45 replies to this topic

[Mr_Wint]

Not sure if this review has been posted here yet (couldn't find it).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381061/

I'm just curious to see if the script readers can find any errors (for instance, is there only 10 min of origin story?). Is this review genuine or false?

[JCRendle]

She's used the name other "advanced preview" watchers used, Alcazar, but I don't see anything that couldn't be learnt from watching forums etc.

Could be real, could be fake - cant help.

[CM007]

I would say it

[Jackanaples]

I wouldn't worry too much about that review being genuine. It's in such marked contrast to the couple of reviews we know to be genuine, that it seems much more likely to be written by someone who's seen the movie but lacks any critical faculties to speak of; or by someone who hasn't seen the movie but has an ax to grind.

One funny thing is how almost no one is taking the review seriously. "1 out of 19 found this review helpful" at last count.

[quote name='CM007' post='630954' date='22 October 2006 - 05:41']
I would say it

[CM007]

[quote name='Jackanaples' post='630955' date='22 October 2006 - 12:48']
I wouldn't worry too much about that review being genuine. It's in such marked contrast to the couple of reviews we know to be genuine, that it seems much more likely to be written by someone who's seen the movie but lacks any critical faculties to speak of; or by someone who hasn't seen the movie but has an ax to grind.

One funny thing is how almost no one is taking the review seriously. "1 out of 19 found this review helpful" at last count.

[quote name='CM007' post='630954' date='22 October 2006 - 05:41']
I would say it

[marktmurphy]

Believable. Not every film works for everybody.
I can certainly believe the bit about the origin story being slightly wasted- I'm getting that feeling at the moment.

[Orion]

it was bound to get a negative review sooner or later, every film does. The fact that its not an origin story like Batman Begins is good, because the novel's not like that.

[Loomis]

I reckon this is real. No proof, of course, but it certainly strikes me as a honest response to a film that the reviewer has indeed seen.... and I think a lot of people will have the same reactions to CR (of course, many won't).

BTW, I consider myself very much in the pro-Craig camp, but I'm definitely not falling over myself to brand this a fake review, 'cause I don't think it is one.

[Fro]

This seems totally bogus based on everything we know about the film. Sounds like it was written by some craignotbonder.

There's so many minor errors in this review that make it not credible. Not enough time for Bond and Vesper's relationship to develop? No heat between Green and Craig? The first two kills are nowhere near 15 minutes of the film. This person says the suicide bomber is the Miami sequence (WRONG). No mention of the other major setpieces (most other review have raved about the Aston Martin chase). Bland cast? No mention of Felix Leiter or Mathis? No mention of the twist? The film doesn't have a "dramatic" conclusion?

And why is this review this person's FIRST EVER on IMDB? This person just registered their account last night!

Edited by Fro, 22 October 2006 - 02:16 PM.

[CM007]

This seems totally bogus based on everything we know about the film. Sounds like it was written by some craignotbonder.

There's so many minor errors in this review that make it not credible. Not enough time for Bond and Vesper's relationship to develop? No heat between Green and Craig? The first two kills are nowhere near 15 minutes of the film. This person says the suicide bomber is the Miami sequence (WRONG). No mention of the other major setpieces (most other review have raved about the Aston Martin chase). Bland cast? No mention of Felix Leiter or Mathis? No mention of the twist? The film doesn't have a "dramatic" conclusion?

And why is this review this person's FIRST EVER on IMDB? This person just registered their account last night!

So do you think the other reviews from the Sun and Aicc are genuine or are just finding it difficult understanding that someone may not like the film....

[Fro]

This seems totally bogus based on everything we know about the film. Sounds like it was written by some craignotbonder.

There's so many minor errors in this review that make it not credible. Not enough time for Bond and Vesper's relationship to develop? No heat between Green and Craig? The first two kills are nowhere near 15 minutes of the film. This person says the suicide bomber is the Miami sequence (WRONG). No mention of the other major setpieces (most other review have raved about the Aston Martin chase). Bland cast? No mention of Felix Leiter or Mathis? No mention of the twist? The film doesn't have a "dramatic" conclusion?

And why is this review this person's FIRST EVER on IMDB? This person just registered their account last night!

So do you think the other reviews from the Sun and Aicc are genuine or are just finding it difficult understanding that someone may not like the film....

You do realize that Galadriel is another known handle of bond_fan/netgeek, right?

And that bondfan has been the one spreading this review around on both IMDB and mi6?

Edited by Fro, 22 October 2006 - 02:29 PM.

[Orion]

Until the film is released i'm taking every review with a degree of sceptisim.

[tonymascia1]

ANY buzz at this point, good or bad, credible or not credible, will help pique viewer curiosity.

I doubt box office returns hinge on "Alcazar" one way or the other...

[Mr_Wint]

You do realize that Galadriel is another known handle of bond_fan/netgeek, right?

Can you prove it? Show me his/her posts were the name "Galadriel" is used.

[Jackanaples]

See, I thought it was false immediately because the entire thing reads like a laundry list of all the negatives that CnB'ers have been braying unceasingly for months. There's nothing in her review that I couldn't have read in a thread here five months ago.

She calls the cast bland. THIS cast? It has to be one of the strongest most distinctive casts ever assembled for a Bond film. I doubt if either Giancarlo Gianini and Jeffrey Wright have ever turned in a "bland" performance between them for example.

"The action, though spectacular, seldom advances the story. Then again, there really isn't much story. Those who are expecting a world domination scheme by the villain will be disappointed. To be fair, a low-key caper is a nice change; but, in structure, Casino Royale doesn't move towards a dramatic conclusion." This again is counter to everything I've heard about the script. And who was expecting (or even wanting) a world domination plot? Isn't almost everyone sick to death of that cliche by now?

Even aspects of the film that were clear strengths in the script over previous entries in the series (the role of Vesper, the love story, etc.) get slated. Galadrial leaves no turn unstoned as Diana Rigg might have said.

Then there's this: "Even Judi Dench, who reprises her role as M, seems to have lost her magic. If anything, her involvement contributes to the structural problems. Is she the same M from the last couple of Bond films?"

I've shown the trailer to a couple dozen people, and talked to at least a couple dozen more who've seen it. Not one person has ever been confused by the idea of CASINO ROYALE being a 21st century reboot with Judi Dench retaining the role of James Bond's superior. No, you actually have to go online to a James Bond messageboard to find someone that stupid.

[CM007]

This seems totally bogus based on everything we know about the film. Sounds like it was written by some craignotbonder.

There's so many minor errors in this review that make it not credible. Not enough time for Bond and Vesper's relationship to develop? No heat between Green and Craig? The first two kills are nowhere near 15 minutes of the film. This person says the suicide bomber is the Miami sequence (WRONG). No mention of the other major setpieces (most other review have raved about the Aston Martin chase). Bland cast? No mention of Felix Leiter or Mathis? No mention of the twist? The film doesn't have a "dramatic" conclusion?

And why is this review this person's FIRST EVER on IMDB? This person just registered their account last night!

So do you think the other reviews from the Sun and Aicc are genuine or are just finding it difficult understanding that someone may not like the film....

You do realize that Galadriel is another known handle of bond_fan/netgeek, right?

And that bondfan has been the one spreading this review around on both IMDB and mi6?

Yeah I have heard that but I don

Edited by CM007, 22 October 2006 - 02:57 PM.

[Skudor]

I dunno. It's impossible to say. I can't see anything new. The reviewer doesn't mention a single thing I haven't heard before - and certain aspects of the review remind me of the Sun review (not verbatim but in content). Of course, that doesn't mean it's not real. And I've always known that Craig would be very unlikely to be everyone's cup of tea as Bond.

Just show us the movie already - I'm fed up with all these reviews.

PS - I like Loomis's new sig.

[HildebrandRarity]

CM007, you seem to have quite a negative view of Casino Royale. Did the Brocollis or Daniel Craig do something bad to you in another life?

Why all the negativity? Just Curious.

Don't reveiwers from the legitimate media get to see the final cut only 2 - 3 weeks prior to release?

I'm waiting to see what the legitimate publications say...the ones with the reviewer's full/proper name attatched to the review.

You know, the first name, the last name, from a normal and proper publication?

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 22 October 2006 - 03:11 PM.

[CM007]

CM007, you seem to have quite a negative view of Casino Royale. Did the Brocollis or Daniel Craig do something bad to you in another life?

Why all the negativity? Just Curious.

Don't reveiwers from the legitimate media get to see the final cut only 2 - 3 weeks prior to release?

I'm waiting to see what the legitimate publications say...the ones with the reviewer's full/proper name attatched to the review.

You know, the first name, the last name, from a normal and proper publication?

In case you hadn

[HildebrandRarity]

[quote name='CM007' post='630997' date='22 October 2006 - 15:17']
[quote name='HildebrandRarity' post='630994' date='22 October 2006 - 15:06']
CM007, you seem to have quite a negative view of Casino Royale. Did the Brocollis or Daniel Craig do something bad to you in another life?

Why all the negativity? Just Curious.

Don't reveiwers from the legitimate media get to see the final cut only 2 - 3 weeks prior to release?

I'm waiting to see what the legitimate publications say...the ones with the reviewer's full/proper name attatched to the review.

You know, the first name, the last name, from a normal and proper publication?
[/quote]

In case you hadn

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 22 October 2006 - 03:54 PM.

[CM007]

[quote name='HildebrandRarity' post='631003' date='22 October 2006 - 15:49']
[quote name='CM007' post='630997' date='22 October 2006 - 15:17']
[quote name='HildebrandRarity' post='630994' date='22 October 2006 - 15:06']
CM007, you seem to have quite a negative view of Casino Royale. Did the Brocollis or Daniel Craig do something bad to you in another life?

Why all the negativity? Just Curious.

Don't reveiwers from the legitimate media get to see the final cut only 2 - 3 weeks prior to release?

I'm waiting to see what the legitimate publications say...the ones with the reviewer's full/proper name attatched to the review.

You know, the first name, the last name, from a normal and proper publication?
[/quote]

In case you hadn

[MaVeRiCk7]

It seems legit, but it seems amazingly negative. Its so different than the other reviews that you don't really know whether to take it seriously or not. IDK.

[jaguar007]

I don't think Criag will be able to win over all of the nay-sayers. Some people just want a BOnd who is light and humorous. If someone wants that as Bond, I can see how they think Criag may be a bit flat. In some peoples mind, if you don't wiggle your eyebrows as you talk, you are flat. 19 years ago, people who were used to Roger Moore as Bond thought Dalton was flat and without humor. Craig could face a similar situation. Personally, I really like Dalton and am very excited about Craig.

[HildebrandRarity]

Tarantino?

Where did that come from?

Beyond Borders? Vertical Limit? Legend Of Zorro?

Care about none of those movies...never saw them...plus I already metioned my reservation re Campbell...but that won't stop my enthusiasm for the first Bond flick in 4 years. The trailer looks amazing.

Meaney? Bana? WTF!

What are you saying?

For my money, Craig did a good enough job in those movies to convince me that he'd do a fine job as Bond. Plain and simple.

I feel my so-called 'faith' is well placed. You dont. Fine.

Lastly, back to the thread topic. The reviewer is lost in the early 60's. Yearning for Dr No and Goldfinger. Perhaps the reviewer prefers the slow paced yawner type movie...the kind that put you to sleep after 60 minutes. I want much more bang for my buck than that, im happy to say.

The reviewer seems like a 75 year old hung up on Connery.

Next.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 22 October 2006 - 04:23 PM.

[luciusgore]

It's fascinating that with the first negative reviews of CR, some are already discrediting it either as a fraud or not credible. Fans have to prepare themselves for the possibility that CR could in fact suck. From this review, to the recent Sun review, it looks like at best CR is going to be a decent Bond, probably better than the last three Brosnan entries, but not as good as Goldeneye. Certainly not as good as any of the Connery ones and probably not up to par with most of the Moore entries either.

[Orion]

It's fascinating that with the first negative reviews of CR, some are already discrediting it either as a fraud or not credible. Fans have to prepare themselves for the possibility that CR could in fact suck. From this review, to the recent Sun review, it looks like at best CR is going to be a decent Bond, probably better than the last three Brosnan entries, but not as good as Goldeneye. Certainly not as good as any of the Connery ones and probably not up to par with most of the Moore entries either.

To be honest its more fascinating that 1 review that sais Casino Royale is average means its a bad film despite every other review saying the films brilliant, and by the way the Suns only complaint about the film was its length! so how'd you get this "From this review, to the recent Sun review, it looks like at best CR is going to be a decent Bond, probably better than the last three Brosnan entries, but not as good as Goldeneye" what are you reading cause it doesn't seem to be what eveyone else is.

[Harmsway]

I think it's very possible it's real (there *will* be negative responses to CASINO ROYALE, as some have suggested), but honestly, there's no way to really know. I'm going to say it's real just out of benefit for the doubt.

That said, though, it does seem like a checklist of all of the anti-CASINO ROYALE arguments I've read by CASINO ROYALE detractors, and none of them had ever need to see the film to make those advance judgements. And with the malice out there about this film and Craig in particular, I think it's more than possible somebody would have just cobbled together a review of what they *think* the film will be.

Perhaps it seems so jarring and unbelievable because it's *so* negative. It's negative on pretty much every single aspect except action, and thus stands in stark contrast to all the word we've heard from people who have actually seen the film. However, we have to recognize that there are a number of people who will see the film and feel exactly that way about it - CASINO ROYALE and Daniel Craig is bound to divide the Bond fanbase for years to come.

Now as to ten minutes of "origin story" material, it depends what you mean by that. There are only about ten minutes before Bond is given his double-O license, so I suppose if you count that moment as Bond being Bond, then I think that's that for you. But the origin story material doesn't stop there - it's actually subtlely woven throughout the film, and while there's no BATMAN BEGINS-esque character study for Bond (and thank god for that), there's more than enough to qualify CASINO ROYALE as an origin film.

[MarcAngeDraco]

Take it for what it is... a user written review on IMDB... might be real, or might be fake... does it really matter?...

[triviachamp]

Just to let you know MooMoo has been linking to this review on other sites. I am pretty sure this a MooMoo creation.

[Jim]

Take it for what it is... a user written review on IMDB... might be real, or might be fake... does it really matter?...

About as much as any review here.

There's going to be weeks of this sort of stuff and a bit of perspective as to self-importance wouldn't go amiss, generally.

I suspect that the vast majority of people who will watch this film will not care either way about reviews carried on some websites.