45 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

I reported it as a fake.

[dinovelvet]

A negative review, boo-hoo. CR was inevitably going to get them. What, did some people think this was going to get 100% positive reviews?

I do think the MAJORITY of (professional) reviews will be positive about the film, but don't kid yourselves that it will be the critical smash of the year.

[triviachamp]

A negative review, boo-hoo. CR was inevitably going to get them. What, did some people think this was going to get 100% positive reviews?

I do think the MAJORITY of (professional) reviews will be positive about the film, but don't kid yourselves that it will be the critical smash of the year.

Yes I know this will get negative reviews and will not be the big critical hit of the year. However I highly doubt the authenticity of this negative review.

Remember him creating a fake insider on the imdb message boards a few years ago?:
http://debrief.comma...p...c=17744&hl=

Edited by triviachamp, 22 October 2006 - 08:33 PM.

[Bond#9-GeorgeKemp]

I liked that CnB rejoiced because it was an UNBIASED review! Wonder why they liked that...

I'm far too indecisive a person to say 'I can see where they're coming from...' or stick to my guns. Which I know is what I should do.

I want to look at all angles of this, still I havn't even seen the movie yet! (got my tickets booked for the 16th by the way, Southend Odeon, anyone else?) I think the time for worrying about the reviews has not yet come. In fact, I think It might be a bad thing to read them, it might influence what you think about the movie and make you focus on whatever point the reviewer makes, (which are usually bad, thats what reviewers do), rather than the movie.

I think what you could read about it could stay in the back of ones mind and during the movie you'll think, that was great, but I didn't like this like the imdb guy said...

Maybe that's just me!

Still it was interesting what he said about the camera work. (See this is what I mean! ) This has been far too long, sorry folks! That's my two cents.

[kneelbeforezod]

Seems like a reasonable review to me, but I really don't care until rottentomatoes.com has a decent selection of proper reviews.

I like how when there's a negative review, those who are pro-CR cry "its a fake! theres nothing here that couldnt be gleaned from other articles about CR!", and when there's a positive review, those who are anti-CR cry out exactly the same thing

Edited by kneelbeforezod, 22 October 2006 - 11:11 PM.

[db077]

I, for one, don't give a if it's real or not. I don't see movies based on reviews of someone else. I make up my own mind.
I just know I'm looking forward to November 17th and Bond and LeChiffre staring each other down across the poker table!

I'm in, baby!

[TheREAL008]

I'll be waiting for the Jason Bourne comparasons once the film is released. lol.

[Harmsway]

On re-reading it, I really do think the review's legit. I don't think I'll agree with a lot of what it has to say, but hey, who knows? Films garner lots of perspectives (just look at the recently-released THE PRESTIGE, which seems to be dividing people across the board).

I think this should serve as a reminder to all of us with ridiculously high expectations to lower them a bit - to remember that CASINO ROYALE, at the end of the day, will likely not be the perfect, greatest Bond film ever made. It *will* have flaws, like every entry in the series before it.

[dinovelvet]

On re-reading it, I really do think the review's legit. I don't think I'll agree with a lot of what it has to say, but hey, who knows? Films garner lots of perspectives (just look at the recently-released THE PRESTIGE, which seems to be dividing people across the board).

I think this should serve as a reminder to all of us with ridiculously high expectations to lower them a bit - to remember that CASINO ROYALE, at the end of the day, will likely not be the perfect, greatest Bond film ever made. It *will* have flaws, like every entry in the series before it.

Legit or not, there's clearly some hyperbole going on here -

"Has there ever been a weaker Bond villain than Le Chiffre? A less endearing Bond girl than Eva Greene's Vesper?"

Regardless if this person has seen the film or not, I think its pretty absurd to dismiss both of them as the WORST EVAR OMG!!!11!1 without reason, given the quality of these two actors AND the competition (weaker villain than Elliot Carver, Kristatos, Brad Whitaker, DAF Blofeld, Renard??), a less endearing Bond girl than Jinx, Stacey Sutton, Mary Goodnight, Paris Carver, et al?
I am already anticipating the byplay between Bond and Le Chiffre to be cool as , just from the brief snippets I've seen :

"-Welcome, Mr.Beech. Or is it Bond? I'm a little confused!
-Well, we wouldn't want that, would we?

and

-I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire."

Compare the imdb review with the AICN one, re: Le Chiffre -

"The main baddy in this flick is a guy called Le Chiffre. Played to absolute perfection by Mads Mikkleson...His exchanges with Bond/Craig are excellent"

So...now I'M a little confused. WORST VILLAIN EVAR or BEST VILLAIN EVAR?

[K1Bond007]

Sounds legit, but it also sounds like this person doesn't get the film and why Bond is the way he is and not more reminiscent of Pierce Brosnan. This is going to be the biggest complaint by most reviewers because they just plain don't understand. You're going to see a big divide in critical reviews between those that have read the book(s) and those that haven't and expect more of the same Bond from past films. The problem with that is most people haven't read the book. Then of course there will be those that have wanted the more serious film and those that disliked Brosnan (like a good portion of the Daltonites) that will probably equal it all out.

Of course this could all be fake too. As I've stated even about the positive reviews, I just don't trust people on the Internet. I'm cynical like that and with the CnB crew out there trying everything they can to bring Craig and the film down, I can't take this review seriously either. Not that it matters to me anyway. I don't give a what most of you guys or anyone else thinks about the film. The only person that matters for the first time around is me and I know where I'll be on November 17th to make up my own damn mind. I imagine as much as some of you want to hear the good or bad news, most of you agree with that last part.

[NATO Sub]

Since I haven't read the script, I read reviews to get plot titbits and I have to say that this review has nothing new. It would be kind of tough to write a review of a 2h:20m long film without revealing a single new fact that was not already in the public domain, espcially when there are only 2 or 3 other reviews of the finished product. So I would call this as a fake.

[stone cold]

that review is actually a fake. the dismal, unfunny, lonely alliance between CNB people ( lesser extent )/ and affiliated web pricks ( greater extent ) has been attempting a surge of late ( with CR getting great press, good buzz, cool marketing, and people wanting to see Craig etc..) . So basically they thought they'd try and fight back. its lame..and a lie. not only because they stopped test screening CR ages ago.. it also only ever had the telltale and not entirely true test name for a very short while..certainly not much after the small screening upon which the 1st aicn review emerged. There is also no mention of testscreening process that first timers and reviewers always mention by default. its not like any old movie screening. This review is absolute BS as well.. they havent seen the film, and the trying-hard-to-reflect-unbias amongst the many seemingly innoccuous sentences only serves to heighten its somewhat sad fakery and lameness. It doesnt reference any scenes that are not clearly already in the public domain, and delineated in other reviews. It also omits certain scenes that are obvious talking points and somehow escaped mention in the other reviews.. ( because these other reviews were perhaps somewhat 'sanctioned') The touchstones on Craigs apparant weaknesses are forced and way off the mark. And also thankfully untrue. Craig good at action? ..yeah clearly this is a good new thing he can bring to bond, but it doesnt work as the double-edged critical weapon the writer thinks he's wielding. Aside from becoming a striking physical action presence..the guys a heavyweight actor.. funny likable, strong.. not remotely dull ( a word that works as a catch all for prejudiced anti craig litanies ). Aside from anything else Layer Cake showed him to be likable and get the audience rooting for him no matter what he was going through onscreen.. and by the end of this movie we will be rooting for craig. We'll be with him, nerves on fire for the next movie.
The nearly smart attempt to portray this as a general audience/regular female bond fan? not digging the complex plot and hating the bond girl / villain etc is transparent. Its not as clever as it thinks it is.. but can do some damage if only to set off the web war of words between fractious retards. Who are these people? sad ..how could they get off on this kind of thing? do these people look at themselves in the mirror? people are buzzing about this movie.. this is the last, and perhaps cleverest plot yet hatched by these fools. amazing how change can bring these freaks out of the woodwork. and i dont mean people who are unsure of craig.. their opinions are 1000% valid - he has a lot to prove. but trust me the review is fake.. imdb should remove it. they probably wont. simple as that. the good thing is that sonys last, strongest and coolest marketing and build up is yet to come..and the excitement and bond vibes, and new footage / exclusives / craig hype will drown out the pathetic wretches. get a life, a girlfriend.. then maybe u can cope with someone like daniel craig, and a film with guts and style like casino royale. sad to know that people will believe this. but hopefully it will be forgotten.

the movie will leave these people in its wake. oh jesus it better be good...
These people have found a cause i think..that they can puff up about with their slightly creepy pursuit of this film. Guys - sorry u r such dry, out of touch losers. its cos u spend your life at a computer.

*I bet DC will rock, and might even just get an oscar nod for his performace, especially perhaps in the feted torture scene this reviewer palpably did not see. get used to it.

Edited by stone cold, 23 October 2006 - 12:14 PM.

[MattofSteel]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in the naysayer camp at ALL, but there will be no Oscar nods for a Bond film.

Ok, world, feel ABSOLUTELY free to prove me wrong

[Dan007]

The reviewer discredit himself by exaggerated critic to all main characters. My opinion is that's very unlikely all actors was performing so poorly.

[sharpshooter]

This is a vast conrast. It is mere trash talk in my opinion. Nothing to fear. EON are not going to stuff up on this film.

[Cody]

[quote name='CM007' post='630990' date='22 October 2006 - 10:56']
Yeah I have heard that but I don