oh also idris elba ruled in this movie, i feel like that cannot be overstated
He's like Samuel L. Jackson. Every role he always does his best with the material given to him.
But he's better in the sense that he has more than one character that he plays.
Much as I love Sam Jackson, he's not nearly as versatile as Elba.
Yeah I was gonna say, I think Elba is better than Jackson, because Jackson tends to play Samuel L. Jackson. And he does it very well, but it is kind of his role in many ways.
oh also idris elba ruled in this movie, i feel like that cannot be overstated
He's like Samuel L. Jackson. Every role he always does his best with the material given to him.
But he's better in the sense that he has more than one character that he plays.
Much as I love Sam Jackson, he's not nearly as versatile as Elba.
Yeah I was gonna say, I think Elba is better than Jackson, because Jackson tends to play Samuel L. Jackson. And he does it very well, but it is kind of his role in many ways.
This is true.
0
Options
UnbrokenEvaHIGH ON THE WIREBUT I WON'T TRIP ITRegistered Userregular
I heard Daniel Day-Lewis refuses to use technology that would be anachronistic to the film he is making during the shoot
stuff like this isn't terribly uncommon
especially among method actors
for example: anne bancroft went into character when a film started shooting and didn't go out of character until it was done
that's nothing. After shooting Zombieland, Woody Harrelson punched a photographer at an airport and claimed it was because he was still in character and thought the guy was a zombie.
0
Options
UnbrokenEvaHIGH ON THE WIREBUT I WON'T TRIP ITRegistered Userregular
I'm sure this movie does what it aimed for and I can't wait to watch it. I also love how these "professional" critics seem to think that every movie has to be the same. As if there is only one genre where every scene has to build up to some anti-climatic monologue that is probably just beating a dead horse by that point. They eat that repetitive shit up as long as it's somewhat endearing or clever.
I like how you put "professional" in quotes, as if they are somehow less professional because they don't agree with your movie opinions.
This movie is bad because I prefer this. Sign the check.
You're a silly goose who doesn't seem to actually know anything about film criticism or actually read anything by the critics you're generalizing about.
I'm sure this movie does what it aimed for and I can't wait to watch it. I also love how these "professional" critics seem to think that every movie has to be the same. As if there is only one genre where every scene has to build up to some anti-climatic monologue that is probably just beating a dead horse by that point. They eat that repetitive shit up as long as it's somewhat endearing or clever.
I like how you put "professional" in quotes, as if they are somehow less professional because they don't agree with your movie opinions.
This movie is bad because I prefer this. Sign the check.
You're a silly goose who doesn't seem to actually know anything about film criticism or actually read anything by the critics you're generalizing about.
Yes, there are terrible and bad movies. But, when you're sensationalizing that every action movie is terrible and bad because they're not perfection then you need to get out of the criticism business. I'm sick of there being no middleground with some of the criticism. I also like how my opinion of reviews I've seen automatically encompassed all critics. I'm sure there are decent people in the trade who don't go around claiming to be experts. Silly goose you say? I guess it takes one to know one.
But aside from that one critic who hates everything that's beloved and loves everything that's universally hated, there hasn't been a single review I've read of a film I would see where I didn't look back on the review and at least see how the critic could have come to that opinion
And I've never seen a review where a critic has ever made an unfair judgment, let alone one based on the movie's genre
UnbrokenEvaHIGH ON THE WIREBUT I WON'T TRIP ITRegistered Userregular
you...what? you said "these 'professtional' critics" with nothing to indicate that you were referring to certain professional critics you disagreed with rather than the whole profession. So naturally it was taken as a generalization about all professional critics.
As such, it is complete and utter bullshit as a glance at Rotten Tomatoes or another review aggregator shows that there are well reviewed and poorly reviewed movies in all genres - CD even gave some recent examples.
If, as you seem to be now claiming, you were only referring to certain professional critics, then your statement basically amounts to whining that some people who get paid to review movies have different preferences from you. Which is just as silly, and also kind of petulant. If you find a reviewer consistently dislikes movies that you enjoy, find a different reviewer to read. Enjoying all genres of film equally is not a requirement for the job, nor should it be.
To be honest the Rotten Tomatoes meter is more often than not accurate regarding how much a movie sucks, Last Airbender and Jonah Hex being the best examples.
I'M NOT FINISHED WITH YOU!!!
0
Options
UnbrokenEvaHIGH ON THE WIREBUT I WON'T TRIP ITRegistered Userregular
Fearghaill's Super Secret Tip For Getting Useful Information From Movie & Game Reviews: Find a handful of reviewers whose opinions you respect and whose taste in the medium is reasonably similar to yours, and read their reviews. Ignore or disagree with other reviewers at your discretion.
To be honest the Rotten Tomatoes meter is more often than not accurate regarding how much a movie sucks, Last Airbender and Jonah Hex being the best examples.
As someone who paid to see Jonah Hex, I agree.
I won't say it was the worst movie ever, hell it wasn't even the worst movie I saw that year. And it had some good qualities to it, like the cast. But it wasn't good. And the Rotten Tomatoes meter has helped me stay away from trash, and I wish I had listened to it and stayed away from Jonah Hex.
To be honest the Rotten Tomatoes meter is more often than not accurate regarding how much a movie sucks, Last Airbender and Jonah Hex being the best examples.
That it's a binary "liked/disliked" average does need to be taken into account. A movie that 80% of reviewers gave 3 stars or 6/10 would show as having an 80% tomatometer score. That doesn't make it useless, and in a lot of ways I prefer that to metacritic's policy of converting all reviews to a percentage score and assigning a score based on the tone of the review if no score is given.
Fearghaill's Super Secret Tip For Getting Useful Information From Movie & Game Reviews: Find a handful of reviewers whose opinions you respect and whose taste in the medium is reasonably similar to yours, and read their reviews. Ignore or disagree with other reviewers at your discretion.
This is a very good tip that more people need to learn to adopt.
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
When I was a talk-radio broadcaster in college my show used to do a weekly review of a film (typically one we thought ahead of time would be atrocious).
And for three years this was our rating scale:
1. This is a great film. If you have the chance to see it do it.
2. This is a horrible film. If you have the chance to see it, don't.
3. This is an okay film. If it is on TV on a Sunday and you got nothing going on, give it a chance.
And I happen to think that is a fucking perfect scale.
I was making a remark about bad criticism and apparently that makes me incapable of finding good criticism. That makes sense. You're also jumping my shit about ignoring stuff I don't like, it seems like you would have taken your own advice and ignored me. So, hey since what I say is unignorable then can you explain to me why only 17% of the critics so far have enjoyed the movie, while amazingly 63% of the audience who are apparently intelligent enough to participate in the review seem to like it? It's because we're both right and this is a dumb internet argument. I love you?
Xehalus on
0
Options
UnbrokenEvaHIGH ON THE WIREBUT I WON'T TRIP ITRegistered Userregular
:bz
0
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
The inherent problem within movie reviews is the division between a film's "cinematic worth" and if it is fun.
I was making a remark about bad criticism and apparently that makes me incapable of finding good criticism. That makes sense. You're also jumping my shit about ignoring stuff I don't like, it seems like you would have taken your own advice and ignored me. So, hey since what I say is unignorable then can you explain to me why only 17% of the critics so far have enjoyed the movie, while amazingly 63% of the audience who are apparently intelligent enough to participate in the review seem to like it?
The same reason Superdupe came in here a day ago and jumped on the star.
There are two types of people on this planet: the people who recognize the genius that is Nicolas Cage, and the people who think he's the worst actor ever.
No matter what happens from now until the end days, the people who have chosen a side will always be on that side, and no amount of praise or hate from any critic will be able to change that. Clearly that 17% is in the first category, and the 63% is in the latter.
The sad thing is, you know what's supposed to beat this at the box office?
AngryThe glory I had witnessedwas just a sleight of handRegistered Userregular
this movie desperately needed a big bad for ghost rider to throw down with.
when the fight scenes moved away from simply bursting nameless goons in to flames with one hit of his chain it became a lot more entertaining.
i've read a lot of people complain about the cgi in this which baffles me. ghost rider looked great, the bike looked great, the truck at the end looked fucking awesome.
I was making a remark about bad criticism and apparently that makes me incapable of finding good criticism. That makes sense. You're also jumping my shit about ignoring stuff I don't like, it seems like you would have taken your own advice and ignored me. So, hey since what I say is unignorable then can you explain to me why only 17% of the critics so far have enjoyed the movie, while amazingly 63% of the audience who are apparently intelligent enough to participate in the review seem to like it? It's because we're both right and this is a dumb internet argument. I love you?
and yet, 65% of people who went to see Twilight: Breaking Dawn liked it. how dare those critics disagree with the majority opinion!
the only reason Gangs is worth watching is because of Bill. every scene without him in it is turgid.
Yep.
The film has the same problems There Will Be Blood has which are that any scene not with Daniel Day Lewis is awful as a result of his absence from it, and that any one acting with him comes off worse by sheer virtue of not being as good as him.
It is a problem of one actor being better than everyone else which in the long run isn't exactly the worse problem.
0
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
The reason I don't like critics is because in general I give zero shits whether someone else likes a movie because that someone is not me
Well actually that is not true. I like it when friends and family and so on like the things I like, because then we can talk about stuff and that is cool. But some reviewer? Whatever.
So maybe dislike is too strong. I think "consider utterly irrelevant to my interests" is more accurate
Posts
Oh yeah, Elba certainly has more range.
But Sam Jackson is like Christopher Walken or Peter Stormare, you just love their pure presence in a role.
Yeah I was gonna say, I think Elba is better than Jackson, because Jackson tends to play Samuel L. Jackson. And he does it very well, but it is kind of his role in many ways.
This is true.
that's nothing. After shooting Zombieland, Woody Harrelson punched a photographer at an airport and claimed it was because he was still in character and thought the guy was a zombie.
You're a silly goose who doesn't seem to actually know anything about film criticism or actually read anything by the critics you're generalizing about.
Whether it's because he could never get paid to be one, or because they hate everything he loves, who knows
Steam
Yes, there are terrible and bad movies. But, when you're sensationalizing that every action movie is terrible and bad because they're not perfection then you need to get out of the criticism business. I'm sick of there being no middleground with some of the criticism. I also like how my opinion of reviews I've seen automatically encompassed all critics. I'm sure there are decent people in the trade who don't go around claiming to be experts. Silly goose you say? I guess it takes one to know one.
But aside from that one critic who hates everything that's beloved and loves everything that's universally hated, there hasn't been a single review I've read of a film I would see where I didn't look back on the review and at least see how the critic could have come to that opinion
And I've never seen a review where a critic has ever made an unfair judgment, let alone one based on the movie's genre
Steam
As such, it is complete and utter bullshit as a glance at Rotten Tomatoes or another review aggregator shows that there are well reviewed and poorly reviewed movies in all genres - CD even gave some recent examples.
If, as you seem to be now claiming, you were only referring to certain professional critics, then your statement basically amounts to whining that some people who get paid to review movies have different preferences from you. Which is just as silly, and also kind of petulant. If you find a reviewer consistently dislikes movies that you enjoy, find a different reviewer to read. Enjoying all genres of film equally is not a requirement for the job, nor should it be.
As someone who paid to see Jonah Hex, I agree.
I won't say it was the worst movie ever, hell it wasn't even the worst movie I saw that year. And it had some good qualities to it, like the cast. But it wasn't good. And the Rotten Tomatoes meter has helped me stay away from trash, and I wish I had listened to it and stayed away from Jonah Hex.
Steam
That it's a binary "liked/disliked" average does need to be taken into account. A movie that 80% of reviewers gave 3 stars or 6/10 would show as having an 80% tomatometer score. That doesn't make it useless, and in a lot of ways I prefer that to metacritic's policy of converting all reviews to a percentage score and assigning a score based on the tone of the review if no score is given.
This is a very good tip that more people need to learn to adopt.
Steam
And for three years this was our rating scale:
1. This is a great film. If you have the chance to see it do it.
2. This is a horrible film. If you have the chance to see it, don't.
3. This is an okay film. If it is on TV on a Sunday and you got nothing going on, give it a chance.
And I happen to think that is a fucking perfect scale.
The same reason Superdupe came in here a day ago and jumped on the star.
There are two types of people on this planet: the people who recognize the genius that is Nicolas Cage, and the people who think he's the worst actor ever.
No matter what happens from now until the end days, the people who have chosen a side will always be on that side, and no amount of praise or hate from any critic will be able to change that. Clearly that 17% is in the first category, and the 63% is in the latter.
The sad thing is, you know what's supposed to beat this at the box office?
The Vow.
Let that sink in.
Steam
But the other times, he's still entertaining.
I mean he's okay in Moonstruck and I fucking hate Moonstruck.
GG
If you think that's great
Steam
Sweeney did you just mistake me for Grey Ghost?
when the fight scenes moved away from simply bursting nameless goons in to flames with one hit of his chain it became a lot more entertaining.
i've read a lot of people complain about the cgi in this which baffles me. ghost rider looked great, the bike looked great, the truck at the end looked fucking awesome.
When I posted that, the forum said you were the last poster, so that was just the name in my mind at the time
Steam
the names are right there
and yet, 65% of people who went to see Twilight: Breaking Dawn liked it. how dare those critics disagree with the majority opinion!
Man, it is an amazing film.
And Bill the Butcher? One of my favorite characters ever.
He uses vulgarity and threats like an artist would paint.
I did not really think that fight scene was all that
Sorrysorrysorrypleasedon'thurtmeeee
False
Every scene with Brendan Gleeson was great
Steam
you were the one trying to pull an ad populum in here, dude. all I did was turn it around on you.
Yep.
The film has the same problems There Will Be Blood has which are that any scene not with Daniel Day Lewis is awful as a result of his absence from it, and that any one acting with him comes off worse by sheer virtue of not being as good as him.
It is a problem of one actor being better than everyone else which in the long run isn't exactly the worse problem.
His last scene is amazing.
Well actually that is not true. I like it when friends and family and so on like the things I like, because then we can talk about stuff and that is cool. But some reviewer? Whatever.
So maybe dislike is too strong. I think "consider utterly irrelevant to my interests" is more accurate