Siskel and Ebert (1983 James Bond special)

Ricardo C.Ricardo C. Posts: 916MI6 Agent
in The James Bond Films
Apologies if this shouldn't be posted here but the Siskel and Ebert LTK thread prompted me to post this Siskel and Ebert 1983 James Bond special. They examined the past 21 years of Bond films and pick their favorites. I think the most hilarous moment is Gene picking his favorite Bond and burning Lazenby in the process dubbing the aussie "just an answer to a trivia question". :))

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGmaz0TnzO8

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnn5o0f3qkI&feature=related

Part3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77Uzk7vgCDs&feature=related

Comments

  • down2000down2000 Santa Monica, CAPosts: 75MI6 Agent
    edited August 2010
    Very cool...and very retro!! but Siskel & Ebert are clueless....Klaus Brandeur (Largo) from Never Say Never Again best Bond villian (up to 1983)?????
  • Ricardo C.Ricardo C. Posts: 916MI6 Agent
    down2000 wrote:
    Very cool...and very retro!! but Siskel & Ebert are clueless....Klaus Brandeur (Largo) from Never Say Never Again best Bond villian (up to 1983)?????

    I think Roger Ebert makes a good case picking Brandeur's Largo but I also disagree. Never Say Never Again wasted a great cast with it's crappy script; nobody is given any direction or motivation so everyone just floats around minus one or two good scenes.
  • Ricardo C.Ricardo C. Posts: 916MI6 Agent
    I didn't want to start yet another Siskel and Ebert thread so here are their reviews of Octopussy and A View To a Kill. You just gotta love the corny intro in the Octopussy review. :))


    Octopussy review starting at 4:50: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3otFxGj_TY&feature=related

    A View To A Kill review: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3otFxGj_TY&feature=related
  • BlackleiterBlackleiter Washington, DCPosts: 5,615MI6 Agent
    I checked out the Siskel and Ebert reviews that were posted in this thread, and then I got interested and started seeking some of their other reviews of Bond films. Wow! These guys were all over the place! In their review of The Living Daylights, Siskel complains that Timothy Dalton is a weak Bond and that Pierce Brosnan would be a better 007. Then Brosnan makes his Bond debut in Goldeneye and Siskel complains that he is a weak Bond - not as good as say - TIMOTHY DALTON! Roger Ebert defends the fomulaic nature of Bond films, saying he expects them to follow the tried and true formula that makes Bond films so enjoyable. In fact, he loves the action sequences most of all. Then, BAM, he slams Octopussy because it follows the same tired FORMULA and there are too many ACTION sequences! Hilarious!
    "Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
  • AdamOmegaAdamOmega Edmonton, AB, CanadaPosts: 297MI6 Agent
    I find it hard to agree with either of them regarding Bond films, but especially Siskel (particularly with regards to his opinions on Roger Moore). Did he actually want to see Bond jump into the lake with the crocodiles?? Oh well, not like Moore couldn't handle fighting crocodiles anyway; he did fight a python in Moonraker.

    Ebert apparently beaked Live and Let Die for having weak villains, yet Yaphet Kotto is actually quite terrific as Dr. Kananga and Baron Samedi is just as memorable a henchman as Oddjob or Jaws ever was. Has any other henchman ever had the chance to get the last laugh?

    And while I can't completely fault them for their dislike of A View To A Kill, Christopher Walken is a great villain.
    "The secret agent. The man who was only a silhouette..." -- Ian Fleming, Moonraker

    1) The Spy Who Loved Me 2) On Her Majesty's Secret Service 3) GoldenEye 4) Casino Royale 5) Goldfinger
  • Ricardo C.Ricardo C. Posts: 916MI6 Agent
    Blackleiter wrote:
    I checked out the Siskel and Ebert reviews that were posted in this thread, and then I got interested and started seeking some of their other reviews of Bond films. Wow! These guys were all over the place! In their review of The Living Daylights, Siskel complains that Timothy Dalton is a weak Bond and that Pierce Brosnan would be a better 007. Then Brosnan makes his Bond debut in Goldeneye and Siskel complains that he is a weak Bond - not as good as say - TIMOTHY DALTON! Roger Ebert defends the fomulaic nature of Bond films, saying he expects them to follow the tried and true formula that makes Bond films so enjoyable. In fact, he loves the action sequences most of all. Then, BAM, he slams Octopussy because it follows the same tired FORMULA and there are too many ACTION sequences! Hilarious!

    And in the Octopussy review, Siskel dosen't even mention Moore and yet two years later he said in their annual worst of special that Roger Moore destroyed the credibility of the franchise.

    Also Roger Ebert gave "thumbs up" to some of the very worst James Bond films, The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day.
  • AdamOmegaAdamOmega Edmonton, AB, CanadaPosts: 297MI6 Agent
    Blackleiter wrote:
    And in the Octopussy review, Siskel dosen't even mention Moore and yet two years later he said in their annual worst of special that Roger Moore destroyed the credibility of the franchise.

    Siskel was just bitter because Roger Moore isn't Sean Connery. I've appreciated his opinions on a number of films; the Bond films are not one of them.
    "The secret agent. The man who was only a silhouette..." -- Ian Fleming, Moonraker

    1) The Spy Who Loved Me 2) On Her Majesty's Secret Service 3) GoldenEye 4) Casino Royale 5) Goldfinger
  • BlackleiterBlackleiter Washington, DCPosts: 5,615MI6 Agent
    I actually agreed with Ebert on The World is Not Enough. I thought it had one of Brosnan's best performances as Bond, a good, although overlong, pre-title sequence, a terrific leading lady in Sophie Marceau, and a decent plot. It also had a couple of glaring weaknesses (i.e. Denise Richards and a complete waste of the Renard character). And I am in complete agreement with Siskel regarding Roger Moore's negative impact on the Bond franchise even though, as you said, he didn't even mention Moore in the Octopussy review. Like I said, these guys were all over the place when it came to reviewing James Bond movies.
    Ricardo C. wrote:
    Blackleiter wrote:
    I checked out the Siskel and Ebert reviews that were posted in this thread, and then I got interested and started seeking some of their other reviews of Bond films. Wow! These guys were all over the place! In their review of The Living Daylights, Siskel complains that Timothy Dalton is a weak Bond and that Pierce Brosnan would be a better 007. Then Brosnan makes his Bond debut in Goldeneye and Siskel complains that he is a weak Bond - not as good as say - TIMOTHY DALTON! Roger Ebert defends the fomulaic nature of Bond films, saying he expects them to follow the tried and true formula that makes Bond films so enjoyable. In fact, he loves the action sequences most of all. Then, BAM, he slams Octopussy because it follows the same tired FORMULA and there are too many ACTION sequences! Hilarious!

    And in the Octopussy review, Siskel dosen't even mention Moore and yet two years later he said in their annual worst of special that Roger Moore destroyed the credibility of the franchise.

    Also Roger Ebert gave "thumbs up" to some of the very worst James Bond films, The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day.
    "Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
Sign In or Register to comment.

Copyright ajb007.co.uk 1998 - 2024

James Bond TM 007 and related James Bond Trademarks © 1962-2024

Danjaq LLC and United Artists Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

This website is a fan site and is in no way related to the official production companies.

All users are responsible for the content of their posts, by using this website you agree to the terms of use.