octopussy, he referred to Kabir Bedi as being Kamal Khan's "apparently mute henchman." Apparently Hindi and English don't count as dialogue.

I never let critics tell me what to think. Remember, Ebert & not Ebert got paid to give "two enthusiastic thumbs way, way up" and to nitpick over how any movie wasn't as good as it would have been if they had written/directed/edited/produced/scored/starred etc.

There's an old saying: those who cannot do, teach, and those who cannot teach, critique.

[JimmyBond]

There's an old saying: those who cannot do, teach, and those who cannot teach, critique.

To be fair, Ebert has written a few films. Granted their cheesy 70's T&A flicks, but he's still written films.

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

I have read/seen all their Bond reviews. Their vision is all over the place and they contradict themselves practically everytime. On top of that Siskel always says "Cannery" and "James Band" which creases me up.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

Both of these guys held strong preconceptions of what a Bond film should be like, and those attitudes have colored their reviews considerably. Siskel could never get over the fact that Connery no longer held the role and would have been just as happy for the producers to stop making Bond movies.

That was something I enjoyed(not agreed with but enjoyed) about his reviews. Connery's not in it, it's automatically bad. Connery's in it, it's automatically good. And the way he'd get all belligerent and mad about the non-Connery Bonds was funny to watch.

As others have said, the critics are often wildly inconsistent in their reasoning on why they liked or disliked a particular picture. I think Siskel and Ebert didn't fairly go to TLD and watch it on its own terms though it appears they mellowed toward Dalton by the time of LTK's release. Too bad he didn't do more.

[Turn]

It's interesting that often Ebert's written reviews differed a bit from his tone on the show.

For instance, someone mentioned he doesn't want a serious Bond, but in his review of NSNA he says "What makes Never Say Never Again than most of the Bonds is more complex. For one thing, there's more of a human element and it comes from Klaus Maria Brandauer as Largo. Brandauer is a wonderful actor and he chooses not to play the villain as a cliche..."

He seems to give LTK a rather mixed review on television, but his print review gives the film 3.5 stars out of 4, better than a good film and just less than a great film.

Reading Ebert is more enjoyable than watching him as he nearly always has a decent point or just an amusing afterthought such as this one from his TWINE review:
My favorite moment? A small one, almost a throwaway. The movie answers one question I've had for a long time: How do the bad guys always manage to find all their equipment spontaneously, on remote locations where they could not have planned ahead? After the snow chase sequence, a villain complains morosely that the para-sails were rented, and "were supposed to be returned."

[Jeff007]

[Quincy]

I like watching the various critics on the show over the years.

Siskel is clearly blinded by his love for Connery. Connery is the best that Siskel got to see, okay, but that doesn't mean you can't like the others for what they were. Moore was over the top sill most of the time but he had great moments. Lazenby was wonderful in the part and so was his film. I'm not too keen for The Living Daylights but Licence to Kill is one of the better entries in the series.

Watching the DAD review, it seems that over-the-top formula is what Ebert feels makes a Bond film. The silliness, the lairs, the gadget-laden vehicles, and one-liners. Most of us thought DAD was beyond horrible. Does that make Ebert a non-legit fan? Of course not. "I've been going to James Bond pictures all of my life." He, unlike most of us, was around to witness all of them duriong the time they came out. He has a different view on the series.


Got to go eat........be back for more thoughts later.

[Jeff007]

Most of us thought DAD was beyond horrible. Does that make Ebert a non-legit fan? Of course not. "I've been going to James Bond pictures all of my life." He, unlike most of us, was around to witness all of them duriong the time they came out. He has a different view on the series.

Yes he watches them for what they are worth. They won't be oscar winners but a good popcorn flicks. The curtain goes up and we get action and beautiful women and humour. Then the credits appear and we wait for the next movie. Ebert watches them like an 10 year old and there is nothing wrong with that. It's James Bond and it's suppose to be 2 hours of fun.

[Quincy]

Yes but some of us would rather see the more down to earth plot than Bond saving the world DAD style. It's all a matter of preference really. Most look down upon QOS. I found it to be the second best entry in the series. Every Bond fan will have a different opinion.

The only actor I dislike is Brosnan. I'm not keen on Dalton and not overly joyed about Moore but I can enjoy certain aspects of their potrayals. Dalton had a great entry in LTK. Moore had 2 great entries in TSWLM and OP, and a solid entry in FYEO.

I can't stand any of Brosnan's outings.

[Jeff007]

Yes absolutely us fans would rather see Bond in down to earth plots. However, up until excepting Craig, the public just wanted to see Goldfinger remade each year.

[Mr. Somerset]

Somewhere I've got recorded on the Today show, or Good Morning America...one of those, an interview with Siskel raving about Tomorrow Never Dies, which he liked mainly because of the villain. He certainly only liked Sean as Bond, and would have cast Denzel.
I remember the At The Movies Bond special and they both loved Never Say Never Again. Funny how all these years later NSNA doesn't get the love. I think people then were really just excited to see Sean.

[JimmyBond]

Yes absolutely us fans would rather see Bond in down to earth plots. However, up until excepting Craig, the public just wanted to see Goldfinger remade each year.

Really? I would welcome a goofy larger than life Bond epic. Granted I'd rather someone other than Craig be in the role if that were the case, as I couldn't see him in that type of Bond film.

[Jeff007]

Yes absolutely us fans would rather see Bond in down to earth plots. However, up until excepting Craig, the public just wanted to see Goldfinger remade each year.

Really? I would welcome a goofy larger than life Bond epic. Granted I'd rather someone other than Craig be in the role if that were the case, as I couldn't see him in that type of Bond film.

I mean that we as fans like the down to earth plots more than the general public who don't really want to have to think too much at the theatre.

[JimmyBond]

I'm still going to disagree with you. I know my fandom isn't being called into question here (I post on a James Bond message board, I think that says it all ), but I can honestly say as a James Bond fan, and I know lots others who feel the same way (and they post here too) would welcome a return to the excess of the Moore era. Heck I'd even welcome a return to the silliness of DAD, though perhaps with a wittier script.

[Jeff007]

All I said was that us fans could stand to see the serious 007 adventures more than the general public until Daniel Craig. i.e. the Dalton films and Lazenby.

Don't get me wrong I love the Moore ones as much as I love the Craig ones. Like Peking Duck is different from Russian Caviar. They are different but I love them both.

[Quincy]

I love them both too but I prefer Craig' to Moore's. I can enjoy them all(except Brosnan and a few others).

About the over the top outings. Nobody minds them to the point that they hate them I think. It's just DAD was TOO over the top for about anybodies(except Ebert it seems) liking. TB and TSWLM are both over the top entries and are also some of the finer entries in the series.

DAD was a cartoon.

[DaveBond21]

Yes absolutely us fans would rather see Bond in down to earth plots. However, up until excepting Craig, the public just wanted to see Goldfinger remade each year.

Really? I would welcome a goofy larger than life Bond epic. Granted I'd rather someone other than Craig be in the role if that were the case, as I couldn't see him in that type of Bond film.

I agree. I am sure the larger-than-life, more humorous Bond movies will return at some point in the future; probably when most movies are going that way.

[Hotwinds]

They were the best and as time goes by I miss them more and more.
Seeing a few old ones on YouTube makes me sad indeed.
I am glad Ebert has not missed a beat as far as his newspaper reviews are concerned but I find it dificult to look at him whenever they show pics of him.
What a horible disease he has had to deal with. Weird how both of them got sick in the head like that.

Here are the reviews by Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel on the Bond films. I'm only including the ones done by Gene Siskel's death when the show was called Siskel & Ebert

James Bond Special

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

The Living Daylights

Gene Siskel calls Dalton a mouse and suggests that Pierce Brosnan would've made a better Bond. Complaints about how Dalton is too serious, doesn't sleep around, and lacks humor.

License to Kill
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related
Complaints about how Sanchez is a just a drug dealer and doesn't have plans to take over the world.

Goldeneye
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related
After Siskel wanted Brosnan to be Bond in 1987 he hates his performance in Goldeneye. He basically says that Connery was great and all other Bonds are horrible in the role.

Tomorrow Never Dies
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related
Finally a two thumbs up from both critics

I really enjoy watching Ebert and Siskel's reviews even lots of times I don't agree with them. Gene Siskel was always the more nitpicking than Ebert which would explain the more criticism of non-Connery Bonds.

I think there is a love affair that some critics have with Connery. Connery could be in a horrible film but his presence would gain positive points. Roger even gave the acid film Zardoz and Never Say Never Again positive reviews. Not that I don't like Sean, the first three Bond movies are classic films. But I found it extremely unfair that every Bond actor from here to eternity must be compared with Connery. Whenever I watch a Bond film I don't think of previous actors or films. When I watched OHMSS I didn't think of Connery and its my favorite film. Same goes for Moore's, Dalton's, Brosnan's and Craig's.
The only case I did was DAF which I first saw before OHMSS. I didn't like then and don't like it now. I guess because OHMSS had a impact on me that I frown on DAF as sequel. But even if I had never seen OHMSS, I would still hold DAF in a negative light.