
First review of Quantum Of Solace
#31
Posted 25 September 2008 - 02:20 PM
However 2 things
1. Imdb was the first review (have we confirmed or debunked that one?)
2. i don't think the sun saw anything.
#32
Posted 25 September 2008 - 02:20 PM
Yes it's a pretty ghastly bit of writing.But regardless of whether the journalist saw the film or didn't, this "review" isn't even worth the paper it's printed on.
#33
Posted 25 September 2008 - 02:22 PM
I think the Sun always do this with the Bonds and, I daresay, all the other popularist films. Their desire to offer the first reviews is laughable when the results are like this.
Yeah. I still remember their ludicrously glowing "review" of THE PHANTOM MENACE. On the other hand, I seem to recall that their Super Soaraway Sun World Exclusive Review of CASINO ROYALE pointed out that it was a very good film marred slightly by overlength, which many of us would agree with.
#34
Posted 25 September 2008 - 02:29 PM
I am sure they didn't see the final film. They just saw a promo-trailer with some longer sequences, not more.
Agreed. I could right a much more complete review, based in all the photographs we've seen, all the Blog Reports, Trailers, TV Spots, Infos, etc...
xxx
#35
Posted 25 September 2008 - 02:31 PM
Yes but... the body count. They keep going on about the body count. Is that something we knew? You can't really infer that from the trailers.I am sure they didn't see the final film. They just saw a promo-trailer with some longer sequences, not more.
Agreed. I could right a much more complete review, based in all the photographs we've seen, all the Blog Reports, Trailers, TV Spots, Infos, etc...
xxx
#36
Posted 25 September 2008 - 02:38 PM
Can't believe this is based on a review of the entire film. I doubt the final scoring and sound mixing is complete yet. There is still over a month to go before the premiere
#37
Posted 25 September 2008 - 02:54 PM
Yes but... the body count. They keep going on about the body count. Is that something we knew? You can't really infer that from the trailers.I am sure they didn't see the final film. They just saw a promo-trailer with some longer sequences, not more.
Agreed. I could right a much more complete review, based in all the photographs we've seen, all the Blog Reports, Trailers, TV Spots, Infos, etc...
xxx
Yes, but you could imagine that, don't you?
Mitchell, Slate, Quantum man (in the car chase), etc, etc, etc...it's obvious.
xxx
#38
Posted 25 September 2008 - 02:58 PM
Yes, I suppose thats true.
Yes but... the body count. They keep going on about the body count. Is that something we knew? You can't really infer that from the trailers.
Yes, but you could imagine that, don't you?
Mitchell, Slate, Quantum man (in the car chase), etc, etc, etc...it's obvious.
xxx
Ok, I shall now officially DISREGARD this review

#39
Posted 25 September 2008 - 03:07 PM
I knew it wasnt going to be good as CRBy the sounds of it the Sun forgot to watch CR before they watched QOS. Hmmm......They seemed confused as to who Vesper and Mathis are. Not cool. Bond is more Rambo here????Well at least they didn't mention Bourne..EDIT: They did.
Not encouraging, but it is only one review, lets hold out here.
#40
Posted 25 September 2008 - 03:09 PM
Yes but... the body count. They keep going on about the body count. Is that something we knew? You can't really infer that from the trailers.I am sure they didn't see the final film. They just saw a promo-trailer with some longer sequences, not more.
Agreed. I could right a much more complete review, based in all the photographs we've seen, all the Blog Reports, Trailers, TV Spots, Infos, etc...
xxx
It's a Action/Adventure film. It's obviously going to have a high body count.

#41
Posted 25 September 2008 - 03:16 PM
"It will kick the living daylights out of any rival action-hero franchises."
#42
Posted 25 September 2008 - 03:21 PM
Yep, and with one of the best James Bond actors ever to grace the screen meting it out. Nothing better than seeing Bond do what he does best.It's a Action/Adventure film. There is obviously going to have a high body count.
#43
Posted 25 September 2008 - 03:27 PM
#44
Posted 25 September 2008 - 03:30 PM
There are several references to the reviewer being confused about Vesper and Mathis - I don't read that at all - he clearly (and I'm paraphrasing) indicates that this film (QoS) does not dwell on past characters and assumes the viewer has seen Casino Royale and know who they are. I do not read anything in the review to indicate the reviewer is confused.
I agree. After all, he says Mathis is Bond's Friend turned enemy turned what? He knows who Mathis is. He is merely explainign that it is not dwelled on nor explained. The producers assume you have seen Casino Royale.
#45
Posted 25 September 2008 - 03:34 PM
#46
Posted 25 September 2008 - 03:36 PM
#47
Posted 25 September 2008 - 03:38 PM
Nah, nothing new here... I think the IMDB-review IS the real thing.
I think both are legit. Eon would sue The Suns

#48
Posted 25 September 2008 - 03:40 PM
#49
Posted 25 September 2008 - 04:03 PM
But as others have said this reads as being a quick cut & paste review without any real substance which leads me to think they have not seen the final cut. They don't really pick out and comment on any key scenes from the movie other than what has already been seen and talked about from trailers or clips.
I just think the Sun wanted the kudos of claiming to be the first newspaper to post a review.
But only a few more tortuous weeks before we start hearing the advance word for real!
#50
Posted 25 September 2008 - 04:21 PM

#51
Posted 25 September 2008 - 04:31 PM
That 'review' was about as helpful as Kara Milvoy.
HAHA!!!

xxx
#52
Posted 25 September 2008 - 04:35 PM
My 2 cents....
Edited by bondrules, 25 September 2008 - 05:08 PM.
#53
Posted 25 September 2008 - 04:50 PM
I knew it wasnt going to be good as CRBy the sounds of it the Sun forgot to watch CR before they watched QOS. Hmmm......They seemed confused as to who Vesper and Mathis are. Not cool. Bond is more Rambo here????Well at least they didn't mention Bourne..EDIT: They did.
Not encouraging, but it is only one review, lets hold out here.
Me too. By now, I've resigned myself to expect another TND. It's a real shame, however, that after all the effort to do something special with Royale, they seem to have done a 180o turn. I'm especially pissed @ Mr Forster, who after first saying how he liked the new approach to Bond, has made a point of changing everything andeveryone.
#54
Posted 25 September 2008 - 04:54 PM
The predominant colour here, though, isn’t environmental green — it’s blood red
BEST. BOND. EVER.
#55
Posted 25 September 2008 - 04:55 PM
"First time ever the Bond, James Bond line is not used"?? HELLO!! Didn't this person ever see From Russia With Love, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice ect.. Sheesh!!
I was getting ready to post the same reply. When was this guy born? Hasn't he seen all of the movies?
#56
Posted 25 September 2008 - 04:59 PM
But regardless of whether the journalist saw the film or didn't, this "review" isn't even worth the paper it's printed on. If you believe that a review should have some interesting things to say, that is.
I'm happy with a review just telling me whether the guy thinks the film is good or not. Obviously I wouldn't buy a magazine full of reviews by this guy, but I wouldn't call it worthless- it's a great bit of marketing at the least, as Jim says.
#57
Posted 25 September 2008 - 05:09 PM
But regardless of whether the journalist saw the film or didn't, this "review" isn't even worth the paper it's printed on. If you believe that a review should have some interesting things to say, that is.
I'm happy with a review just telling me whether the guy thinks the film is good or not.
Yes. I like them too. Shame this isn't one of them.

I actually find it really difficult to see where he's going. He's slamming it one minute, Loving it the other. He even says, and I quote:
The smartass quips and camp gadget-king Q have also been axed.
What the hell does he mean by smartass quips?
The...
"Time to face gravity" kind or the "That last hand; nearly killed me" kind?

#58
Posted 25 September 2008 - 05:16 PM
But regardless of whether the journalist saw the film or didn't, this "review" isn't even worth the paper it's printed on. If you believe that a review should have some interesting things to say, that is.
I'm happy with a review just telling me whether the guy thinks the film is good or not.
Yes. I like them too. Shame this isn't one of them.
I actually find it really difficult to see where he's going. He's slamming it one minute, Loving it the other. He even says, and I quote:
The smartass quips and camp gadget-king Q have also been axed.
What the hell does he mean by smartass quips?
The...
"Time to face gravity" kind or the "That last hand; nearly killed me" kind?
"That last hand; nearly killed me" = Best line in CR (words & masterful delivery)
Edited by bondrules, 25 September 2008 - 05:16 PM.
#59
Posted 25 September 2008 - 05:37 PM
I knew it wasnt going to be good as CRBy the sounds of it the Sun forgot to watch CR before they watched QOS. Hmmm......They seemed confused as to who Vesper and Mathis are. Not cool. Bond is more Rambo here????Well at least they didn't mention Bourne..EDIT: They did.
Not encouraging, but it is only one review, lets hold out here.
I bought a lottery ticket, can you tell me if I'm going to win? Since you seem to be clairvoyant.
#60
Posted 25 September 2008 - 05:44 PM
