Roger Ebert Reviews Casino Royale
TonyDP
Inside the MonolithPosts: 4,307MI6 Agent
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
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070816/REVIEWS/708160301
Comments
"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!
And it is, indeed, nice to see Roger Ebert working again. He and I share many opinions on CR, as it turns out.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
@merseytart
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!
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.
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.
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
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
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
So what's the problem with post-production, as he mentions? Shakey-cam is not post, it's during!
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.
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!
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.