Printable View
i just got back from the movie theater and man, do you have to see this movie!! its been a loooooooooong time since i literaly jumped out my seat while watching a horror movie and this movie made me do it a couple of times. you still reading? why aren't you getting ready to drive (or get driven) to the movies...?
I have the old vesion and it will just have to suffice.
I definitly wanna see it, I've been wanting to read the book for ages, but it's difficult to find (though I'm sure it wont be anymore).
i didn't know it was a remake but now that you mention it the movie does tend to make you feel as you were watching an old movie (old-fashoned GOOD horror).
I refuse to see anything with that woman in it.
Shallow of me I know, but Melissa George pisses me off.
I saw the add and vowed to see it. The story has always interested me greatly, especially during my "mind body spirit" obsession from last year and Ive always found horror addictive.
It got horrible reviews everywere i've read. Or that may have been another horror movie, theres so much at the moment. If the guy from van wilder is in it then it's supposed to be trash.
too bad. you're missing a great movie. rent the original, i guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
man, are you mistaken. ryan reynolds shows that he is a great actor. comedy, action, horror, you name it. slowly, he is becoming my favorite actor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rasputen
Yeah well why has everyone said that his performance was more wooden than pinochio inside noahs ark making wood. He sucks big time.
whatever, dude. rent the original then (i'm guessing is great). here, found this: www.crimelibrary.com/classics3/amityville/
Ive seen the original and am not keen to see the remake because its meant to be crap and it has Ryan Reynolds in it.
Think that says it all
Don't trust the critics. If I did, I never would have seen my favorite movie of all time. Even if the critics dont like it, you might.
I trust critics. They make their living from reviewing movies, and if every
review they write goes against popular opinion (which is what it seems like
many people believe) then why would they have a job?
www.rottentomatoes.com gives a percentage of good/bad reviews from all
different sources. Amityville got like 27% good and looking quickly at the
good reviews, they're not all that great. "This movie will make you jump."
Wow. Now I must see this. If a director can create a bit of tenseness in
his/her movie and then at its climax shoot a light of some sort flashing
along with a loud sound, the sum of which will overload my senses and
cause a nervous twitch which everyone will confuse with actually being
scared, I sure as hell want to pay $9.50 to see it!
.opt
The movie doesn't seem so scary to you if you've passed by the actual house a few times.
I never said what they write goes against popular opinion. How I feel goes against popular opinion, hence why I think it's stupid to worry about what critics say. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas got terrible reviews, but if I'd listened to the critics and never seen it, I'd have missed what I feel is one of the greatest films of all time and probably never have gotten exposure to my favorite author of all time. They said terrible things about The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, but I went to the theatre five times to see it. Critics know bubkis in my opinion. If a movie looks good to you, see it. If not, dont.
Fear and Loathing was a good movie, however there are many things
about it that aren't all that great. Trying to make a movie about Hunter
is a difficult task and in my opinion wasn't done well.......or at least well
enough. In fact the movie was done well, but the content is such that
even done well ISN'T done well enough. Because of the story and who it
is about, it needs to be done amazingly to be such, the problem is it
wasn't (in my opinion at least). The thing about "popular opinion" is that
when it comes to movies, popular opinion is very different than say the
popular opinion which goes with music. Most movie critics can be seen
more as a reviewer for some underground music magazine than a VJ on
MTV.
Take for instance the Boondock Saints. A few years ago at my school
there was this ridiculous fad of people talking about how awesome this
movie is. I downloaded it, watched it, nearly killed myself, but after
regaining my composure checked out rotten tomatoes and saw that it
got like a 10% rating.
Here's the thing, though. You shouldn't trust critics entirely. What I do
is see a preview. If it looks good I'll probably start downloading it and
check reviews while it's downloading. If it looks iffy, I'll check some
reviews, and if it looks like crap, I'll check the reviews. If the reviews
say it's awesome when it looks iffy or even if it looks like crap, I'll check
it out. Likewise if it looks good but the reviews say it's crap, I'll actually
read full reviews while it's still downloading and if it really does sound
like a horrible movie, I probably won't waste my time.
It just seems that everyone's always bashing movie critics because
they only remember when a certain critic is wrong about a movie they
like, but they forget about the hundreds of times that the critics are
completely right, whether the movie is good or bad.
TOO MUCH TYPING
.opt
There are times when critics are right, yes. But given that critics are prone to loving movies like whatever the Hell Vin Diesel was recently in, that automatically means they're dimwits in my book.
Looks dumb. I won't see it.
Well now you're just making stuff up. The only 3 Vin Diesel movies that
have gotten above 50% on rotten tomatoes are Iron Giant (97%),
Saving Private Ryan (97%), and Boiler Room (67%).
I'm assuming you're talking about the Pacifier. It got 19%.
.opt
I'm not talking about Rotten Tomatoes, I'm talking about critics in general. The folks that do this sort of thing for a living, in newspapers and whatnot.
And yes, it was a general statement that had no real basis, save for the fact that critics tend to love whatever snot the companies put out. There are some who dont like it, yes, but always some who do, which is why I stick to my point and will continue to. If a movie looks like something you wanna see, go see it. If not, dont. Dont let what the critics say encourage or discourage you, as no critic can predict what you personally will or will not like.
boondock saints was a good movie wtf
Kenneth Turan of the LA Times and James Berardinelli from ReelViews usually match up with my tastes 90% of the time and I respect their opinions when it comes to films. If neither of them like the movie, chances are I won't either. If they both love of a movie, you can bet I'd give it a chance even if the film didn't interest me at first (Million Dollar Baby, Girl with a Pearl Earring, etc). If people would actually read their reviews, they'd find intelligent, insightful comments on the merits of a film.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAbominatrix
But most people don't do that. Thumbs up, thumbs down, 4 stars, 2 stars, snappy one-liners and 3 second soundbites.
I don't think it's fair to stick all movie critics in one lump. Sure there are those snobby and pretentious critics who don't like anything the mainstream public loves, but there's always people like Harry Knowles from AICN, coming from the other end of the spectrum, to give his fanboyish take on movies and balance it all out.
And Rottentomatoes IS made up of critics who do this sort of thing for a living. Newspaper critics and such.
If you can find a critic whose tastes match yours, then why not use him/her as a barometer to guage whether or not you'd like a movie?
I though RottenTomatoes was user-based?
Anyway, I certainly dont mean all critics, but the majority of them certainly. When Rasputen said "Oh the critics hated it", that's what prompted my comment. Even if the majority of the critics hate it, it could be a wonderful movie to you personally, which is why I think relying on what the majority of the critics say to be a waste of time. if you have a certain critic(s) that match your taste, that's a good bet. It's like having friends to tell you about movies, because they can better gauge what you'll like or what you wont. But just going on the word of the critics, even if a good chunk of them say the same, isnt smart in my book. Again, I'll site Fear and Loathing and The Life Aquatic. If I went by what the majority of critics said, I'd never have seen either. I personally dont have critics that I stick to, so I cant say what I would have done if they had said anything.
A movie can be horrid but still be someone's favorite, so it's best to judge for yourself. Barring that, a certain critic(s) or friends, but I wouldnt say to forego seeing a film because it doesnt get good reviews as a whole, or to see a film because it does.
Very true.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAbominatrix
Virtually every single critic hated Be Cool. But I thought it was friggen hilarious. ^_^
Rotten Tomatoes takes reviews from as many good newspapers, television
programs, etc that they can find, and compiles them into one place. This
means that if 1 critic says that Vin Diesel gives a stunning performance
as a babysitter, 90 others say that Vin Diesel plays the skin flute. There-
fore we can assume that Vin Diesel does, in fact, play the skin flute.
.opt
I thought this was about the movie, not "bitch back and fourth about fatass critics who get paid to watch movies and tell us all how good bad movies are and how horrible great movies are"...
I haven't seen the original or read the book. Supposely it's based on a true story though. o___O
But that doesnt negate the fact that people enjoyed it. As Miriel said with Be Cool. The critics didnt like it, she did. As I said with Fear and Loathing and The Life Aquatic. Dont limit your movie choices because of critics. It may very well be a bad movie, but you may very well enjoy it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Optium