It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Much like the Ebert quote, I've seen historical epics over three hours long that genuinely felt like a short film due to how engaged I was and I've sat through 90 minute films that seemed as if they'd never end.
Correct. Four hours of Snyder's cut of the JL flew by versus the 89 minutes of the absolutely terrible rom-com Isn't It Romantic.
He was still better on average than Gene Fanboy Siskel.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=siskel+and+ebert+james+bond
Siskel was a criminal. He leaked Betsy Palmer's address on TV while encouraging people to bother her with angry responses over her involvement with Friday The 13th.
Both were pussies who, like that old hag Mary Whitehouse in the UK, were so appalled by the violence and aggression in certain films that they wanted everyone else to hate those films too. I'm not a big fan.
Siskel always did happy a funny way of thinking. Who doesn’t like Mark Hamill as The Joker?
Jesus I never knew that about Siskel. Never really bothered with him, and always preferred Ebert, but that’s quite revealing.
In regards to Bond, Siskel always felt every Bond actor who wasn't Connery was nothing compared to him. I never really got a sense of what he wanted in a Bond actor. When Dalton was Bond, he suggested Brosnan would be a good Bond. Then, when Brosnan became Bond, he disliked his performance.
Watching Siskel and Ebert, I've also entertained the thought that critics who watch every single movie on wide release are bound to enjoy certain films --particularly commercial ones-- much less than the average moviegoer, because they can more easily detect similarities and repetition between these films. A moviegoer doesn't necessarily watch every film in any given year, and so has less of a chance to become jaded. Hell, not even the filmmakers themselves might be aware of that repetition.
I still enjoy watching their reviews though. It's fun to see two people so passionate about movies discussing them.
That’s another thing that annoys me about how Siskel was when it came to reviewing Bond. His constant need to compare every Bond to Connery I feel severely clouded his judgement on some of the films, and tbh, plays a large part in why I never respected him as a film critic.
As for the Connery thing, yes, it bothers me too that nobody was ever good enough to replace Connery for old Gene. Look, even Connery wasn't good enough to replace Connery. He was sleepwalking through YOLT and phoning it in for DAF. The Connery flame died during the filming of TB. Connery was divine in FRWL. Awesome Connery remains the best Bond ever. The problem is that Connery wasn't always awesome. Craig was consistently great, IMO. Never quite as good as Connery in '63, but better on average.
That’s the sad truth unfortunately. I’d also add that Dalton and Brosnan were consistently great in the role despite the scripts the latter was given. Even Roger Moore had managed to stay consistent with the role from TSWLM to AVTAK. To see Connery “sleep walking” his way through both YOLT and DAF is really unfortunate. On the other hand, this is one of the reasons I love Lazenby so much. Being sandwiched in between two of Connery’s weakest performances as Bond makes me appreciate the youthful energy Lazenby brought with him.
You raise a good point. Cinematic Batman has been going for longer running times for some time. I remember when 2hr 20min felt like a longer than usual length for a film of that type when Batman Begins came out!
For some reason, TDKR doesn't feel like 2hr 45min to me. I suppose they just had a lot to wrap up from the trilogy in that film and did it well.
BvS, on the other hand, is a different matter for me. I do actually really like the film in both its versions and as with many others prefer the extended cut for the scenes that are added back in. However, as with the extended cuts of LOTR, the scenes that are added back in throw off the pacing of the film, IMO, and cause it to feel structurally clunky. I'll still watch the extended cut over the theatrical any day, but the theatrical version feels more properly paced to me.
What Ebert says is certainly right though. As long as it all works it shouldn't really matter if it's a 3hr-long Batman film.
I did also enjoy Snyder's Justice League, but I watched it over multiple nights and the way it was broken up into chapters made it feel more like a miniseries to me rather than a standard film.
Kidding aside, it really is all about the pacing, how well the story is told, and if the story is even remotely interesting. Some longer films breeze by, whereas as others just drag.
Not at all.
Jeffrey Wright is a bloody good actor.
He’s played Felix Leiter in the Bond series, Bernard in Westworld, appeared in many critically acclaimed movies. And November appears as CommissionerGordon in Batman.
Just another reason to look forward to this film. ;)
I hope we see more comic book villains.
Yep.
Good news. Loved that film.
Here is the clip in 4K:
I had no idea Rupert Penry-Jones is in it though! How odd! :D
I had no idea he was in it until I saw the thumbnail. I'm (somehow) even more excited for this now.