97 replies to this topic

[Colossus]

Good review! C'mon guys if you raise the bar too high you'll always come out dissapointed, just lay back and enjoy it like any dumb[censored] viewer.

Edited by Colossus, 26 September 2008 - 08:47 PM.

[The Girl With The Golden Gun]

By the sounds of it the Sun forgot to watch CR before they watched QOS.

I'd say so! this doesn't read like a review, more like a precis of all the info gleaned from spoilers, internet gossip, teaser trailers etc. hence the confusion as to who the characters are and what the plot concerns. No gadgets, a seemingly eco-friendly (and foreign) villain, girls and lots of big explosions - this is basically what the "review" in the Sun says, just with about 500 words of padding.

Personally i wouldn't count this as a real review, just something to stir up interest and to whet audiences' appetites. Not quite as bad as Elliot Carver, getting there though...! lol.

[HH007]

This is a pathetic excuse for a review. It does not read like a professional critic, or someone that's even seen QoS, wrote this at all. This "reviewer" makes Harry Knowles look like Leonard Maltin. I put no stock in it whatsoever. I'll wait and see what a real critic has to say.

[DamnCoffee]

Right. This review is a fake.... The 'Exclusive' screening for this never happened. Reading this review again, It's obviously poorly written and reveals nothing new. Funnily enough, they did the same for Casino Royale back in 2006.

OMG. What ever happened to the rest of the review?
http://www.thesun.co...rticle67909.ece

Could it have been removed due to the fact it was full of innacurate information? Probably.

If you don't believe me, check out this...

... .

"If you name me an upcoming film which I haven't seen, it would take me five seconds on the net to find out what it's about. And if you then said give me a positive review, I could do it in 10 minutes. Without having seen the film."

A good example of this, the first source alleges, is a "review" of the James Bond flick Casino Royale, which premiered last week, which can still be seen on the Sun's the Sneak movie preview site. The article was published on October 20. Yet the first screening for journalists was a heavily policed ticket-only affair a fortnight later. The Sneak's headline bragged: "Casino Royale . . . is not out in Britain until November 16, but here the Sun's secret agent the Sneak gives Sun readers the world's first review."

The "review" which follows, arguably more advertorial than critique, outlines the film in general - and at times breathless - terms and is illustrated with an exclusive set of pictures. "It's clearly not a review of the movie," says the first critic. "What they have apparently done is review the trailer and production notes. It's all just puff and gossip and there's absolutely nothing there to suggest that they'd actually seen the film."

The mystery deepens after a call to the film's distributors Sony Pictures. "The first screenings of Casino Royale for journalists anywhere in the world were held on Friday November 3," says a Sony spokeswoman. Were there any screenings for journalists prior to that? "No, they were the first." How come the Sun had a review on its website a fortnight earlier? "I'm aware of the review you are talking about and I have no comment to make," she replies.

Over to the Sun. "Like James Bond, the Sneak is an undercover operative with unrivalled global connections who works in a cut-throat and murky industry," is the Sneak's riposte.

"The Sneak understands that other film critics and newspapers are shaken and stirred by his world exclusive and would like to see he or she exposed. But, for operational reasons, our critic's identity must remain top secret. The screening was for the Sneak's eyes only and he or she was one of the first on the planet to see the film. As you will know from the Sneak's entirely accurate review, he or she enjoyed it very much."

http://www.guardian.....mediaguardian1

So sorry to dissapoint guys, this is a fake. It isn't even worth the rag it was written on.

[Royal Dalton]

"Forget it, Jake. It's The Sun."

[kneelbeforezod]

So sorry to dissapoint guys, this is a fake. It isn't even worth the rag it was written on.

Not disappointing at all, it's nice to have our suspicions more or less confirmed. Great article you linked to as well, very interesting.

[Mister E]

Hell, it's The Sun and "fake" is attached to it like white on rice.

[CamExam]

Right. This review is a fake.... The 'Exclusive' screening for this never happened. Reading this review again, It's obviously poorly written and reveals nothing new. Funnily enough, they did the same for Casino Royale back in 2006.

OMG. What ever happened to the rest of the review?
http://www.thesun.co...rticle67909.ece

Could it have been removed due to the fact it was full of innacurate information? Probably.

If you don't believe me, check out this...

... .

"If you name me an upcoming film which I haven't seen, it would take me five seconds on the net to find out what it's about. And if you then said give me a positive review, I could do it in 10 minutes. Without having seen the film."

A good example of this, the first source alleges, is a "review" of the James Bond flick Casino Royale, which premiered last week, which can still be seen on the Sun's the Sneak movie preview site. The article was published on October 20. Yet the first screening for journalists was a heavily policed ticket-only affair a fortnight later. The Sneak's headline bragged: "Casino Royale . . . is not out in Britain until November 16, but here the Sun's secret agent the Sneak gives Sun readers the world's first review."

The "review" which follows, arguably more advertorial than critique, outlines the film in general - and at times breathless - terms and is illustrated with an exclusive set of pictures. "It's clearly not a review of the movie," says the first critic. "What they have apparently done is review the trailer and production notes. It's all just puff and gossip and there's absolutely nothing there to suggest that they'd actually seen the film."

The mystery deepens after a call to the film's distributors Sony Pictures. "The first screenings of Casino Royale for journalists anywhere in the world were held on Friday November 3," says a Sony spokeswoman. Were there any screenings for journalists prior to that? "No, they were the first." How come the Sun had a review on its website a fortnight earlier? "I'm aware of the review you are talking about and I have no comment to make," she replies.

Over to the Sun. "Like James Bond, the Sneak is an undercover operative with unrivalled global connections who works in a cut-throat and murky industry," is the Sneak's riposte.

"The Sneak understands that other film critics and newspapers are shaken and stirred by his world exclusive and would like to see he or she exposed. But, for operational reasons, our critic's identity must remain top secret. The screening was for the Sneak's eyes only and he or she was one of the first on the planet to see the film. As you will know from the Sneak's entirely accurate review, he or she enjoyed it very much."

http://www.guardian.....mediaguardian1

So sorry to dissapoint guys, this is a fake. It isn't even worth the rag it was written on.

Yes! Oh thank god

[Elvenstar]

So sorry to dissapoint guys, this is a fake. It isn't even worth the rag it was written on.

Not disappointing at all, it's nice to have our suspicions more or less confirmed. Great article you linked to as well, very interesting.

Agreed! Great article! So, there's still hope for a balanced Forster film
Btw, so when do you think the real first screening will be held? Just wondering

[DamnCoffee]

Probably sometime in the coming weeks.

I hope EON lets every other UK paper in apart from The Sun, just out of spite.

[Greene217]

Even if this is real, it shouldnt be taken seriously as it was written by idiots for idiots whos mental capacity is incapable of understanding anything other than shiny things going boom.
That said, I myself enjoy the action in bond and QOS looks to be incredibly original and intense in that department, but the characters are more important and this 'review' barely mentions them or any dramatic sequences away from the action.
I just pray this isnt because there was very little to talk about in that area.