Review and news hub for movies, music and video games

3812 guests and 26 members online

A "world exclusive" first review for Quantum of Solace was published by The Sun yesterday, which quickly made the rounds all over the net for its description of the film as ultra-bloody, with "the violence is ramped up to Rambo proportions." Other descriptions the tabloid used include calling Bond's rampage a "bloodlust" and suggesting "A View To A Killing Spree or Triggerfinger" as alternate titles. Depending on which way your taste swings, that would either sound dreadful or exciting, but did Marc Foster really make a Bond movie that surprisingly violent?

The answer: probably not. This review, please remember, came from The Sun, a gossip rag far from being reliable.

As Bond site MI6 pointed out, The Sun's review doesn't really have any new descriptions from the movie, with the cited quotes all coming from the teaser trailer. In fact, a whole paragraph describing the action scenes are just a list of stuntmen who got injured on the set. Forget the claim that Sun's so-called "The Sneak" actually saw the film or not. What we have here is a review that could have been written by seeing trailers and ads alone.

As Bond battles his new enemies we follow his journey from his promotion to 007 agent (one kill needed) in the last film to First Blood-style rampages.

Pssstt... Rambo killed a total of ONE person in First Blood. Not exactly a blood orgy of deaths.

Now this is very unfair to do, especially if you're a working professional film critic. No matter how sure you are that a movie is going to suck/rule, you owe it to your readers and your profession to give an honest opinion based on a fair viewing (as in, start to finish). I do know some critics who would write a review in advance based on trailers, usually for the purpose of meeting deadlines, but they would still rewrite after seeing the movie so that the review correctly reflects his/her impression.

Back in March, The New Republic's film critic Christopher Orr did an experiment where he published a review of 21 based on trailers alone to see if he could get an accurate feel of the movie, and then posted an actual review later on after the movie's release to compare his observations. He was pretty dead on with his (p)review... but that was for an experiment. What's iffy about The Sun's is that they're publishing a review as if it's some God-given exclusive privilege more than a month before the November 7 release date, when for all we know the film is still being tweaked. The film's first public screening is scheduled to be a charity event in London attended by the royal family—on October 29th.

Believe it or not, this isn't the first time they've done it. MI6 also noted that they did the exact same thing with Casino Royale, publishing a review a month prior to release, with the review ended up having a few inaccuracies compared to the actual film.

So please, The Sun, stick to reporting in-depth examinations of Posh Spice's sex life and leave the movie reviewing to, well, movie reviewers. But don't take my word for it. Read it for yourself and see if you believe that this is legit.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (1)

November 14, 2008, reggie said:

	the problem with some of the peolpe that give this movie a " c " is people expecting more of a fantasy moevie im a big fan of mr bond, and i really like what they did to the series, taking all this none sense fantasy stuff, its more realistic now than it was 10 years a go.. I love it, its like jason bourne i give this movie a 5 out 5..
	Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

Name

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

Add Comment Preview