45 replies to this topic

[stamper]

Sorry if this have been posted before... but I ran into this online, and was aghast that so much effort was put in such negative outcome... I'm talking of this huge review.

http://n007.thegolde...ino_royale.html

if you go the root, it's a Bond site http://n007.thegoldeneye.com/ the name of the site is Number 007, features includes progress report on QOS, LTK en CR DVD reviews, Living Daylight review etc, not for the faint hearted, but worth a read, if you're not easily offended.

[Germanlady]

What crap - what was your reason to post it?

[stamper]

The reason is, the guy took time to draft this thing up, it's argumented, I believe it's bound to be given a read, even if I disagree to most of the things expressed therein.

[HH007]

I got about three paragraphs in and decided it wasn't worth my time.

[Santa]

It was quite hard to go on reading past the second line, where this cosmically stupid bloke claims DC had a bowl haircut in CR (huh?), but I did for a short while, only to realise the rest was going to be as crap as the beginning, so I didn't bother. What a pile of poo.

[HH007]

It was quite hard to go on reading past the second line, where this cosmically stupid bloke claims DC had a bowl haircut in CR (huh?), but I did for a short while, only to realise the rest was going to be as crap as the beginning, so I didn't bother. What a pile of poo.

Yes, I also found the bowl haircut bit a little puzzling.

[Santa]

The reason is, the guy took weeks to draft this thing up, it's argumented, I believe it's bound to be given a read, even if I disagree to most of the things expressed therein.

Maybe, and I don't have a problem with people disliking DC now they have actually seen the film, but even his very first point (aforementioned bowl cut) is factually inaccurate. For that alone he doesn't deserve anymore of anyone's time.

[HildebrandRarity]

For that alone he doesn't deserve anymore of anyone's time.

Looks like you've saved me some valuable time.

What's the point of dumping a critically acclaimed and financially successful film? To get your 15 minutes?

[stamper]

I just realised that if you go to the site root

http://n007.thegoldeneye.com/

It presents essays / views on all things bond, including progress on Bond 22...

[DamnCoffee]

Utter Rubbish!

[Harry Fawkes]

'...Martin Campbell and company would do something similar, depicting Bond

[stamper]

Yeah, he is talking about the movie that should have followed AVTAK once Roger left.

It's funny because if you go the root, it's a Bond site http://n007.thegoldeneye.com/ the name of the site is number 007, but it seems that so far, all features including progress report on QOS seems to be made to bash the filmmakers, and reasserts Fleming as the real deal. I dunno what to make of it, but this site seems definetely here to stay, it's not cheap like the CNB site, clearly the author spends work to express his views. However twisted they sometimes might be.

[Cody]

all features including progress report on QOS seems to be made to bash the filmmakers

Yes, and he certainly has his own view of things... Forster is undistinguished, Haggis is irate over the script changes, Amalric is just a "bargain basement Euro-actor", and Craig still has a bowl cut.

[Judo chop]

My guess is the author received a brand new, 2008 Edition Thesaurus for Christmas and wanted to take it for a spin.

Scribbling down a lot of mathematical symbols doesn

[Harry Fawkes]

Yeah, he is talking about the movie that should have followed AVTAK once Roger left.

It's funny because if you go the root, it's a Bond site http://n007.thegoldeneye.com/ the name of the site is number 007, but it seems that so far, all features including progress report on QOS seems to be made to bash the filmmakers, and reasserts Fleming as the real deal. I dunno what to make of it, but this site seems definetely here to stay, it's not cheap like the CNB site, clearly the author spends work to express his views. However twisted they sometimes might be.

Thanks for that link Stamper. Looks interesting.

[HH007]

all features including progress report on QOS seems to be made to bash the filmmakers

Yes, and he certainly has his own view of things... Forster is undistinguished, Haggis is irate over the script changes, Amalric is just a "bargain basement Euro-actor", and Craig still has a bowl cut.

They have a word to describe people like him... it's called delusional. This guy is no different than an IMDb troll... he can just spell better.

[mccartney007]

I didn't read the whole piece, but it seemed slightly amusing. I just get concerned when someone spends what is obviously a large amount of time on something like that. It's like that line-by-line criticism of ZERO MINUS TEN that someone wrote all those years ago. It's sort of sad and pathetic that one would focus so much of their time and money on such a thing.

[stamper]

Well it makes for some fun reading, I just browsed thru his CR DVD review and his LTK DVD review, and they are hilarious, while sometimes making clever points amidst a sea of biased views. It seems according to his reports, that Dalton disliked John Glen directorial's style a lot, enough to quit Chris Columbus the discovery when Glen got the gig.

Here's a quote out of context, that made me laugh re CR DVD

the Sony folks include some trailers for other Sony films—but none for this 007 film. It's a small gesture of kindness, but we appreciate it.

[HH007]

I didn't read the whole piece, but it seemed slightly amusing. I just get concerned when someone spends what is obviously a large amount of time on something like that. It's like that line-by-line criticism of ZERO MINUS TEN that someone wrote all those years ago. It's sort of sad and pathetic that one would focus so much of their time and money on such a thing.

Especially towards something they didn't like.

[stromberg]

The author of this piece of drivel certainly likes to read his own write and has lots - too much - of time on his hands.

His nom de plume "Ian Dunross" gives it all away: this was Pierce Brosnan's character name in "Noble House". This way of bending reality, taking quotes and references out of context until they fit his awkward views, his ignorance and his obvious egocentricism, all this reminds me of an infamous website the name of which I refuse to mention, but that seems to have completely disappeared from the face of the world (or at least the internet).

Hey Mario, if you're reding this: Get lost!

[DaveBond21]

At first I thought this post was about the fact that Daniel gives pretty dull interviews. I was going to agree with that.

But he is certainly not dull as Bond!

[Major Tallon]

If you look past the pseudo-intellectual nonsense and the pretentious language, you're left with a lot of sarcastic blugdeon-blows aimed at Casino Royale, with really very little insight. Rather than analyze the perceived faults in the movie, the author avoids real insight by just hanging labels on the stuff he doesn't like (which is just about everything). Thus, Haggis is overrated, Craig is reptillian, Caterina Murino is dependably wooden, etc., etc.

To serve the author a dose of his own medicine, it's the sort of thing we can expect from Moo Moo if he were to take a university degree. Longer, more sophisticated verbiage, but just as pedantic.

[Loomis]

Y'know, I love Craig's Bond and think CASINO ROYALE is by far the best film in the franchise, but this article made me laugh like no roasting of something Bond since Jim's legendary lengthy demolition of DIE ANOTHER DAY, which it reminds me of tremendously. Most of us (rightly) praised Jim's piece, so why are we all up in arms up about this one, which strikes me as very similar? (Both articles make some excellent points with hugely enjoyable turn of phrase.)

Because DIE ANOTHER DAY is a rubbish film and fully deserves to be slated, I hear you cry. Well, not in my book it isn't and doesn't - still, I had great fun reading Jim's review. I don't need to agree with a writer's opinions to enjoy his writing or even to concede that some of his points are good. And doesn't getting so cross with this piece on CASINO ROYALE show certain signs of insecurity in what we profess to believe about the film's brilliance?

[sharpshooter]

Even though I don't agree with it, it was an okay read. Good satire piece

[Bondian]

Y'know, I love Craig's Bond and think CASINO ROYALE is by far the best film in the franchise, but this article made me laugh like no roasting of something Bond since Jim's legendary lengthy demolition of DIE ANOTHER DAY, which it reminds me of tremendously. Most of us (rightly) praised Jim's piece, so why are we all up in arms up about this one, which strikes me as very similar? (Both articles make some excellent points with hugely enjoyable turn of phrase.)

Because DIE ANOTHER DAY is a rubbish film and fully deserves to be slated, I hear you cry. Well, not in my book it isn't and doesn't - still, I had great fun reading Jim's review. I don't need to agree with a writer's opinions to enjoy his writing or even to concede that some of his points are good. And doesn't getting so cross with this piece on CASINO ROYALE show certain signs of insecurity in what we profess to believe about the film's brilliance?

I agree, my friend. But we all know Jim would have made us laugh harder.

It's good to read a review by an obvious honest and no holds barred Fleming purist. Although he gets a little rude with Craig (most females would do too, I'm sure ), he's right. But the difference is with he, and us "Fanwanks", he hasn't accepted neither Craig or the "re-boot" as an excuse to admire Casino Royale, or the logic EON are taking.

I always feel even well negatively constructed/constructive reviews are more interesting that positive. Not because they're negative, but because they're better constructed. (just like this post ).

Anyway. He should join CBN so we can "buy him an ice-cream"

Cheers,


Ian

[Scaramanga'74]

Another example of stale Craigophobia (I coined that one) in action. Hardly worth the effort. Someone should tell the Right Hon. Mr. Dunross to get a life instead of spewing the same tiresome rhetoric.

Regardless of what he [and other like-minded Craigophobes (yet another original invention)] may say, Craig

[jaguar007]

The author of this piece of drivel certainly likes to read his own write and has lots - too much - of time on his hands.

His nom de plume "Ian Dunross" gives it all away: this was Pierce Brosnan's character name in "Noble House".

Good catch. I did not have all night to read the entire article, but for someone who seems so interested in the purity of Fleming, why has he not struck out against a movie like DAD? CR, while not being 100% faithful to Fleming, is certianly more faithful to Fleming than any Bond movie in decades.


Quote from article:I also suspect that the PR department misunderstood the real intention of the filmmakers: any so-called stripped-down version of Bond was nothing more than a special code for the intention to make Daniel Craig as the most shirtless agent in MI6 so he can flaunt his muscular frame (in the film, he removes his shirt more often than his predecessors).

Actually I'm pretty sure Connery spent more time with his shirt off in Thunderball.

[Skudor]

Not a bad website really. Clearly Ian Dunross (a pseudonym) doesn't like Daniel Craig and isn't too impressed with another recent Bond film (Licence to Kill) (note: this is purely based on reading the first few paragraphs of his Casino Royale review and a couple of lines of his Licence to Kill review).

The ommission of PB's entire canon is quite revealing, as is the pseudonym.

Nicely presented stuff, if nothing else.

He's got a decent sense of humour (this quote from his CR DVD review):

"Be afraid...be twice as afraid!" So goes the tagline for Troll 2, the idiotic sequel to its equally idiotic precursor, Troll. Nevertheless, the tagline is just as suitable for Casino Royale, especially when you consider Eva Green as Vesper Lynd, the first Bond girl who resembles a vampiric cadaver.

[Mr_Wint]

Interesting read. I dont agree with everything but he makes some good points.

"(...) we never see the moody atmosphere of Fleming

[ACE]

I didn't read the whole piece, but it seemed slightly amusing. I just get concerned when someone spends what is obviously a large amount of time on something like that. It's like that line-by-line criticism of ZERO MINUS TEN that someone wrote all those years ago. It's sort of sad and pathetic that one would focus so much of their time and money on such a thing.

Especially towards something they didn't like.

Totally agree. I can understand someone dismantling an aspect of Bond if they are not a fan or just a general film buff.

But usually, people who spend so much time hating on a subject they profess to be knowledgable about rarely use that same insight to conjure the same enthusiasm to write in glowing terms about the many aspects of the subject that they must like/have liked. All that ingenuity and creative effort has gone on being negative.

Shame.

For them.