The screen grabs in the blu-ray.com review look a lot closer to the original DVD release, which I remember as being somewhat desaturated, with a green cast that made scenes in the Matrix look kind of brown overall.
Not that we should be using DVD as a reference, but the original Blu-ray release was way over the top green.
Many BD releases have gotten good video/audio reviews, like Jurassic Park, 007 films, Back to the Future etc. but on this forum people have had a different opinion as they have older releases and possibly even original audio tracks or film reels to make their point.
I’m just going to be completely honest with you, and some people here may get pissed off at me, but most people on here just generally aren’t the experts that they think they are, and that’s putting it extremely politely. Just because someone on this forum thinks that old laserdiscs or DVDs look better than a perfectly fine blu ray doesn’t mean that you should listen to them. The 007 films look great on blu ray, except for Goldeneye which wasn’t restored. But even Goldeneye still looks better than it did on DVD and VHS. I’m going to go out on a limb and wager that over 99% of blu ray releases are better than any previous home video presentation of the film in question. I think the OUT and the “accurate” (however the hell that’s even judged) Star Wars color obsession has gotten many people on this site to think that all modern home video is questionable and all old home video is inherently accurate when that’s not true at all.
I agree with you in general (especially about people citing old NTSC releases as color references, which is insane), but you picked a bad example. The 007 films aren’t all terrible, but even if we set the color timing aside (which I’m certainly no expert on), the DNR trashed a lot of those discs. I have the box set and on a 50" 1080p display, it’s obvious they made a poor effort. The Bond and Star Trek films (OS and TNG) are shining examples of lazy studio output.