I have yet to see Quantum of Solace (I hope to this weekend), but I have to say, I think Roger Ebert's 2-star review of the film seems to have missed the point entirely.
Don't get me wrong; I love Roger Ebert. He's one of my writing heroes. And I'm not qualified yet to agree or disagree with what he says about the actual plot or quality of the film itself. But he still missed the point. He's done this before (this review of Spider-Man manages to completely miss the point of the character).
The great thing about Casino Royale was that it took 40 years of bullshit and toys and quips and expectations of smug silliness and threw them down the drain. It reimagined the concept of Bond in a post-Bourne Identity cinematic world, making it real and making the Bond character so much more than just a quip factory who had his way with women and drove invisible cars. It was an action movie, a smart one, a suspenseful one, the way Ian Fleming wrote James Bond: elegant, but savage. I remember being wonderfully shocked to see openings for quips, only to have the quips never come. Finally!
So it's disappointing to see Roger Ebert write this:
Don't ever let this happen again to James Bond. "Quantum of Solace" is his 22nd film and he will survive it, but for the 23rd it is necessary to go back to the drawing board and redesign from the ground up. Please understand: James Bond is not an action hero! He is too good for that. He is an attitude. Violence for him is an annoyance. He exists for the foreplay and the cigarette. He rarely encounters a truly evil villain. More often a comic opera buffoon with hired goons in matching jump suits.He then goes on to bemoan the fact that the girl doesn't have a silly name, lament that the villain doesn't want to launch nuclear missiles from the moon, and even goes out of his way to insult Judi Dench.
Dude, don't you get it? There's a big part of the audience that doesn't want to see that shit anymore. That's in the past. You have those movies already. Let's stop making those movies over and over and over again and try something different. James Bond can be an action hero. I don't want to see the Roger Moore version anymore; a senior citizen jogging around after women young enough to be his granddaughters while writing off pithy quips and jumping out of planes. It's done, get over it.
And by the way, I don't consider "Quantum of Solace isn't exactly like a bunch of shitty Roger Moore" movies to be a valid criticism. Come on, Rog, you're better than this.






































MYSTERY CARROT AWARD






































10 comments:
We're hoping to see it this weekend as well. We really enjoyed Casino Royale, and thought it had a definite throwback feel to the first couple of Bond movies. We were especially relieved to see it get away from all the overblown effects and technology that had come to overwhelm all the later Moore and post-Moore Bond films.
All right, I'll admit that I saw a cam version online last week. Now, with the exception of the Japanese subtitles I really digged it. The way they're writing Bond right now is the way Fleming wrote him. Without the blatant sexism. Daniel Craig is the best Bond in decades.
I agree with you. Why ask for more of the same? Just go rent one of the Moores if that's what you feel like right now, but for the franchise itself, why not move on?
'Sides, Craig is HOT.
From what I've heard, I think the criticism of the way the action scenes are shot/edited is more than fair... other than that though, I think he is totally off base.
I think it is funny to read Ebert's review of Casino Royale and then contrast what he said there with his review of QoS.
Well, I'm about to go see it, and I'd definitely prefer to see what Roger Ebert describes over the goofy Roger Moore days he seems to pine for.
(Gee, blogger is letting me post today.)
I absolutely agree. I read Ebert's review a little before clicking on your blog, and reacted exactly as you did.
The statement "James Bond is not an action hero!" is insane. The Bond films INVENTED the modern action movie. Even all those wretched Roger Moore films were jam-packed with action. Bond is nothing if not an action hero. Ebert shows no sign of ever having read any of the books, or to realize how the quips and the silliness grated on those of us who had read Fleming all these years. He seems upset that Daniel Craig isn't playing Austin Powers.
I like Ebert. I have a lot of his books, some of them signed. He has one of mine. I've met him a few times, but every once in a while, he does miss the point of a film altogether. Check out his review of the hilarious comedy DIE MOMMY DIE, in which the fact that the leading lady is famous drag queen Charles Busch (Who also wrote the film and the play on which it is based. I saw Busch play it on stage. One of the most brilliant and powerful comic performacnes I have ever seen. Busch is a master of nuance!) completely throws Ebert. It's not a homophobic reaction. He just can't seem to wrap his brain around how to react to the fact that the female lead is always, clearly, a man. Why not? I never had a problem watching PSYCHO despite knowing that Anthony Perkins has never killed anyone. Was he unable to enjoy THE YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY because Linda Hunt hasn't got a dick? Was VICTOR/VICTORIA terrible because it is impossible for one second to believe ANYONE could believe Julie Andrews is a man?
For all I know, QUANTUM OF SOLACE may well be a poorly-plotted, mess of a film. The reviews all suggest such, but Ebert's POV in his review is idiotic.
Take a look at his original review of THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RINGS, where he complains that Jackson should not have turned LORD OF THE RINGS "into an action movie."
Ebert is also very clear that he has not read the Harry Potter books, so he can judge the films as they come as flims. Fine. Valid approach, but watching, in his reviews, how he charts what he thinks is the ultimate romantic match-up arc of Herry and Hermione is making him look hilariously off-target to the MILLIONS of people who know she will become Harry's sister-in-law.
I can't believe I misspelled my own name!
Bubs: I didn't realize quite how badly the Bond series really needed to get out from under the weight of those things until I saw Die Another Day. I didn't even want to see Casino Royale because Die Another Day was so unbelievably stupid. Now I almost feel like I don't need any other Bond film.
Sunandheir: I watched Casino Royale again last night and was actually more impressed this time. The movie keeps getting better. I want more of that, not back to Moore riding a horse with the Marlboro Man.
Megan: He is hot!
MC: Yeah, I can't say anything about the parts where he actually reviewed the movie and not his expectations. And the contrast is fascinating. Sometimes I'm not sure he knows what he wants.
Penh: Me too!
Douglas: The second I saw "James Bond is not an action hero!" I thought, oh, god, here we go. Sometimes I think he just pulls criteria for liking something out of thin air. I'd forgotten about his review of FELLOWSHIP; that was another disappointing moment. And I can't even read his reviews of Harry Potter movies anymore.
He too often expresses a desire to pigeonhole something, and sometimes to ridicule something that won't be pigeonholed.
I don't agree with your political views - but your comment on the new James Bond film was spot on. I thought the JB film had jumped the shark the moment his sports car was being chased by a outer space solar gun beam operated by North Koreans.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to qualify that, but okay.
Post a Comment