1995: Gene Siskel really did not like GoldenEye

GoldenEye’s poster

Here in the United States, film critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert enjoyed a long run on television reviewing movies. Both have long since passed, but for many their various shows remain memorable.

Thanks to THIS TWEET, the blog discovered a YouTube video of their 1995 review of GoldenEye, Pierce Brosnan’s debut as James Bond.

Ebert, then the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times, gave it a passing grade. But Siskel, the then film critic of the Chicago Tribune, had nothing good to say about the movie.

EBERT: I enjoy GoldenEye for what it was, though, and I give it thumbs up.

SISKEL: That thumbs-up comes as a surprise because I didn’t get a sense at all you enjoyed the picture. I certainly didn’t.

EBERT: I’m sorry. (NOTE: He sounded a little sarcastic there.)

(snip)

SISKEL: I think he (Pierce Bronsan) isn’t an interesting Bond. I like (Sean) Connery and everybody else has been nothing compared to Connery. Frankly, Roger Moore has a more commanding physical performance than this guy. I thought this was an average picture….I can’t recommend this picture at all.

A bit of perspective: Siskel panned every James Bond film between Thunderball (1965) and For You Eyes Only (1981).

Anyway, if you’d like to take a look at the review, here it is:

UPDATE (2:15 p.m. New York time): In 1983, Siskel and Ebert took a look back at the first 21 years of James Bond films. CLICK HERE to view the episode. You see some promos at the start before the episode proper begins.

1980: Mike Royko ‘chats’ with James Bond

Mike Royko (1932-1997), legendary Chicago newspaper man

Mike Royko, a columnist for three different Chicago newspapers, was a legend in the city. He was known for hard-hitting stories about Chicago politics and the like.

However, when you’re a columnist, you’ve got deadlines to meet regardless of the flow of the news. As a result, sometimes Royko turned to whimsy. Sometimes, it came in the form of making fun of neighboring states such as Indiana and Iowa.

Or, in the case of a 1980 column for the Chicago Sun-Times, it would come in the form of a “conversation” with the literary James Bond.

The Sun-Times, Royko’s professional home from 1978 to 1984, this week dusted that story off and posted it anew. The inspiration was the announcement that a new series of James Bond continuation novels by John Gardner had been commissioned.

Royko clearly had read Ian Fleming’s original novels. He knew, for example, Fleming’s original martini recipe in detail. And he was aware of Bond’s dietary habits.

However, the gist of the column was 007 must be getting along in years.

After offering Bond a martini or a double bourbon, Bond begs off. He first asks for white wine or just Perrier.

“I’ll be truthful: Do you remember all those people I killed? Do you know why I killed them?”

“Of course I do. You were Agent 007. The 00 designation gave you license to kill.”

“Actually, that’s not entirely true. The reason I killed them was that I was loaded to the gills most of the time. Bourbon before lunch, crazy martinis before dinner. Champagne. Then cognac after dinner. By the time I got around to my job, everybody I met looked like a Russian spy to me. I think the last five people I shot were all innocent bystanders.”

To read the column, CLICK HERE. h/t to .@bondmemes on Twitter.

SPECTRE: Here come the North American reviews

SPECTRE promotional art

After press showings over the past several days, North American film critics are weighing in on SPECTRE.

The 24th James Bond film, as of Tuesday afternoon, has a 65 PERCENT “FRESH” RATING on the Rotten Tomatoes website. Reviews of this side of the Atlantic Ocean are mixed, with some writers lavishing praise and others not being impressed.

What follows are excerpts. We’re keeping out plot points but the usual warning applies: Viewers who are spoiler squeamish should probably avoid until they’ve seen the movie.

RICHARD ROEPER, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES: “This is the 24th Bond film and it ranks solidly in the middle of the all-time rankings, which means it’s still a slick, beautifully photographed, action-packed, international thriller with a number of wonderfully, ludicrously entertaining set pieces, a sprinkling of dry wit, myriad gorgeous women and a classic psycho-villain who is clearly out of his mind but seems to like it that way.

“(Daniel) Craig is on point as Bond. He’s maybe the least refined version of 007, seemingly more comfortable when his suit is covered with soot and dried blood, relishing hand-to-hand combat, kissing women with almost violent passion. Even when he’s wearing a white dinner jacket, it’s as if he’s hoping a thug will barge in and grab him by the throat, just to jump start the night.”

BRUCE KIRKLAND, TORONTO SUN: “Spectre is spectacular. If this new James Bond thriller really is the exclamation mark on the Daniel Craig era as 007, he goes out with an adrenaline rush of action, insight, drama, pathos, brutality, humility, humanity and even the occasional whisper of mischievous comedy.

“The beauty of this Bond movie — which instantly leaps into my Top 10 of all time, and will probably make it into the top three when I digest its true impact — is that it does all the Bondian things we expect so extremely well.”

SCOTT MENDELSON, FORBES.COM: “Poorly mixing nostalgia and newfangled “it’s all connected!” franchise world-building, the stitched-together Spectre will bore the living daylights out of you while threatening to render James Bond a culturally irrelevant relic of the past.

“Spectre qualifies as a textbook example of “Be careful what you wish for!” For those longtime fans who have wanted to see something of a return to the broader and campier films that defined the Roger Moore era of the 007 franchise or those who wished to see the 007 franchise adapt to the new world of explicitly continuity-driven franchise filmmaking, well, you got what you wanted. ”

STEPHEN WHITTY, NEWARK STAR-LEDGER: “So what’s left for Bond?

“Well, judging by ‘Spectre,’ to get back to a few basics, and indulge in a fun bit of nostalgia. It’s not the best Bond you’ve ever seen, but on a scale of 1 to 10, it’s a solid 008.

“Although it includes fistfights, gun battles and chases by foot, car, plane and helicopter, there’s nothing flagrantly unbelievable here. The jokiness is toned down, and the grown-up elegance – mostly courtesy of a guest appearance by Monica Bellucci – is heightened.”

STEPHANIE ZACHAREK, VILLAGE VOICE: (I)n the end, Spectre is just too much of a good thing. Though each scene is carefully wrought, there’s little grace, majesty, or romance in the way the pieces are connected. The whole is bumpy and inelegant — entertaining for sure, but hard to love. It’s easy to see how all this aggressive splendor could fall flat: Both Mendes and Craig have said in interviews that they were nervous about being able to top the over-the-topness of 2012’s rich, resonant Skyfall.”

MICHAEL PHILLIPS, CHICAGO TRIBUNE: “‘Spectre’ cost nearly $300 million to make, and I suppose it was worth it. It’s a good Bond movie, which will be good enough for many millions of fans. It’s also the longest Bond movie in existence, clocking in at just under 2 1/2 decadent, carefree, flamboyantly destructive hours.

“Of the Daniel Craig 007s, director Sam Mendes’ follow-up to ‘Skyfall’ is not quite up to ‘Skyfall’ or my favorite, ‘Casino Royale.’ But it’s a considerably better evil-quelling instruction manual than ‘Quantum of Solace,’ a movie Craig himself admitted went before the cameras in rough shape, racing against time and the most frightening of cinematic adversaries: a writers strike.”

(UPDATE): PETE HAMMOND, DEADLINE: HOLLYWOOD: “Spectre is no Skyfall, but it will have to do. At a cost of about $250 million and at nearly two and a half hours, this outing does feel a little tired. But maybe that really doesn’t matter a whole lot because for Bond fans we just can’t wait for these movies, and this one is definitely stylish and intense enough to deliver all the required action — and then some. I just wish Craig’s Bond had more of the wit of past Bonds and a little more of the sophistication.”

Roger Ebert’s last 007 film review

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert, the Pulitzer Prize-winning movie critic, died on April 4 at the age of 70. Many publications and Web sites published obituaries about his life and his commentaries about movies.

His final review for a 007 film was, naturally, 2012’s Skyfall. You can read the entire piece BY CLICKING HERE. Here’s an excerpt:

In this 50th year of the James Bond series, with the disappointing “Quantum of Solace” (2008) still in our minds, “Skyfall” triumphantly reinvents 007 in one of the best Bonds ever made. This is a full-blooded, joyous, intelligent celebration of a beloved cultural icon, with Daniel Craig taking full possession of a role he earlier played well in “Casino Royale,” not so well in “Quantum”–although it may not have been entirely his fault. I don’t know what I expected in Bond #23, but certainly not an experience this invigorating.

(snip)

M is not quite ready to retire, and “Skyfall” at last provides a role worthy of Judi Dench, one of the best actors of her generation. She is all but the co-star of the film, with a lot of screen time, poignant dialogue, and a character who is far more complex and sympathetic than we expect in this series.

(snip again)

During the early Bonds, did we ever ask ourselves about 007’s origins in life? The movie even produces a moment designed to inspire love in lifetime Bond fans: A reappearance of the Aston Martin DB5 from “Goldfinger,” which remains in good operating condition, if you can guess what I mean.

Ebert had been the film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times since 1967 and a lover of movies long before that. For years, he and his rival critic, the Chicago Tribune’s Gene Siskel, had hosted television shows devoted to movies.

Here’s the opening the Siskel-Ebert At the Movies programs in 1983, 30 years ago, devoted to 007:

Siskel died in 1999 and Ebert penned A TRIBUTE to his long-running adversary in 2009. They may not have been exactly friends but nor were they enemies. Their “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” verdicts on films were the dreams of the marketing departments of film studios. You can read the Sun-Times’s obituary of its long-time film critic by CLICKING HERE.

The balcony is now closed. It’s two thumbs down because we’re not likely to see the likes of either critic again.

Roger Moore interviewed by Jeff Westhoff

Northwest Herald film critic and HMSS friend Jeffrey Westhoff had the excellent opportunity to interview Roger Moore. The interview is on the Web site of the CHICAGO SUN-TIMES.

An excerpt:

Speaking by phone from the St. Regis Hotel in New York (where Bond stayed in the novel “Live and Let Die”), Moore said the publisher of his autobiography, “My Word Is my Bond,” approached him about writing another book focusing on 007 to coincide with the 50th anniversary hoopla. “They thought it might be a good time to bring out a book about my opinion of Bond,” Moore said.

He writes his opinions in a tongue-in-cheek style that reflects his portrayal of Bond. Moore frequently refers to Bond as “Jim” or “Jimmy,” and he doesn’t worry if this will further infuriate Sean Connery purists who complain Moore never took the character seriously. “That’s the way I played it,” he said. “That was my reaction to the character I was expected to play. He wasn’t a real spy. The idea that he’s known by every barman in the world, that he has a taste for martinis shaken not stirred.”

(snip)
In the new book, Moore remarks that recent Bond theme songs have been forgettable. He said Adele’s “Skyfall” theme breaks that trend. “The song is absolutely marvelous. It has the complete John Barry flavor. Unmistakably a Bond song.”

Moore attended a private screening of the new film several weeks ago “when [the print] was literally still wet.” He was “absolutely knocked out by it.” He praised Sam Mendes’ direction and was impressed with the way “Skyfall” presents a new side to 007.

“Bond shows a lot of vulnerability in it, but also that he’s a hard nut,” Moore said. “And I don’t think anybody can do that better than Daniel Craig.”

You can read more of Westhoff’s interview by BY CLICKING HERE.  

Well done, sir.