Roger Ebert Reviews Casino Royale

TonyDP

Film critic Roger Ebert never did a review of CR as he was ill at the time of its release. He is now getting around to reviewing films that he missed, and here are his very positive thoughts on CR.


http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070816/REVIEWS/708160301

John Drake

{[] Thanks for posting that Tony. It's nice to see Ebert back at work. Great review too.

Hardyboy

As much as I've complained of Ebert's championing of every pretentious art movie ever made and his atrocious taste in comedy, I too am glad to see him back at work. And nice to see that he's weighing in on the Bond-vs.-Bourne war:

"I think the public is getting tired of action sequences that are created in post-production. I've been swamped with letters complaining about 'The Bourne Ultimatum.' One guy said, 'Why don't critics admit they're tired of it?' Actually, we're tired of writing about how tired of it we are."

Go get 'em, Rog!

Loeffelholz

Thanks very much for sharing that one, Tony {[]

And it is, indeed, nice to see Roger Ebert working again. He and I share many opinions on CR, as it turns out.

jetsetwilly

A nice little review, but please tell me that Ebert isn't another writer who thinks that Montenegro is fictional!

Dan Same

Hardyboy wrote:

"I think the public is getting tired of action sequences that are created in post-production. I've been swamped with letters complaining about 'The Bourne Ultimatum.' One guy said, 'Why don't critics admit they're tired of it?' Actually, we're tired of writing about how tired of it we are."

Go get 'em, Rog!

) I love that. I don't always agree with Ebert on everything (such as his thoughts on CR) but I very much like the way he writes and this is such an example.

emtiem

Hardyboy wrote:

As much as I've complained of Ebert's championing of every pretentious art movie ever made and his atrocious taste in comedy, I too am glad to see him back at work. And nice to see that he's weighing in on the Bond-vs.-Bourne war:

"I think the public is getting tired of action sequences that are created in post-production. I've been swamped with letters complaining about 'The Bourne Ultimatum.' One guy said, 'Why don't critics admit they're tired of it?' Actually, we're tired of writing about how tired of it we are."

Go get 'em, Rog!

I must say that I don't understand this at all; I can't see what he's getting at. Is he saying that the Bourne lot edited the film together to give the impression that something is happening that isn't really? Because isn't that how all films work?
Does remind me of one annoying stunt in Ultimatum- that shot of him jumping through a window with the cameraman following him; it looks great as it is- why did they feel that they had to CGI a window in there for him to smash through? Awful!

highhopes

TonyDP wrote:

Film critic Roger Ebert never did a review of CR as he was ill at the time of its release. He is now getting around to reviewing films that he missed, and here are his very positive thoughts on CR.


http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070816/REVIEWS/708160301

I've never been so delighted to be corrected. Thanks, Tony. And what a great review, too. Four stars on a Bond film? Wow! I've always respected his opinion, even if I disagree,because he can always give specific reasons for his praise and complaints. I've have often wondered what he thought of CR.

emtiem wrote:

Hardyboy wrote:

As much as I've complained of Ebert's championing of every pretentious art movie ever made and his atrocious taste in comedy, I too am glad to see him back at work. And nice to see that he's weighing in on the Bond-vs.-Bourne war:

"I think the public is getting tired of action sequences that are created in post-production. I've been swamped with letters complaining about 'The Bourne Ultimatum.' One guy said, 'Why don't critics admit they're tired of it?' Actually, we're tired of writing about how tired of it we are."

Go get 'em, Rog!

I must say that I don't understand this at all; I can't see what he's getting at. Is he saying that the Bourne lot edited the film together to give the impression that something is happening that isn't really? Because isn't that how all films work?
Does remind me of one annoying stunt in Ultimatum- that shot of him jumping through a window with the cameraman following him; it looks great as it is- why did they feel that they had to CGI a window in there for him to smash through? Awful!

Actually emtiem, he's bitching about the shaky camera ("Recently, with the advent of portable cameras and computerized editing, action movies have substituted visual chaos for visual elegance") and quick cutting. A lot of people think -- and I know you don't agree -- that the technique is overused these days.But of course, we've been over that on another thread.

Hardyboy wrote:

As much as I've complained of Ebert's championing of every pretentious art movie ever made and his atrocious taste in comedy, I too am glad to see him back at work.

I've always found Roger to be receptive to reviewing a movie on its own terms. If he feels the movie succeeds at what it means to do, he'll usually like it, without regard to the particular genre.

Loeffelholz

"..action sequences that are created in post-production." Hmm.

Interesting that even big hits like BU are starting to draw scattered fire for trying to milk that extra 'bang!' out of post-prod...via CGI, overly-stylized editing, handheld, etc. It's understandable from a filmmaking point of view---the technology is there, why not use it?---but the audience has grown increasingly jaded.

With Eon being accused of/credited with* using Bourne as inspiration for 007's reinvention, they'd be wise to use the above observation by Ebert as a cautionary note: Keep It Real.

* depending on one's own point of view

blueman

I liked the blend in CR: stunt-based for the most part, but with some CGI to augment (police car getting blown away by the jet's engine in Miami), or provide the frame (building falling down in Venice). Also smart to start more real and progrssively push the CGI effects as the film rolls along.

One thing that would be nice in Bond 22 would be to have the set piece action scenes not be so cut-and-dry: Madagscar and Miami both had rather blunt (although not unsatisfying ) endings. Venice practically ended the film, but had some nice emotional carryover there at the end as well. Like to see a big action scene roll directly into the next bit of drama--CR had the cut-short car chase that pretty much did that, but like to see a big action thing do that. Go EON!

emtiem

highhopes wrote:

emtiem wrote:

Hardyboy wrote:

As much as I've complained of Ebert's championing of every pretentious art movie ever made and his atrocious taste in comedy, I too am glad to see him back at work. And nice to see that he's weighing in on the Bond-vs.-Bourne war:

"I think the public is getting tired of action sequences that are created in post-production. I've been swamped with letters complaining about 'The Bourne Ultimatum.' One guy said, 'Why don't critics admit they're tired of it?' Actually, we're tired of writing about how tired of it we are."

Go get 'em, Rog!

I must say that I don't understand this at all; I can't see what he's getting at. Is he saying that the Bourne lot edited the film together to give the impression that something is happening that isn't really? Because isn't that how all films work?
Does remind me of one annoying stunt in Ultimatum- that shot of him jumping through a window with the cameraman following him; it looks great as it is- why did they feel that they had to CGI a window in there for him to smash through? Awful!

Actually emtiem, he's bitching about the shaky camera ("Recently, with the advent of portable cameras and computerized editing, action movies have substituted visual chaos for visual elegance") and quick cutting. A lot of people think -- and I know you don't agree -- that the technique is overused these days.But of course, we've been over that on another thread.

So what's the problem with post-production, as he mentions? Shakey-cam is not post, it's during! Is it just the editing he's going on about? What on earth is wrong with the editing?

John Drake

To be fair to Ebert he does like The Bourne Ultimatum. Here's his review.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070802/REVIEWS/70710008/1023

I think he may have been referring to many more films than TBU when he complains about post-production stuff in his CR review.

highhopes

emtiem wrote:

So what's the problem with post-production, as he mentions? Shakey-cam is not post, it's during! Is it just the editing he's going on about? What on earth is wrong with the editing?

John Drake wrote:

To be fair to Ebert he does like The Bourne Ultimatum. Here's his review.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070802/REVIEWS/70710008/1023

I think he may have been referring to many more films than TBU when he complains about post-production stuff in his CR review.

I think you're right. He does give Bourne three-and-a-half stars, which is hardly a pan. I think he's talking about a very real trend in action films -- and others for that matter (I can barely watch some of those Oliver Stone films)-- where there are a lot of quick cuts to stimulate excitement in the viewer. I call it MTV-style, for lack of a better term, but I'm an old fogie. Nothing wrong with this per se. But Ebert is suggesting it might be overused a tad. I don't think his remark was meant so much to criticize other films, but rather to complement CR on its longer action shots and less frenetic cutting, leaving the stunt people and the action on the screen to create the excitement rather than the camera movement and editing.

Lazenby

"Daniel Craig is bloody damned great as Bond"

Amen to that-- you can just feel his enthusiasm jump from the page; I love it!

"It's not that I didn't love some of the earlier films, like some, dislike others and so on, as that I was becoming less convinced that I ever had to see another one."

He hit the nail right on the head (for me) with that comment. Prior to CR I hadn't even seen DAD, having all but given up on the series with the stale soul-lessness of the Brosnan era. Casino Royale totally reinvigorated my interest in James Bond oo7. Wonderful review, thanks for posting!

Lazenby

highhopes wrote:

Four stars on a Bond film? Wow!

He gave Goldfinger 4 stars as well: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19990131/REVIEWS08/401010322/1023

And not only that, he includes it among his esteemed "Great Movies", and justifiably so.