Movie Reviews 2.0

[Dresden]

Public Enemies- 8/10

I'm a little disappointed on how low this movie ranked on Rotten Tomatoes. The only thing that bothered me about this movie was how awful Christian Bale's southern accent was. It could be worse than his voice in The Dark Knight. I had no idea how slippery John Dillinger was. He was a real bastard when it came to actually keeping him in jail.

 

[London Geezer]

They could pick up where X2 left off. Just replace, Scott, Jean and Storm with good actors and you got a great movie already.

I'm a bit torn on Xmen First Class. Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan are perfect fits.

At least you guys seem to have completely forgotten Wolverine. Now that was a waste of 2hours i'll never forget.

 

[Arwin]

They could pick up where X2 left off. Just replace, Scott, Jean and Storm with good actors and you got a great movie already.

I'm a bit torn on Xmen First Class. Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan are perfect fits.

I'm not normally 'nationalistic' but I thought Famke Jansen did a pretty decent job with Jean ... actor playing Scott wasn't bad either? Storm though a definite disappointment. If they do a sequel they'll need at least Patrick Stewart's voice. Body at best for the occasional mirror scene.

 

[rpg.314]

12 Angry Men: 8.5/10 (imdb scale)

I know it is an old movie, but boy, it is something.

 

[RobertR1]

At least you guys seem to have completely forgotten Wolverine. Now that was a waste of 2hours i'll never forget.

That was an abomination. The only thing good to come out of that was the game, which was fun.

 

[zed]

At least you guys seem to have completely forgotten Wolverine. Now that was a waste of 2hours i'll never forget.

I wanna know, how fast do u have to spin a sword around so it acts as a shield against bullets.
Then again if jedi's can hit back lazers traveling at 300,000,000 m/sec with their light sabers then batting back bullets travelling at a mere ~1000m/sec should be a piece of piss.

I saw this film , day before yesterday. At the start of the landscape part I was going wow that looks much nicer than the canadian rockies that Ive been too, after a couple of secs it dawns, hell this was filmed in the south island

 

[Simon F]

Then again if jedi's can hit back lazers traveling at 300,000,000 m/sec with their light sabers then batting back bullets travelling at a mere ~1000m/sec should be a piece of piss.

I don't think they actually ever called them lasers, just "blasters", so they could have been anything. Of course, they might also have been predicting the future and so had the sabres in the right place at the right time

Besides, lasers in space would have been completely invisible (unless you were the target staring back up the barrel).

 

[Arwin]

That was an abomination. The only thing good to come out of that was the game, which was fun.

I have a hard time seeing how Wolverine is different from the other X-Men stuff to be honest. But I guess it's because I only red a handful of these comics as a kid.

 

[London Geezer]

I have a hard time seeing how Wolverine is different from the other X-Men stuff to be honest. But I guess it's because I only red a handful of these comics as a kid.

It was much different. The only way i can describe it has no soul, it was like a boring 2 hour long series of scenes with nothing there to glue them together and to attract any sort of interest in what is happening.
X1 was good in many ways especially as it was a rare example that superhero movies can have some sort of characterization, X2 was amazing as it expanded on X1 - more effects, more craziness - and the characters didn't suffer - they actually were more interesting than the first movie. X3 started to get a little lifeless, and Wolverine just killed any attachment i had in the franchise.

 

[WhiningKhan]

I don't think they actually ever called them lasers, just "blasters", so they could have been anything.

Blasters are are indeed nothing like lasers.

Blasters come in a variety of shapes and sizes, ranging from handheld to shipmounted weapons.[4] They function by emitting blaster gas into a chamber, where the blaster's power source excites the gas.[1] The weapon's actuating module converts the energized gas into a particle or plasma projectile beam.[1] A prismatic crystal focuses the beam, converting it into a tangible projectile.[1]

Of course, they might also have been predicting the future and so had the sabres in the right place at the right time

That is correct, padawan. Jedi's strength flows from the Force. Clear your mind from thoughts and let the Force guide your lightsaber.

 

[WhiningKhan]

It was much different. The only way i can describe it has no soul, it was like a boring 2 hour long series of scenes with nothing there to glue them together and to attract any sort of interest in what is happening.
X1 was good in many ways especially as it was a rare example that superhero movies can have some sort of characterization, X2 was amazing as it expanded on X1 - more effects, more craziness - and the characters didn't suffer - they actually were more interesting than the first movie. X3 started to get a little lifeless, and Wolverine just killed any attachment i had in the franchise.

Well I guess I'm really not a Marvel connoisseur, but I haven't found any real difference in those four films either - except of course the inevitable curse of sequels, i.e. trying to get bigger effects at any cost.

 

[London Geezer]

Well I guess I'm really not a Marvel connoisseur, but I haven't found any real difference in those four films either - except of course the inevitable curse of sequels, i.e. trying to get bigger effects at any cost.

I'm not a Marvel expert either, never read their comic apart from maybe a couple of issues when i was a teenager, but even then there's no denying that the first two are in a completely different league than the last two. Wolverine especially was completely disconnected with the rest and, to be fair, with the audience!

 

[Arwin]

Wolverine especially was completely disconnected with the rest

How?

and, to be fair, with the audience!

I claim franchise fatigue. Ratings on IMDB are only 0.5 below the original X-Men.

 

[MfA]

IMDB suffers from anti-action elitists dragging the numbers down (and thus the difference). RT community rating has a 12% difference.

 

[zed]

IMDB suffers from anti-action elitists dragging the numbers down (and thus the difference). RT community rating has a 12% difference.

Thinking just 1/2 sec I'ld claim the opposite.
RT are reviewers for papers/tv etc now they're typically gonna be more elitist than a site which allows anybody to rate a film
eg the latest big action film "the expendables"
RT = 38% , IMDB = 7.5 (Ive watched the trailer, it looks terrible )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_action_films_of_the_2010s
just the first few
The A-Team RT = 47% , IMDB = 7.3
The Book of Eli RT = 47% , IMDB = 6.9
The Bounty Hunter RT = 7%, IMDB = 5.1
Centurion RT = 56%, IMDB = 6.5 // niel marshall how could u
The crazies RT = 71%, IMDT = 6.7

the only exception is The crazies (god damn romareo fans)

 

[aaronspink]

Thinking just 1/2 sec I'ld claim the opposite.
RT are reviewers for papers/tv etc now they're typically gonna be more elitist than a site which allows anybody to rate a film
eg the latest big action film "the expendables"
RT = 38% , IMDB = 7.5 (Ive watched the trailer, it looks terrible )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_action_films_of_the_2010s
just the first few
The A-Team RT = 47% , IMDB = 7.3
The Book of Eli RT = 47% , IMDB = 6.9
The Bounty Hunter RT = 7%, IMDB = 5.1
Centurion RT = 56%, IMDB = 6.5 // niel marshall how could u
The crazies RT = 71%, IMDT = 6.7

the only exception is The crazies (god damn romareo fans)

One thing to keep in mind is that critics tend to be equally polarized, ie, their ratings tend to cluster in the high end and in the low end. Average population tends to high side their rating. So think of IMDB as grade system: <60% = F, 60-70 = D, 70-80 = C, 80-90 = B, 90-100 = A. For RT <20% sucks, >80% great, anything in the middle, no correlation.

 

[zed]

OK u cant really compare IMDB + RT

but IMDB "<60% = F, 60-70 = D, 70-80 = C, 80-90 = B, 90-100 = A"
is plainly false
eg top250
1. 9.1 The Shawshank Redemption (1994) 513,562
2. 9.1 The Godfather (1972) 407,096
3. 9.0 The Godfather: Part II (1974) 242,242
4. 9.0 Inception (2010) 167,270
5. 8.9 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) 157,803

thus you're saying theres only 4 A rated movies, whilst 10s of thousands of F rated films (i.e. those with a rating lower than 6.0)

I dont know what the median rating on IMDB but I wouldnt be surprised if it was about 6. Theres a lot of ppl that go. True ppl throw around 10/10s but conversely u have ppl that go Oh that film was the worse film ever I'll give it 1/10. next week with a different film its "Ive just seen the worst film ever" pure hyperbole

Quickly looking over this thread shows you classic examples
Avatar 0/10
Paranormal Activity 1/10
Iron Man 2 1/10
Clash of the Titans remake: 1/10
Edge of Darkness: 1/10 // I rewatched the orginal last month, hmm it was just how I remembered it from the 80s, overrated
etc

yes some of those are bad but if you think theyre the worse of the worse then you obviously havent watched many bad films(*)

(*)nothing wrong with crap films mind, I watch them all the time (being the horror fan I am)

watched ponyo last night 7/10 one of miyazaki's worst

 

[aaronspink]

thus you're saying theres only 4 A rated movies, whilst 10s of thousands of F rated films (i.e. those with a rating lower than 6.0)

Excellence really is a rare thing! Then again, I did meet a professor once who's grade theory was: I'll give you an A on something if its a fundamental breakthrough. You'll get a B for something that is a significant contribution to the advancement of the field, C are given for excellent work, D for good work, everything else in unacceptable and therefore an F.

And really, you can't take seriously any movie that hasn't been out for 2+ years in the top 100/250 on IMDB. The ratings will change a lot. Inception will likely lose .5-1 point over the next year. And the reality is, I have a hard time thinking of movie comparable to the current top 3. They are all classics of script writing, casting, cinematography, directing, acting, sets, etc. The most amazing thing really is that Coppola was able to do it twice.

And quite honestly, of the films out there, I wouldn't be surprised if the average was a low D.

I dont know what the median rating on IMDB but I wouldnt be surprised if it was about 6. Theres a lot of ppl that go. True ppl throw around 10/10s but conversely u have ppl that go Oh that film was the worse film ever I'll give it 1/10. next week with a different film its "Ive just seen the worst film ever" pure hyperbole

The thing is though that the self selection bias is weighted fairly highly on the high side. What would be interesting is statistics on people actual vote numbers.

yes some of those are bad but if you think theyre the worse of the worse then you obviously havent watched many bad films(*)

Oh I agree, what's funny is people who thing the clash of the titans remake was worse than the original.

(*)nothing wrong with crap films mind, I watch them all the time (being the horror fan I am)

Well there is a difference between crap films and kitch/camp/genre.

And re-watched Fido again over the weekend. Definitely worth checking out for its very camp take on the whole zombie meme. Pretty good dark comedy overall.

 

[Arwin]

So my conclusion: I'm sticking to the franchise fatigue theory. Though having said I expect that movies that contain more of the main characters at once to do better in general.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I think Wolverine was an ok action movie. Nothing special, but I wasn't expecting much. I certainly thought X-Men 3 was bit of a mess. The second is the best by far.