went up to 9.1 from 9.0 and the first official review is 10/10

Despite the late embargo I think it has a chance of being great. Or atleast have hope that it can still be good

Its only official if the review pops up on Metacritic or RT. Hate to say it, but these are the two review metric sites that people mostly use to judge films.

This will be the only comment or reply you'll get. Like I give a sh!t about YOUR interwebz opinion.

Can you link to the review? I'm not interested in the IMDb rating at this point, which still doesn't have enough votes to be reliable yet, but I'm interested in this review.

Oh my GOD, you're absolutely, positively RIGHT ON! And since you clearly take (probably) everything you read at face value, and without question ultimately believe whatever you read to be true, I'll simply do you a favor and let you know that my first sentence is what's known as SARCASM. So now that I've made that just about as clear as I can...

I can't help but ask: are you intentionally simple & dimwitted, or is it simply a genetics-related thing, hereditary, and the result of an unfortunate sexual experiment courtesy of your parents?! Or is it both of the above and/or then some? Either way, the sheer amount of consideration and overall weight you've given some random nobody's unbelievably vague 'review' of the movie that he CLAIMS he's seen is hilarious to say the least. Seriously. I mean, I'm almost on the fence wondering as to whether you're ACTUALLY a genius, and that your original post is, in fact, the most brilliant trolling sort of trolling and so meta that it's beyond even me! But I highly doubt it... It's quite rare that I'm able to call out someone for something completely unrelated to sh*tting on a movie for no reason at all--so I'm sure you can see why it's such a special occasion to be able to do the same for someone 'LOVING' a movie for equally, if not, perhaps even exponentially more stupid reasons.

Like, I'm wondering what qualifications exactly do you see this person who wrote this terribly subjective review as having?! Better yet, what proof do you (or does HE) have for that matter that he even actually saw the movie at all other than his word and unsubstantiated claim that he did?!?! THERE'S NOTHING to indicate as much either which way, no proof, nada, zip, ZILCH! The level of patheticness you're approaching and have just about reached isn't by any means one that's unprecedented or anything... However, it IS certainly one typically reserved for earth's dumbest *beep* which is kind of unfortunate for you.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. But I gotta say--there are times at which the utter ridiculousness exhibited by certain individuals proves to be so very outlandish - TOO outlandish, in fact, that it becomes nearly impossible to overlook as not only do they themselves come off looking ludicrous as can be, but so do - by and large - the group(s) of people with whom they associate -- same goes for the groups THEY can readily BE associated. Unfortunate, but hey--birds of a feather... And how you manage to come off with your whole 'I told you so ha-haaa!' mentality, though mainly still the mere fact you inexplicably see this twat's review as having real significance as if it's the be-all, end-all & last word on the subject of Assassin's Creed that's both the first AND final nail in your coffin -- NOT an easy accomplishment to be sure... Now, while I'm sure you have your own reasons for WANTING the sentiments echoed by you in your post--that CLEARL you've got an innate desire for the content that appears in this sad, extremely poor excuse for a 'genuinely authentic' review that you speak of to be the reality of things; for everything written to be both 100% accurate, and completely factual, with ZERO errors to boot... But COME ON! And there's one serious problem with this review to which you're referring:

There are currently two 'reviews' within the user review section on the A.C. IMDb page, in one of the two, the author at least EXPLICITLY STATES how he hasn't even actually seen the movie yet--which is okay because it's clear what his intent is, and he doesn't lie in an attempt to... well, to do whatever it is lying about such a thing is meant to accomplish, and/or be worshiped as a God in the eyes of folks such as you who're quick to blow anyone who happens to affirm the hopes of fanboys & the films that are not only very highly anticipated, but also sadly as important as said movie(s) are. But that being said, despite the fact that he notes that he hasn't yet seen it, he was nonetheless ABLE to/have what he wrote posted/actually appear in the review section prior to the film's official release, and even before ACTUAL reviews begin to appear and are tabulated. Are things coming into focus for you yet? Because while that of course doesn't necessarily prove anything either way, if it doesn't make one more skeptical or AT LEAST think twice about the legitimacy of a given user's review, PARTICULARLY when the overall number of reviews by those claiming to have seen the movie is a big, fat, juicy ONE - no more, no less - then do yourself a favor and demand that whatever higher being/power give you a functioning brain--because whoever was in charge of doing so evidently forgot to do as much prior to putting you on this earth.

As far as the review itself is concerned, it's the absolute epitome of a full-of-sh*t, faker-than-fake review. It's conspicuously - and unsurprisingly - vague and bereft of anything of ANY real detail that might otherwise help the author who posted it prove that he actually DID see the movie; it's basically all hot air & *beep* And this is IMDb, a site notorious for being a breeding ground for the many factions consisting of legions of not only fans, but also NON-fans whose concerted efforts have widely been known to have a direct, negative affect on the score/rating a given movie receives -- you know, as if such campaigns against a film have the power or are going to - in the grand scheme of things and long run - hurt whatever movie, the talent and/or studio/companies involved in making it, and affect the film's eventual overall box-office performance. Sadly (but hilariously), those who engage in these practices would utterly butt-hurt to learn that none of these things result.. ever. Yet they keep on trying; so LET them try as they may. But just as people go after films to bring them down, it stands to reason that the exact opposite is also a prevalent occurrence--those whose goal is lifting a film up because they want it to perform well... Though they'd be equally as ads to know that their actions are just as pointless, ineffective, and fruitless as their saboteur counterparts. Yet they keep on trying, too.

So believe what you want; I just wanted to do MY part by giving the masses of idiots out there a reality check to, if nothing else, at least temper the expectations of those who'd ultimately be otherwise let down by what they eventually see.

I'm not at all, by any means whatsoever, saying or suggesting that Assassin's Creed is terrible and/or really bad movie -- because I haven't seen it, and I can't offer an informed opinion on a movie in haven't seen. Nor can you, and nor can someone who wants to try and seem cool by saying they've seen a movie before it's come out, but who - in reality - proves to be completely full of *beep* often detectable thanks to vagueness in discussion various aspects of a movie, simply stating things that can be surmised and deduced by watching any number of the film's trailers, TV spots/other marketing material, or by reading other reviews that can be found in legitimate & reputable sources, and really just by relying solely on general, non-specific, and completely undetailed qualifying statements that reveal... well, nothing at all really. Yet for all these red flags that get raised in the presence of fake, nonsensical crap on this movie site that's been ever-declining in quality since Hollywood quit coming up with or even so much as trying to come up with original material, they rarely serve as lessons to people like you who'd rather quickly abandon logical thinking/reasoning and any semblance of rationality and instead just believe what you want to believe, regardless of the evidence, just because you want so desperately for something to be true that you're okay with the wool remaining over your eyes even if it makes you look as stupid as it doss -- and trust me when I say you look pretty God damn stupid LMFAO!

But hey--it's whatever... I'll iust say I told you so and rest easy knowing that I tried to help. As for you, keep enjoying the 'reviews' by random, no-name a-holes out to dupe people like you; they are the trolls who will forever have the upper hand... On one more note, I'd also just like to mention your reference to the film's current 9.1 rating on here; that's yet another indicator of how bright - or should I say DIM - you truly are. The movie hadn't even been released yet, and you think that a change from 9.0 to 9.1 is meaningful even though it hasn't been?! Interesting... Because you also do see the fact that there's less than 1,000 votes being counted towards that rating right? Not only to I highly doubt that 900-something people have seen and come on here to put in their number score for what they saw... but it's pretty obvious that this is the result, as I already mentioned above, that this is the doing of the many fanboys of the Assassin's Creed franchise who vote and pump up the score for the movie without even having seen the movie. Does that mean EVERYONE who's vote has been counted hasn't seen the movie?! Of course not... But as it goes with movies like this, history doesn't lie and neither do the facts (and eventual numbers) that result once the film finally does come out in theaters. By the end of its theatrical run, I would be extremely surprised if the rating on here is ANY higher than 7.9... And that's being very generous.

Not again. Never ever take imdb early ratings seriously. I would have thought people would have learnt their lesson from the early reviews of BvS and Warcraft but apparently people have not. What is it in imdb early ratings that you trust so much? Anybody can write a review and slap a 10/10 on the front page. It's absolutely nothing. Stop setting yourself up for disappointment. You may like the film when it actually comes out, but I'd recommend you don't take the word of early fanboys at face value. These reviews don't take into consideration the basic things that make a film good. The fanboys that go to see it early are there to see all the references to the game and to see Michael Fassbender kick ass. If both of those are fulfilled, they'll give it a 9/10 or 10/10. They don't take into account pacing, character development or anything that makes a film anything other than a fan service fest. Wait until the film comes out.