Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert review TLD

Comments

• Krassno Granitski USAPosts: 896MI6 Agent

  August 2007

  Usually agree with most of what these two critics say, however they are wrong...except with their comments about the Bond girl

  J1 Visa
• actonsteve Posts: 299MI6 Agent

  August 2007

  For a lot of people, including some critics, Bond is a wisecracking limey in a dinner jacket driving an Aston Martin. TD in TLD was a burnt out case in a gritty film. They just couldnt cope with the change.
  
  To GS and RE a Bond film isnt a Bond film unless it has La Connery in it.
• TonyDP Inside the MonolithPosts: 4,307MI6 Agent

  August 2007

  actonsteve wrote:

  For a lot of people, including some critics, Bond is a wisecracking limey in a dinner jacket driving an Aston Martin. TD in TLD was a burnt out case in a gritty film. They just couldnt cope with the change.
  
  To GS and RE a Bond film isnt a Bond film unless it has La Connery in it.

  
  The late Gene Siskel was really unkind to Bond after Connery departed - not to mention downright inconsistent and sometimes nasty in his comments. In his review to TLD he torched Dalton's performance and bemoaned the fact that Brosnan had not been selected to be Bond. Yet when he reviewed GE, he bemoaned that Brosnan wasn't good enough either. I guess there's just no pleasing some people. He also said Dalton looked like a horse in his review of LTK - I thought that was a cheap shot myself, even for a critic.
• highhopes Posts: 1,358MI6 Agent

  August 2007

  TonyDP wrote:

  actonsteve wrote:

  For a lot of people, including some critics, Bond is a wisecracking limey in a dinner jacket driving an Aston Martin. TD in TLD was a burnt out case in a gritty film. They just couldnt cope with the change.
  
  To GS and RE a Bond film isnt a Bond film unless it has La Connery in it.

  
  The late Gene Siskel was really unkind to Bond after Connery departed - not to mention downright inconsistent and sometimes nasty in his comments. In his review to TLD he torched Dalton's performance and bemoaned the fact that Brosnan had not been selected to be Bond. Yet when he reviewed GE, he bemoaned that Brosnan wasn't good enough either. I guess there's just no pleasing some people. He also said Dalton looked like a horse in his review of LTK - I thought that was a cheap shot myself, even for a critic.

  
  That's true, I think, to a great degree. Siskel had higher-brow tastes than Ebert, I think. I thought Ebert's review of TLD -- I happen to remember parts of it from having seen the original show (I don't know if it's the same review that is linked at this thread) -- was a bit more thoughtful. As I recall, he liked Dalton, but said he sometimes seemed way too serious compared to the action in the film. And I think's that's a good (and fair) observation. I always bring up the cello case ride. Dalton does seem to take it a bit too seriously. But I don't think that was Dalton's fault. He was trying to shoehorn a grittier, more serious Bond into what I'm told was a script written for Moore.
  But Ebert does include Goldfinger in his "Great Movies" series of reviews, right along with Citizen Kane and Rashomon, as a stand-in for the whole 007 series, given that it's kind of the quintessential Bond picture. What is strange about the review, though, is that he seems to have an appreciation for the jokier aspects of the series and appears to be reviewing the Moore incarnation of the character, rather than Connery's.
  I've always wondered what Ebert's take on CR would have been. He was sick and never reviewed it.
• TonyDP Inside the MonolithPosts: 4,307MI6 Agent

  August 2007 edited August 2007

  highhopes wrote:

  I've always wondered what Ebert's take on CR would have been. He was sick and never reviewed it.

  
  Ask, and ye shall receive. Ebert is now getting around to reviewing movies he missed during his illness. In order to minimize duplicate posts, I started a new thread over in the Casino Royale section of the site and posted a link. Head on over and have a read...
• Barbel ScotlandPosts: 37,860Chief of Staff

  August 2007

  To paraphrase Shaw: Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticise.
  
  Cubby Broccoli no doubt said a quotable phrase concerning critics (somebody please bolster this) and never gave a damn about what they had to say about his films. Sometimes the critics have panned the Bond films; sometimes they've praised them. Does anyone seriously think this has gone hand-in-hand with their success and on-going status?
  
  DAD is not a favourite among Bond fans, yet was a huge financial success. The critics were no more than lukewarm about that particular entry, as opposed to their raving re CR, but the box-office figures are comparable. It's perhaps going too far to say that if DAD had floppped then CR wouldn't have been made; one flop in a successful series could have been dismissed (eg, OHMSS didn't make a whole lot of money compared to its predecessors, although DAF did).
  
  At the end of the day it is the public who make up their minds about a movie, not what Siskel, Ebert, Kael, Norman, Ross or whoever has to say. And this includes the fanbase- the hardcore James Bond fans (to which you and I belong, or else we wouldn't be on this site) didn't make CR the huge success it has been. There are simply not enough of us. Word-of-mouth ("Have you seen the new Bond film? It's terrific!") is what gives a film "legs" after its opening weekend, and that depends on critics not at all. People who wouldn't normally have gone to see a Bond film (although they may have watched it later on DVD or TV) went to this one not because of the critics, but (a) to check out the new Bond (an important factor- LALD did better than TMWTGG, TLD did better than LTK) and (b) because they'd been told how good it was by their friends.
• CasinoChris75 Posts: 80MI6 Agent

  August 2007

  I thought Ebert's review of TLD -- I happen to remember parts of it from having seen the original show (I don't know if it's the same review that is linked at this thread) -- was a bit more thoughtful. As I recall, he liked Dalton, but said he sometimes seemed way too serious compared to the action in the film. And I think's that's a good (and fair) observation.

  
  Here is Roger Ebert's written review of TLD:
  
  rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19870731/REVIEWS/707310304/1023