Official Review Thread


Author Topic: Official Review Thread  (Read 39657 times)

ypehmish

  • Unbreakable

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 54
    • Email
Re: Official Review Thread
« Reply #45 on: June 11, 2008, 08:30:56 AM »
i have been updating reviews on my thread at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0949731/board/thread/108580352

i got 18 so far...

BN

  • Unbreakable

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 61
Re: Official Review Thread
« Reply #46 on: June 11, 2008, 01:14:48 PM »
Very very early, but the On Rotten Tomatoes, they posted 3/5 reviews being fresh for a meter reading of 60%. Nice ! Hope it keeps up. I wil l be highly impressed if it ends with a meter reading of 55-60%.

SunnyD24

  • The Sixth Sense

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 31
    • Email
Re: Official Review Thread
« Reply #47 on: June 11, 2008, 01:17:10 PM »
They posted one more negative one making it 50%..but it hasn't showed yet.

Hopefully they update it with the Miami Herald, Hollywood Reporter, and those two Spanish reviews. Then it would look much better.

ypehmish

  • Unbreakable

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 54
    • Email
Re: Official Review Thread
« Reply #48 on: June 11, 2008, 02:02:44 PM »
hollywood reporter reivew is negative... wouldn't help out.

SunnyD24

  • The Sixth Sense

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 31
    • Email
Re: Official Review Thread
« Reply #49 on: June 11, 2008, 02:27:27 PM »
The Other Hollywood somthin one that is posotive..that is the one I was trying to refer to.

Sri HK

  • Futuristic (After Earth)

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 329
Re: Official Review Thread
« Reply #50 on: June 11, 2008, 06:57:43 PM »
I'm freaking pissed at some of these reviews....made me so angry that i registered for a RT account and i'm posting pissed of comments on the reviews (as desitexan).

I get really pissed off when people think it is ok to call him names....."Shyamala...ding...dong" from a movie reviewr tells a lot about the reviewer than anything else. Fuging douche bags.   >:(
What you see isn't always what u get.

GrOoDmAn

  • Wide Awake

  • Offline
  • **

  • 12
Re: Official Review Thread
« Reply #51 on: June 11, 2008, 07:47:11 PM »
Two reviews on this site... one very negative and one very positive...

http://cinephilia.net.au/bigscreen.php

DILinator

  • The Happening

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 211
Re: Official Review Thread
« Reply #52 on: June 11, 2008, 07:47:21 PM »
Getting back to that "credibility" issue, if a reviewer makes comments belittling Signs for having "aquaphobic aliens", or The Village for having "such a predictable twist ending", they've already lost any merit in judging his films in my mind since they clearly missed the point in those movies.  Neither of those things means much of anything in the grand scheme of either film, and is merely a plot point.  Funny how these same reviewers will not likely refer to the myriad of plot holes, or plot points that are absurd in movies like No Country for Old Men.  And I also agree with the above poster: if a reviewer references Night as "Shymalamadingdong", then their credibility in reviewing any of his movies is obviously shot, because they're clearly not going in with an objective mind, therefore distorting any review they muster up. 

I don't want to continue to hijack this thread with my discussion withokokokok, but I'll quickly respond to a few things, and then anything further can be discussed (debated  ;) ) through PMs. 

I do like to argue, but not with you.  Well I do and I don't.  I get knots in my stomach when I am about to read your replies to my comments.  Look man, I really care, ha.  We just have naturally opposing dispositions I think.

In truth, that's the same with me, and while I think we do have some "naturally opposing dispositions", I think there are some things we can agree on as well.  We just both like to put our opinions out there, and even stir the pot a little.  I think we're very similar in many ways, but just have those opposing viewpoints, which causes us to always find ourselves in these little "spats", if you will.   

But then, in my opinion, you kinda hamstring all your arguments because you, more so then anyone here, speak for whole groups of people often.  It seems right now that your group of friends is the key demographic in how a movie is perceived by ALL those who saw it.  And the fact that you call people snobs because they just happen to like different movies than you makes you a snob just like them.  That's why I appreciate when people have a wide range of films they like.  Not just artsy flicks.  Not just mainstream flicks.  That being said, as far as the M Night lovers, some of them really go totally over board in my opinion.  But I just take less of an offense to someone having a biased opinion about their own feelings towards M Night(after all, we are on an M Night appreciation site), or even against M Night, then I do to people who speak for groups of people, and then make that the basis of an argument for whether a movie is good/successful/accepted/bad/not mainstream, blah blah blah.  Especially when it seems they are primarily using their friends as the indicator for proper judgment of a film.  I mean, is it my friends versus yours or something, because we would probably have a draw.  Then how would we know if it was a good movie or not if we had to cross cancel our acquaintances!??!

See, I do feel that my representation of "acquaintances" is a very strong cross section of the American public.  As a person who works with many different people, from many walks of life, and many different tastes every day, in addition to those who are actually in my large circle of friends (who are also quite a varied lot), I get opinions on movies that range all over the place.  So when I get a recurrent response to whether somebody likes or dislikes a movie, it means something to me.  And for the record, I put more stock in "normal" people than film buffs, because I think oftentimes film buffs can't see the forest for the trees.  Their critique of many of Shyamalan's films bears that out especially.  Unless a filmmaker is making a movie for film buffs, or the "artsy-fartsy" crowd, I don't think he should really care what their opinion is.  My brother has started going to film school, and I can already tell that he's losing a little bit of a grip on reality as far as movies are concerned, and is becoming too "textbook film critic" in his assessment of movies.  I think that's too bad, and I strive to maintain a more global view of filmmaking, and what truly defines a movie as good.  With you not knowing my acquaintances, friends, and random people I strike up movie conversations with (because in my job, I deal with TONS of people, different people, every day), and with me not knowing yours, obviously it's hard to compare.  But suffice to say I feel pretty confident that the sampling of people I come across on a regular basis is more than most people do, as that's just the nature of my life.  And if there are "hot topic" movies like LITW, There Will Be Blood", or No Country for Old Men, I make sure to ask people's opinions of those.  And the overwhelming majority do not like ANY of those movies.  You may not feel that those people represent part of a valid argument, but I feel they are as valid and more so really than critics, IMDB users, Rotten Tomato-ites, and film buffs.  Heck, film buffs are a part of that group, but they are very much in the minority compared to the average moviegoer in the lot.   

And anything can be anything in the eye of the beholder, c'mon.  How do you even have discussions if that's how you are going to argue?  Credibility is just the wrong word here as we are now being specific.  If you don't agree with that, it paints all of your arguments negatively.

Credibility is the right word for what I am talking about, but maybe the wrong word for what we are debating about.  I've defined my idea of "credibility" before, and I think it's a pretty watertight version.  If you can pick up on things that skew a reviewers evaluation, then I do think that you can say his credibility is shot, at least as far as being objective is concerned.  Maybe what we're really discussing here is more the "objectivity" of a reviewer, as opposed to "credibility", but I believe that a reviewer that is not objective, or has a preconceived notion going into a particular movie review does lose credibility, at least with me.   

By the way, every indicator we have discussed as far as a movies success and acceptance is in favor of There Will Be Blood, with the exception of you and your friends....that is, people that you and I know, critical review, award, and resources on the internet (movies sites, box office, budget, etc)  I'm not saying it was a blockbuster, nor am I saying that is was made with the intention of being one.  That is an important distinction.

I've already stated that the online movie-board crowd carries little weight with me, as do the movie critics.  I put much more stock in the actual people I know and talk to, who are a better representation of how the movie is faring with those not prone to obsessing about movies (of which I would qualify, since I'm here at this site!).  You may discount that, but I don't.  That's my experience, and the box office take wasn't anything all that grand, and I know people who are a part of that BO that didn't like the movie, so that doesn't mean it's popular by that merit.  I gave the movie a fair shake, and while I found it interesting, in the end I thought it was overrated, and nowhere near as compelling as some obviously think it is. 

I had a discussion last night with an acquaintance, who I know does not look at movies like I do.  I knew he loved NCFOM, so I asked him what his thoughts were about TWBB, even though I already had a good idea of what the answer would be.  He defended the movies' merits, I said I disagreed, and in the end, I no sooner bought his take on the film than he did mine.  However, I wanted to get a glimpse of what those who thought the movie was good saw in it, and why.  Having done that, I still don't think the movie is as great as they do, but I respect everybody's entitlement to their own opinions.  Getting back to the fact that I pretty much knew what he was going to say, I think that shows an important problem I see with the "film buff" crowd.  They're very predictable, and almost like lemmings when it comes to movies they like, and their responses when questioned about why they like them.  I am quite varied in my response to movies, and while I like some "artsy" films, others I reject because they don't ring true, or don't have any redeeming merit in the end. 

I must love to hear myself talk.  Or see myself type.  I think that hinders my arguments sometimes, lol.

I think you and I are in the same boat there! lol.

In the end, I think we can agree to disagree, and any further pursuit of this discussion should be done through messaging, as opposed to wasting space in this thread on a completely unrelated topic.  I respect you, and what would life in an online message forum be like if everybody just agreed with everything you said.  What's the fun in that?  ;)
"See what you have to ask yourself is what kind of person are you? Are you the kind that sees signs, sees miracles? Or do you believe that people just get lucky?"

I'm a "Signs" person.

Sri HK

  • Futuristic (After Earth)

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 329
Re: Official Review Thread
« Reply #53 on: June 11, 2008, 07:51:28 PM »
Two reviews on this site... one very negative and one very positive...

http://cinephilia.net.au/bigscreen.php

Goodness gracious.....when will this reviewers get themselves rid of the "twist" syndrome?!

 ???
« Last Edit: June 11, 2008, 07:55:37 PM by Sri HK »
What you see isn't always what u get.

Rohan

  • Global Moderator
  • Futuristic (After Earth)

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 2619
    • nightwriter22
Re: Official Review Thread
« Reply #54 on: June 11, 2008, 09:20:49 PM »
I read the positive review at cinephilia site. I like it. Usually the negative reviews have spoilers and positive ones don't.

Rohan

San Jose Shark

  • The Sixth Sense

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 39
    • SJSharks.com
Re: Official Review Thread
« Reply #55 on: June 11, 2008, 09:22:43 PM »
 Why are you guys getting so worked up over reviews? who cares!Shyamlan is doing just fine and he will be forever loaded with cash and be a happy man. Personally i really don't care if this movie bombs or not, i only care what it does for me. So everybody needs to calm down and have some fruit.
GO SHARKS!

Sri HK

  • Futuristic (After Earth)

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 329
Re: Official Review Thread
« Reply #56 on: June 11, 2008, 09:31:27 PM »
Aussie hoy!!

http://www.theage.com.au/news/film-reviews/the-happening/2008/06/12/1212863797111.html

A tantalising, sometimes frustrating parable about the menaces that human beings might face from unexpected quarters.

3 and 1/2 stars out of 4 (or 5 ?)

 ;D
What you see isn't always what u get.

Rohan

  • Global Moderator
  • Futuristic (After Earth)

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 2619
    • nightwriter22
Re: Official Review Thread
« Reply #57 on: June 11, 2008, 10:25:36 PM »
Why are you guys getting so worked up over reviews? who cares!Shyamlan is doing just fine and he will be forever loaded with cash and be a happy man. Personally i really don't care if this movie bombs or not, i only care what it does for me. So everybody needs to calm down and have some fruit.

 ;D Thats the line from signs, the ending phrase,

Sri HK

  • Futuristic (After Earth)

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 329
Re: Official Review Thread
« Reply #58 on: June 11, 2008, 10:30:21 PM »
'Happening' shocks, then bores
- The Associated Press


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZYHOi3OU_EtLpEQI6vuhlrpFDRgD91893R80

Okay.....so?  Wht does that suppose to mean?  I hate when a reviewer doesn't come to a solid conclusion!

 ::)



What you see isn't always what u get.

Sanford

  • The Avatar

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 297
    • Black Lightning
    • Email
Re: Official Review Thread
« Reply #59 on: June 11, 2008, 10:39:17 PM »
A lot of critics seem to be mixed, it's seemed to me. I don't think they quite know how to take the film yet.