155 replies to this topic

[secret_007]

I have suspicion on that guy that he working for EON. Anyone else have suspicion on him that he works for EON? Bond is turning into a soap opera. 45 mins in a casino playing poker. What kind of film is this. Thats going to bore us all to death watching bond 45 mins playing poker.

[Cody]

An adaptation of Casino Royale has to have a lot of card playing.

How poker sequences = a soap opera is where I'm confused.

[DavidSomerset]

An adaptation of Casino Royale has to have a lot of card playing.

Yes, poker has to be there but 45 minutes will be really pushing it to the limit. Unless they have scenes of scantily clad women after every minute or it is strip poker

Edited by DavidSomerset, 03 October 2006 - 05:13 AM.

[Jim]

The first of many yet to come.

[Qwerty]

Sounds fantastic to me.

[RazorBlade]

I have said that I respect all the Bond actors from years past. But I havn't sparked to anyone like Connery. I guess because the others were actors but Connery was a movie star. I must say that I am looking forward to this film and think DC will make the best Bond since Connery.

[Dunph]

Call me cynical, but I smell a studio plant.

[K1Bond007]

Call me cynical, but I smell a studio plant.

Which confuses me as to whether I should be more upset. Seriously. Worst spelling and grammar I've seen in a while. What does that mean if this is a plant? The Internet really makes me sad sometimes - for humanity. There is no emoticon to display my sorrow.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

Call me cynical, but I smell a studio plant.

If he's not legit, then that's the only explantion I can see. It strange cause it jives with I know of the film yet there are some things he said that I haven't seen or heard of so either he's legit, a good guesser or a "plant". In a way even if he's a plant, if he's telling the turth about some scenes, I'll be happy!

[EyesOnly]

I think there are some demeaning comments in here to be considered a "plant." .... The dig at BB killing off the old bond or whatever it was, and the comment about not being able to watch the past Bond films due to the uniqueness of CR. I can't believe a "plant" would write that even if it is meant to sound like a fan or whomever writing about his screening. I believe this is a legit person giving his opinion and how good a review it is. But i've been wrong before!

Edited by EyesOnly, 03 October 2006 - 07:23 AM.

[stamper]

I have suspicion on that guy that he working for EON. Anyone else have suspicion on him that he works for EON? Bond is turning into a soap opera. 45 mins in a casino playing poker. What kind of film is this. Thats going to bore us all to death watching bond 45 mins playing poker.

he didn't say it was 45mn, he said it felt like 45mn.

The fact that the audience gave a standing ovation at the final line, as will audience all over the world soon, should give you hint it's a straight on review. Fakes aren't that emotional, and are more criticism oriented.

PS : Craig not Bond and anti Craig Bond fans will look dumb next month, and for years to come.

[DavidSomerset]

Anyone remember Superman Returns? When it was going to be released, a lot of positive reviews and people thought that this was going to be the best Superhero movie ever. Atleast that is what most of the reviews were pointing to. Then the movie came out and still people prefer the Donner versions.

Lets not get too much carried away by the Sony/EON Hype and let's just wait till 11/17 to see Daniel Craig as James Bond. Doesnt matter if we read a good review like this one(or a plant) or a stinker which says that Daniel messes it up.

As Bond Fans surely we will find reams of good things to write about CR after we see it. I dont think there is a Bond fan alive who cares for the reviews, anyway. Reveiws are for the general public. I will watch a Bond movie titled "Watching paint dry" too.

As for my opinion, well I am sure Daniel will rock but I have my doubts about Michael Campbell who has metamorphosed into a hack nowadays. As if it matter

Edited by DavidSomerset, 03 October 2006 - 07:36 AM.

[marktmurphy]

Sounds like the titles still have the 'Bond's progress' angle as well as the playing card theme. Sounds good.

[Harmsway]

Anyone remember Superman Returns? When it was going to be released, a lot of positive reviews and people thought that this was going to be the best Superhero movie ever. Atleast that is what most of the reviews were pointing to. Then the movie came out and still people prefer the Donner versions.

Not true. The advance word was pretty good, but it wasn't amazing, and the controversy over that film in advance months was pretty vehement. A lot of people were entirely unimpressed with everything that came out - I always predicted it would turn in disappointing box office, even months and months before release.

[MarcAngeDraco]

I think there are some demeaning comments in here to be considered a "plant." .... The dig at BB killing off the old bond or whatever it was, and the comment about not being able to watch the past Bond films due to the uniqueness of CR. I can't believe a "plant" would write that even if it is meant to sound like a fan or whomever writing about his screening. I believe this is a legit person giving his opinion and how good a review it is. But i've been wrong before!

I agree with your logic on this one...

[stromberg]

Call me cynical, but I smell a studio plant.

I don't know what gave me this feeling, but that was exactly what I was thinking after the first reading.
The Dunph hits it on the head once again.

A final cut review? They have a final cut ready 45 days before the movie opens???

[DavidSomerset]

Anyone remember Superman Returns? When it was going to be released, a lot of positive reviews and people thought that this was going to be the best Superhero movie ever. Atleast that is what most of the reviews were pointing to. Then the movie came out and still people prefer the Donner versions.

Not true. The advance word was pretty good, but it wasn't amazing, and the controversy over that film in advance months was pretty vehement. A lot of people were entirely unimpressed with everything that came out - I always predicted it would turn in disappointing box office, even months and months before release.

Rotten Tomatoes has a 76 % fresh rating for SR. Reviews Counted: 229
Fresh: 174 Rotten: 55. That is one of the freshest reviews they have for this year (big budget movie). Empire gave it a 5 star rating. We had the usual stuff of "I cried during the movie, standing ovation" kind of stuff too in fan websites.

" The best Hollywood movies always knew how to sneak a beguiling subtext into a crowd-pleasing story. Superman Returns is in that grand tradition. That's why it's beyond Super. It's superb." - TIME

"Next to Singer's champagne, most recent superhero adventure movies are barely sparkling cider." - NEWSWEEK.

The above magazine are not your "plant" kind of website reviews.

Only Ebert (who is almost always spot on) had the odd voice out:
"This is a glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating." Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times


As for "A lot of people were entirely unimpressed with everything that came out - I always predicted it would turn in disappointing box office", arent people saying the same thing for CR?

My point is that big budget movies always have hype - paid or fanboy. So we should always try to temper our expectations otherwise in most cases the hype doesnt deliver.

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, concerning Ebert and Superman Returns - Ebert very often dislikes Superhero films. And personally, I disagree - I loved "Superman returns". Yet, I can see why people remained distanced (the long downbeat ending, the focus on the love story and the troubled side of Superman, the cold-hearted, mean-spirited Luthor instead of the funny one in the early films).

Getting back to our subject of this test review. Yes, it is a bit plant-like. On the other hand, it is very enthusiastic. And it seems as if the superb script was done justice.

I also agree that CR will restart the Bond series and walk a different path. But it won

[DavidSomerset]

Yes, even I liked SR but didnt think that it was a "great" film as all the reviews were going ga ga about. Spidey 1+2 and Batman Begins were much better than this. The chick flick side story sucked and Superman didnt go ballistic at any stage of the film. It was like something was restraining his immense power. That is one thing I am sure will not happen with CR. I am sure Craig will go ballistic in the movie. Just I hope that the Bond Vesper romance doesnt go down the chick flick route. Otherwise it will be like Anakin Padme and will suck.
BTW Ebert loved both Spidey flicks. Roger Ebert writes in the Chicago Sun-Times: Spider-Man 2 is the best superhero movie since the modern genre was launched with Superman.

[Vilain]

A final cut review? They have a final cut ready 45 days before the movie opens???

Think about it though, its really not that long. They have to get that finished product to a lot of theaters around the world in plenty of time before it is officially released.

Edited by Vilain, 04 October 2006 - 02:08 AM.

[Simon]

Sounds good enough to me.

No one is confident of 'believing' any more.

[SecretAgentFan]

Yes, even I liked SR but didnt think that it was a "great" film as all the reviews were going ga ga about. Spidey 1+2 and Batman Begins were much better than this. The chick flick side story sucked and Superman didnt go ballistic at any stage of the film. It was like something was restraining his immense power. That is one thing I am sure will not happen with CR. I am sure Craig will go ballistic in the movie. Just I hope that the Bond Vesper romance doesnt go down the chick flick route. Otherwise it will be like Anakin Padme and will suck.
BTW Ebert loved both Spidey flicks. Roger Ebert writes in the Chicago Sun-Times: Spider-Man 2 is the best superhero movie since the modern genre was launched with Superman.

You

[DavidSomerset]

[quote name='SecretAgentFan' post='619573' date='3 October 2006 - 19:20']
[quote name='DavidSomerset' post='619566' date='3 October 2006 - 10:37']
Yes, even I liked SR but didnt think that it was a "great" film as all the reviews were going ga ga about. Spidey 1+2 and Batman Begins were much better than this. The chick flick side story sucked and Superman didnt go ballistic at any stage of the film. It was like something was restraining his immense power. That is one thing I am sure will not happen with CR. I am sure Craig will go ballistic in the movie. Just I hope that the Bond Vesper romance doesnt go down the chick flick route. Otherwise it will be like Anakin Padme and will suck.
BTW Ebert loved both Spidey flicks. Roger Ebert writes in the Chicago Sun-Times: Spider-Man 2 is the best superhero movie since the modern genre was launched with Superman.
[/quote]

You

[Harmsway]

[quote name='DavidSomerset' post='619575' date='3 October 2006 - 06:41']
[quote name='SecretAgentFan' post='619573' date='3 October 2006 - 19:20']
You

[jaguar007]

Anyone remember Superman Returns? When it was going to be released, a lot of positive reviews and people thought that this was going to be the best Superhero movie ever. Atleast that is what most of the reviews were pointing to. Then the movie came out and still people prefer the Donner versions.

Not true. The advance word was pretty good, but it wasn't amazing, and the controversy over that film in advance months was pretty vehement. A lot of people were entirely unimpressed with everything that came out - I always predicted it would turn in disappointing box office, even months and months before release.

Didn't Superman Returns make almost $200million Domestically and about $390million worldwide. I would hardly call that a box office dud. Sure, it cost something like $200million to make, but if CR makes $200million domestically, it will be considered a giantic hit!

[DamnCoffee]

reading the review i'm more exited about CR now than ever This will be the Best Bond Movie Ever

[Roebuck]

Didn't Superman Returns make almost $200million Domestically and about $390million worldwide. I would hardly call that a box office dud. Sure, it cost something like $200million to make...

$270 million production costs, plus whatever the advertising budget was.
Also keep in mind that the film was in development for around ten years. A lot of cash haemorrhaged out to directors, actors, writers etc. in that time.

[JCRendle]

Question: Why when a good review comes out does everyone yell "PLANT!!", can't people take the fact that someone really saw an advanced screening (it does happen with alot of films) and that that lucky SOAB actually liked the film?

[Bon-san]

Question: Why when a good review comes out does everyone yell "PLANT!!", can't people take the fact that someone really saw an advanced screening (it does happen with alot of films) and that that lucky SOAB actually liked the film?

There's no news, like bad news.

[JCRendle]

So any good news about CR is false and really a plant, and only bad news is true, so CNB is a better source of factual CN news than CBN because CBN has both good and bad news??