39 replies to this topic

[A Kristatos]

If you look back at Ebert's reviews of the various Bond movies, he seems to have an almost love-hate relationship with them. In one review, he'll complain about the predictability of the formula, while in another, he'll praise the recurring formula as a special charm of the Bond films -- in one review, he claimed they were like movements in a symphony savored by fans.

For example, I looked up some Siskel & Ebert reviews on YouTube recently. In one aired in 1983, they reviewed "Octopussy." Siskel enjoyed it, praising the stuntwork, action, as well as Moore and Maud Adams. Ebert complained the movie was the same old formula and he missed Connery.
Later that same year during a special Bond retrospective (after the release of "Never Say Never Again"), Siskel essentially condemned Moore, while Ebert said he enjoyed Moore's style. Two contradictory view in the span of less than a year.

I think you have to take these things in context and with a grain -- no, big spoonfull -- of salt.

Boy I couldn't agree with you more robdread! That's why I strongly disagree with Ebert's review of "For Your Eyes Only". He states how everything in that movie is a retread of previous Bond movies, but in most other reviews he gives good reviews for precisely that reason! Very contradictory on his part.

Now I admit that I have a bias towards FYEO as I am of Greek decent, and I enjoyed the movie partly because some of it was filmed in Greece. But setting that reason aside for sake of the review, FYEO still gets 3 stars out of 4 from me simply because it was the most serious Bond film since OHMSS, and it was far and away Moore's most serious Bond film. End of story! Just for that reason, even if all other aspects of the Bond formula are the same as before, just the mere fact that this film was such a departure from the clownish "Moonraker" warrants a solid rating if for no other reason. Only then did I add an extra half star to my review of this film since it was filmed in Greece. But irregardless of where it was filmed, it merited a good review for shaking things up, something Ebert seemed to have completely missed when he watched it.

[Matt_13]

Interestingly I was literally just going through his reviews of the Bond films. His opinions aren't terrible, and I seem to sort of understand what he likes most about the character. His review of Quantum of Solace is scathing, though, and curiously rants about points he hailed in his review of Casino Royale (no Q or Moneypenny, etc). The one point that he made that was relatively interesting was that James Bond is not an action hero, and that that's actually where Quantum trips up (actually, Quantum trips up because there was no script so rather than cobble together a bunch of new dialogue, the team crafted action sequence after action sequence to fill the void). It's a compelling claim, and one that I sort of understand. There should be more to Bond than action, though when the gunfire does kick up, it has to be done in showstopping fashion. The action scenes in Quantum would be showstopping, if only there was more meat in between. Quantum has some of the best choreographed and paced action sequences in the franchise, but the stakes are just far too low. From the buzz we're hearing about Bond 23 (which, admittadly, there is very little of) it'll be a return to a more deliberately paced adventure. We shall see.

Quantum does not trip up because there is no script. In comparison with DAD, while there is indeed wall to wall action, especially in the first half of QOS, there are two HUGE differences between the two films. First the action does serve to advance the plot in QOS, where most of the action in DAD is just filler for the "thrill of the chase" as Graves eludes to. And second, the action is done FAR more realistically in QOS than in DAD. I believe James Berardinelli, another well respected film critic stated in his review of DAD that while they spent over 100 million dollars to film it, the horrid CGI made it look like it was filmed on the cheap. So while there is some similarites between DAD and QOS regarding the amount of action that is in both films, it shows how less reliance on CGI and more thought in the script makes all the difference in the world to how the final product comes out.

I do agree with you however that I do want to see a more dliberately paced direction in Bond 23. The wall to wall action served its purpose well in QOS, a film which portrayed Bond's revenge against the depth of Vesper Lynd. But agreed that I hope we see a little less action in the next film.

Never compared Quantum to DAD. The two aren't even close. In fact, I prefer Quantum to Casino Royale. Like I said, there is nothing wrong with the action in QoS. It's really well done for the most part. The biggest issue, as I said, was the low stakes. As for there being more thought put into the script, the dialogue is more organic than any of the other films, but that's because the final script was incomplete due to the writer's strike, so no doubt a fair amount of improvisation was taking place, in addition to on set script revisions by Josh Zetumer. The plot isn't bad but there weren't any scenes that really develop Greene as a villain, and the travelogue is heavily truncated. It's a relatively shallow film, but that's not a bad thing. I love the lightening pacing, the simple, small scale plot, and the psychological undertones. It's just a bit shallow on the heels of Casino Royale. Bond 23 will be a return to epic form, though.

[A Kristatos]

Interestingly I was literally just going through his reviews of the Bond films. His opinions aren't terrible, and I seem to sort of understand what he likes most about the character. His review of Quantum of Solace is scathing, though, and curiously rants about points he hailed in his review of Casino Royale (no Q or Moneypenny, etc). The one point that he made that was relatively interesting was that James Bond is not an action hero, and that that's actually where Quantum trips up (actually, Quantum trips up because there was no script so rather than cobble together a bunch of new dialogue, the team crafted action sequence after action sequence to fill the void). It's a compelling claim, and one that I sort of understand. There should be more to Bond than action, though when the gunfire does kick up, it has to be done in showstopping fashion. The action scenes in Quantum would be showstopping, if only there was more meat in between. Quantum has some of the best choreographed and paced action sequences in the franchise, but the stakes are just far too low. From the buzz we're hearing about Bond 23 (which, admittadly, there is very little of) it'll be a return to a more deliberately paced adventure. We shall see.

Quantum does not trip up because there is no script. In comparison with DAD, while there is indeed wall to wall action, especially in the first half of QOS, there are two HUGE differences between the two films. First the action does serve to advance the plot in QOS, where most of the action in DAD is just filler for the "thrill of the chase" as Graves eludes to. And second, the action is done FAR more realistically in QOS than in DAD. I believe James Berardinelli, another well respected film critic stated in his review of DAD that while they spent over 100 million dollars to film it, the horrid CGI made it look like it was filmed on the cheap. So while there is some similarites between DAD and QOS regarding the amount of action that is in both films, it shows how less reliance on CGI and more thought in the script makes all the difference in the world to how the final product comes out.

I do agree with you however that I do want to see a more dliberately paced direction in Bond 23. The wall to wall action served its purpose well in QOS, a film which portrayed Bond's revenge against the depth of Vesper Lynd. But agreed that I hope we see a little less action in the next film.

Never compared Quantum to DAD. The two aren't even close. In fact, I prefer Quantum to Casino Royale. Like I said, there is nothing wrong with the action in QoS. It's really well done for the most part. The biggest issue, as I said, was the low stakes. As for there being more thought put into the script, the dialogue is more organic than any of the other films, but that's because the final script was incomplete due to the writer's strike, so no doubt a fair amount of improvisation was taking place, in addition to on set script revisions by Josh Zetumer. The plot isn't bad but there weren't any scenes that really develop Greene as a villain, and the travelogue is heavily truncated. It's a relatively shallow film, but that's not a bad thing. I love the lightening pacing, the simple, small scale plot, and the psychological undertones. It's just a bit shallow on the heels of Casino Royale. Bond 23 will be a return to epic form, though.

My bad Matt. I see your points regarding the QOS script, but I'm glad you liked it otherwise.

My points regarding the action scene comparisons between the two films had more to do with Ebert's inconsistent reviews than your comments. Ebert gave DAD a good review despite this being a poorly directed and way over-the-top Bond film. And he also gave "Tomorrow Never Dies" a good review despite Bond being relegated to Rambo the last 30 minutes of that film. So how does he think that "Bond is not an action hero" with regards to QOS after he gave good reviews to those two aformentioned films? At least be consistent Roger!

[DR76]

Dear Administrators,

I'm going to post a rude response.

No, I just have trouble believing you "don't care" about someone you keep going on about

You know what? I realized that I don't give a rat's what you think. As long as this thread about Roger Ebert and other film critics continue, I'll continue posting my attitude about them.

[Jim]

Dear Administrators,

I'm going to post a rude response.

No, I just have trouble believing you "don't care" about someone you keep going on about

You know what? I realized that I don't give a rat's what you think.

Why post a response, then?

As long as this thread about Roger Ebert and other film critics continue, I'll continue posting my attitude about them.

Is it likely to change? I think we all get the idea by now.

[AMC Hornet]

I'm beginning to get the impression that the rule here at CBn is: it's okay to launch unprovoked attacks against other posters, but it's not okay for the injured party to respond.

Sounds like bully logic ("No fair! He hit me back!").

But that's just my observation. Perhaps I'm in the minority (now) because so many other posters have given up on this site.

If anyone feels I've offended them with this observation, feel free to post a rebuttal. It may be against the rules, but I will try to refrain from sniping back.

[Safari Suit]

I don't feel my post was an unprovoked attack, I feel it was a (admittedly somewhat abrasively phrased) honest critique of someone's post. When someone claims they "don't care" about critics three times in the space of one thread and countless other times over the course of their two forum profiles, it's hard for that claim not to seem a little hollow.

[AMC Hornet]

You can stop defending yourself - you're not the one I was criticizing.

Edited by AMC Hornet, 29 August 2011 - 10:35 PM.

[Safari Suit]

Well that's nice to know, but I'm glad I made myself clear anyway

[AMC Hornet]

I wasn't criticizing DR76 either, BTW.