Slashdot Mirror

"When was the last time you decided to see a movie based on a movie review? Film critics write to each other."

I use film reviews all the time. Unless I'm already heavily predisposed to see in the movie (eg, Bubba Ho-Tep), if a movie comes out where the reviews are real stinkers, I won't go see it.

(Notice that that's reviews, plural. Rotten Tomatoes is your friend.)

Granted, word of mouth is more important than reviews, but that doesn't make reviews useless.

Back on the subject of game reviews, though: I certainly want reviewers to tell me about the game, not about their interpretation of the game. The worst offendor I think I've ever read is here. Allow me to quote:

Sigmund Freud argues that all living things are governed by two basic instincts: the life instinct called Eros or the death instinct called Thanatos. Eros is the energy that tries to build social ties, fueled by the body, which floods the mind. Thanatos destroys ties and is the wish for destruction and death. All social activity can be reduced to complex forms and interaction of these two instincts. However, when civilization and socialization disrupt the normal ebb and flow of instinctual living, the mind breaks up under the demands. The threefold self is the id, the collective genetic inheritance of the species; the ego, which acts to meet the demands of the id; and the super-ego, which represents the internalization of the demands of society. Humans struggle to find an outlet to meet the demands of their instincts, but in ways that are socially acceptable. War is a perfect justification when Eros fails to tame Thanatos. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is another.

And that's just the beginning, folks.

I like Japanese animation, but why does Anime have some mystical power here in Slashdot?

You're right. It isn't like every freaking time anime is mentioned on Slashdot we have highly moderated comments slamming the art form, or occasionally a holier-than-thou "The popular anime ________ is trash!"

(yeah, mod me down for flame bait because I DARED to profane NGE and Akira, instead of answering my legitemate question.)

You should be modded down for flamebait because your comment offered nothing truly incisive, simply spewing a standard popular complaint that pretty much guaranteed you mod points. (The complaint that you will be modded down only boosts that, as we all know - everyone loves a badass rebel!)

Regardless, your comment was strictly designed to encourage flames, because it is otherwise nonsensical. It isn't like Evangelion and Akira are only held in critical regard on Slashdot! Why pretend this fame is some kind of cultish Slashdot quirk?

You also completely misunderstood the parent post's point. The quality of a specific anime has nothing to do with it - any film genre (or artform really) that is 'weird' to a viewer will probably fail to draw them in. Most people are severely close-minded about nearly everything new or unusual. You demonstrate this pretty well.

Maybe that 75% will pull up the rottentomatoes rating, which is still at 38%.

Since every response I got was "Phantom Menace was universially panned save for the fanboys on GL's jock" I bring evidence: The Rotten Tomatos page shows that PM got 63% positive reviews, averaging a 7 out of 10. Roger Ebert gave it 3.5 stars out of 4!

So that disproves only the diehards liking it.

Hell, people must have liked it for some reason since it is the 4th highest domestic grossing movie of all time.

So that disproves the fact that people were "tricked" into seeing it. If they were, they were magically "tricked" into seeing it multiple times.

I'm sorry but no, people liked the movie when it came out. Yeah, maybe not You, but they did defend it. It's only some social revisionism to say that it was never popular and that was all just some trick pulled by LucasFilms.

If it was a failure, Kevin Costner would've given his right nut to have Waterworld fail so spectacularly (to the tune of a half billion dollars).

"So disappointing they may as well have bussed in Ewoks to save Zion."

Made me laugh.

I though Reloaded was a huge drop off from the orignal and this one may be a huge disappointment. Too bad, because the orignal was one of the best SciFi movies in Years.

The machines are attacking tomorrow, lets have a Rave.

Baraka is better.

Hypnotic. Depressing. Uplifting. Thought provoking. All at the same time, and without one word of dialog.

--

It would be a sad day if one of these (excuse the pun) bugs were released and some error was caught too late.

It already happened on Mars. Didn't you see Cowboy Bebop? The moral of the story is that we need to be able to manipulate the weather to deliver the antidote. Your fears about human hubris are clearly without merit.

A beowulf cluster of Young Einsteins would certainly find a lot more uses for beer.

(No I don't work for RT.)

Official Rotten Tomatoes Rating Page

Currently, at time of posting, rated at 84% Fresh with 32 total reviews; of those, 27 fresh and 5 rotten.

All reviews listed for Bubba Ho-Tep

I feel so much better after a good bit of whoring.

Official Rotten Tomatoes Rating Page

Currently, at time of posting, rated at 84% Fresh with 32 total reviews; of those, 27 fresh and 5 rotten.

All reviews listed for Bubba Ho-Tep

I feel so much better after a good bit of whoring.

it has gotten some really good reviews, too.

But yeah, headhunters make huge commissions. Law of supply and demand. I once worked for a company that built a new building, moved its employees in, and only then realized that nobody had thought to order blinds for any of the windows. Not good: glare, security issues. So they called up a jobber, who was able to get the blinds installed quickly, but at a premium price. I heard that they tried to get in touch with her shortly later on an unrelated matter, and were told "Sorry, she just got this huge commission and is using it to take an extended vacation."

Moral being, if companies dig themselves into expensive holes (not buying blinds, not looking for that key employee until the last minute), you can't blame the people who earn big commissions for helping dig them out. Especially when they're honest enough to give you $6K that they might have avoided paying.

As per the usual, Japan's been there, done that. Personally, I'm looking forward to the cosplay at a Tetris convention. "Oh man, check out the girl in the T brick costume!"

How many San Franciscos to the Texas?

Having the Doctor get involved with his companions would probably screw the plots up something awful

I'll say! Remember the last time it happened??

Repetitive suspense scenes, godawful voice acting, and plots with holes Nemesis could hopscotch through without ducking have leeched much of the suspense away I fear. As with many horror movies and games, the first will always be the best. The most potent fear is that of the unknown.

Not to say that it can't be done, but it's gonna take a restructuring of Craven-esque proportions to bring back the chills and screams to the series.

And don't get me started on Resident Dino, I don't have the strength. Something has survived.... and it wasn't gameplay, plot, or thrills.

That simply isn't correct. We need some numbers...

Jeepers Creepers 2 opened on Friday. Over the weekend it was seen by roughly 1.5 million people. I am not sure I would even classify it as a major motion picture, either. Certainly not as big as a Terminator, Matrix (considered a disappointment at more than 20 million tickets), Lord of the Rings, Finding Nemo (more than 30 million tickets so far, it looks like), etc. But that weekend number still kills the sales of most console games.

(I am rounding up ticket prices to $10, too, which is largely not true. So ticket sales are even higher, perhaps significantly so! This is also all US-centric - it is hard enough to compile numbers for just the USA. For reference, some Japanese console game sales can be found here, though of course more games are sold in America or Europe.)

I can't find very accurate sales for the Nintendo games (which aside from Pokemon, have not sold as well as anticipated - Metroid Prime in particular), but I know Vice City broke all sales records in America by selling a million copies in two days. I am estimating here, but by now Vice City has maybe sold close to 10 million copies (it was at 4.4 million back in January - I am being a little charatible). I am sure it will still sell pretty well for a while, especially the coming port to Xbox. But the number of copies sold is still dwarfed by ticket sales for something like Finding Nemo. And really we should include future video/DVD sales, as well, seeing as how popular games have a much longer 'sell life' than a film at the theaters.

The original Super Marios Brothers is one of the best selling games of all time: ~40 million copies. Very good numbers, but this is partially because it was bundled with the NES itself! Super Mario Brothers 3 (which was not bundled AFAIK) sold 'only' around 17 million copies.

Now, I won't disagree that games like Vice City make more money than films like Finding Nemo (they do), or that they have far better profit margins than most films (again, they do - though maybe not for much longer, unfortunately. Let's see how Half Life 2 does...). But the truth is that big films nearly always sell more tickets than even the biggest games do.

Have a look at Gametab.

The best review site on the net, they summarise lots of other reviews and give games an aggregate score. Sort of like Rotten Tomatoes does for movies.

That way you only have to look at a single number to decide if a game is worth checking out.

Then again, this is the nature of the business.

They tried several times to do just that, by showing obscure previews that didn't give away anything, and so far most of them resulted in failures. Overwhelming majority of movie-going consumers suffer from ADD. Without giving them something big during the preview, you're running the risk of dooming the box office returns.

In 1995, I remember they started running the ads for Strange Days, which involved few people giving interviews about something no one had a clue about. While it was mysterious and edgy at the time, the movie was punished by not generating enough buzz and consequent revenue, and the advertising method was to blame. The studio tried to switch gears and follow the traditional approach with full blown trailer showing big explosions and major scenes, but it was too late.

In conclusion, don't watch the trailer.

p.s. I find it interesting that all of my favorite movies are the ones which I watched without seeing a trailer in advance. Something to think about.

Rotten tomatoes is based on published reviews (mostly newspapers). I find it pretty useful. Even if the tomatometer rates it rotten, but you want to see it anyway (because it has some hook that presses your buttons), you can read the positive reviews and find points to look out for.

According to Rotten Tomatoes only 15 reviewers bothered even to write about Avenging Angelo which was not enough to give it a 'freshness'rating. Gigli may be the worst movie of all time with only 8% positive reviews. The hulk had 61% positive and CA-FT 42%. Apparently Gigli is even worse than 'The Postman' that received 9% positive.

A good source for reviews is Rotten Tomatoes. The Hulk had 61% positive reviews(119 out of 196). Charlies Angels received only 40% and Gigli 8%.

I know everyone probably already knows about it, but I like to use Rotten Tomatoes instead of/in addition to IMDb. IMDb is great for finding out information and how popular a movie was, but the ratings and the reviews can just be written by anybody so they're more often than not very unintelligent. Rotten Tomatoes tallies up professional critics' responses. I also listen to Ebert and Roeper's audio reviews every week. Sometimes they're way off, but they're fairly reasonable most of the time. Still, I give Rotten Tomatoes more weight. I recently found out about m o v i e l e n s, which uses an algorithm to guess what you'd rate movies based on previous ratings. You have to spend a lot of time rating initially for the ratings to be accurate. I find it pretty accurate, though occasionally it will be way off with movies you hate or love for weird reasons. It gave Antitrust a low rating for me, but I gave it five stars based just on how much I enjoyed the fantasy of taking down Microsoft (*sigh*), and it gave a high rating for Atarnajuat: The Fast Runner, which I absolutely abhorred due to the terrible amateurish filming and editing.

This is why colas sell 'image' instead of 'this cola tastes good', for instance. Its called 'selling the sizzle, not the steak', and is pretty much 101 in marketing.

The utter and complete irony of this whole thing is not lost on me. Who here remembers the article that Wired Magazine ran on Hollywood's tracking boards ? The one in which Hollywood's studio people would boost or slam a movie, often without even reading the script , and from that information alone deciding whether to produce a picture or not?

Hollywood should stop buying its own sizzle and take a good look at what's making that smell. The Wired article above mentions a movie by name, I recall: Kangaroo Jack. It had buzz, they said. And we all know how that turned out, right? Mind you, it could always have been worse...

This is why colas sell 'image' instead of 'this cola tastes good', for instance. Its called 'selling the sizzle, not the steak', and is pretty much 101 in marketing.

The utter and complete irony of this whole thing is not lost on me. Who here remembers the article that Wired Magazine ran on Hollywood's tracking boards ? The one in which Hollywood's studio people would boost or slam a movie, often without even reading the script , and from that information alone deciding whether to produce a picture or not?

Hollywood should stop buying its own sizzle and take a good look at what's making that smell. The Wired article above mentions a movie by name, I recall: Kangaroo Jack. It had buzz, they said. And we all know how that turned out, right? Mind you, it could always have been worse...

Rottentomatoes is only a partial solution. First of all, you need to account for your own tastes. It doesn't matter if film A is the best romantic comedy of all time according to rottentomatoes, if you only like action films, you're not going to be happy with it.

More importantly, although rottentomatoes is good at judging when a flim is good, it isn't very good at judging when a film is bad. You're probably safe with anything rated well, but there are some movies hidden in the bad ratings that you would probably enjoy.

Despite it's current 19% rating on rottentomatoes, i thought "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" was a great movie. It certainly wasn't a LotR or some artsy intelectual film, but it was a fun summer action movie, certainly far better than The Hulk which i'd see a few weeks before. I'm even hoping that i'll get a chance to see it a second time with some friends before it finishes it's run (which is going to be really soon given that it made $0.6 million in 500 theatres last week)

I've told my friends that i liked it, i've told them why i liked it, and i've also mentioned the bits the critics have hated and complained about just to give them a balanced view. However because my friends know me and my reactions to things, my feelings are generally a better guide that what some critic on rottentomatoes who they don't know at all thinks.

Likewise, i'll take a look at rottentomatoes if no one else has seen the movie yet, but if some friends have already gone, i'll ask them what they thought instead. I know them and know how their judgement works, and when it's likely to apply to me or not.

Bad movies aren't doing poorly because they suck, but because people are now able to tell more people that they suck...

I usually look at Rotten Tomatoes before I watch a movie, if it scores too poorly I am less likely to watch it.

So, if they banned texting, what next? Will they ban the act of, say, telling someone if a movie was good or bad? Or how about they ban reviewing of movies, too? Because that probably accounts for at least some of the Gigli disaster.

But, whatever you do, don't ever, ever, EVER blame the shitty movies themselves!

well before the Internet there wasn't a major source to get ALL the reviews about a movie. Now with sites like Rotten Tomatoes which give people listings like this about a movie (some are in advance, or right after release), I can't see why anyone would be suckered into watching a REALLY BAD movie (ie. To Gillian on her 35th Birthday)

If anything, it's not text messaging, instant messaging, word of mouth (in the traditional sense), it's people using the Internet to research what they should see before they see it.

well before the Internet there wasn't a major source to get ALL the reviews about a movie. Now with sites like Rotten Tomatoes which give people listings like this about a movie (some are in advance, or right after release), I can't see why anyone would be suckered into watching a REALLY BAD movie (ie. To Gillian on her 35th Birthday)

If anything, it's not text messaging, instant messaging, word of mouth (in the traditional sense), it's people using the Internet to research what they should see before they see it.

Obviously plagiarised from this work of 1916, filmed in 1929, (and remade in 1998).

Shrek

Sure, it's a childrens story, but you can't deny that it is targetted at adults on a level that most children wouldn't understand.

My favorite movie review site, Rotten Tomatoes collects and normalizes reviews from many different critics to a 100 point scale. Go check out what they had to say about the first movie, and now, the second one.

Out of context quote #01: "At least a bit more comprehensible than its predecessor -- say, a second-rate Indiana Jones rip-off instead of a third-rate Indiana Jones rip-off."
Out of context quote #10: "At least now we have a clue about what's in Pandora's Box: It's movies like this."
Out of context quote #11: "While there's compelling evidence that Angelina Jolie is a real person, you'd never guess it watching Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle Of Life."

Oh, by the way, here's a link to some background on the site.

My favorite movie review site, Rotten Tomatoes collects and normalizes reviews from many different critics to a 100 point scale. Go check out what they had to say about the first movie, and now, the second one.

Out of context quote #01: "At least a bit more comprehensible than its predecessor -- say, a second-rate Indiana Jones rip-off instead of a third-rate Indiana Jones rip-off."
Out of context quote #10: "At least now we have a clue about what's in Pandora's Box: It's movies like this."
Out of context quote #11: "While there's compelling evidence that Angelina Jolie is a real person, you'd never guess it watching Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle Of Life."

Oh, by the way, here's a link to some background on the site.

My favorite movie review site, Rotten Tomatoes collects and normalizes reviews from many different critics to a 100 point scale. Go check out what they had to say about the first movie, and now, the second one.

Out of context quote #01: "At least a bit more comprehensible than its predecessor -- say, a second-rate Indiana Jones rip-off instead of a third-rate Indiana Jones rip-off."
Out of context quote #10: "At least now we have a clue about what's in Pandora's Box: It's movies like this."
Out of context quote #11: "While there's compelling evidence that Angelina Jolie is a real person, you'd never guess it watching Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle Of Life."

Oh, by the way, here's a link to some background on the site.

My favorite movie review site, Rotten Tomatoes collects and normalizes reviews from many different critics to a 100 point scale. Go check out what they had to say about the first movie, and now, the second one.

Out of context quote #01: "At least a bit more comprehensible than its predecessor -- say, a second-rate Indiana Jones rip-off instead of a third-rate Indiana Jones rip-off."
Out of context quote #10: "At least now we have a clue about what's in Pandora's Box: It's movies like this."
Out of context quote #11: "While there's compelling evidence that Angelina Jolie is a real person, you'd never guess it watching Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle Of Life."

Oh, by the way, here's a link to some background on the site.

It seems more likely the ticket sales are down because the movie seems to be a piece of shit.

...as about the only critic who actually likes these films... and he drools over pretty much anything Angelina Jolie is in, so he doesn't even count.

Maybe Paramount should consider that before blaming the video game developers? I suppose it's easier to blame someone else than to admit your movie is crap.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/forum/showthread.php ?s=&threadid=238636&perpage=25&pagenumber= 5

Pirates of the Carribean was so much better than I thought it would be that I'm willing to sacrifice my karma even further to tell you all about it.

I just got back from it and the plot was without gaping holes, the fight scenes were 5 times as good as those in Matrix Reloaded, the dialogue was fresh, clever and funny. Excusing the fact that it had ghosts, I had zero serious complaints.

Don't believe me? Check out what rottentomatoes.com has to say.

Off topic, but also note this interesting article regarding some negative consequences of the movie on Escalante's career.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/28DaysLater-112323 6/

126 good reviews, 18 bad. That doesn't seem too mixed to me.

You may find it interesting to know that in T1 there was an Arnold "weenie shot". Evidently he's better endowed than most, or the night wasn't all that cold, 'cause he was flappin out of the shadow just before the "wash day, nothing to wear" scene.

Frightening to think of what a Terminator would do with it. The female counterpart in Kei Mizutani's Terminatrix had a clever use for her naughty bits.

On Rotten Tomatoes many reviews are in. Here's the link. 71% of the 112 reviews were good, and the consensus is: "Although T3 never reaches the heights of the second movie, it is a welcome addition to the Terminator franchise." So don't expect it to be as good as T1 and T2. Just expect a good action flick.

On Rotten Tomatoes many reviews are in. Here's the link. 71% of the 112 reviews were good, and the consensus is: "Although T3 never reaches the heights of the second movie, it is a welcome addition to the Terminator franchise." So don't expect it to be as good as T1 and T2. Just expect a good action flick.

CNN usually mentions when Time Warner is involved with production. For instance, check out their Matrix Reloaded review:

Here

Incidentally, it's the same reviewer as T3 and he didn't particularly like Reloaded (also a Warner film).

I think legally they have to say when they are involved with the production. Perhaps T3 is a special case. I remember hearing Jonathan Mostow (the director) claiming something about how it was "legally an independent film." So maybe they don't have to mention Time Warners involvement in the review?

Here is the interview with the director where he talks about the production.

Anyway, if you really want reviews of this movie, go to Rotten Tomatoes. it currently has a fairly respectable 71% rating.

blakespot

Sorry, I'm just not convinced. I just don't buy all this weird anti-corporate conspiracy BS. If someone came out with an inexpensive source of non-polluting energy, there would be no way to stop it. Once a patent was applied for, or it was posted on the internet, there would be no stopping the media frenzy that would occur. Once people know how it can be done, it will be duplicated, legally and illegally, all over the world. The Japanese, especially, are an oil dependent nation, having none of their own and using it at a rate approaching ours.

Now, as for what you say about taxation, I'm not too inclined to disagree with you completely. You see legislation being considered/passed in different areas making it illegal to use biodiesel or m/ethanol as fuel for automobiles used on the public roads without paying a tax on the fuel. WTF? Is the government so short sighted that it is willing to throw up barriers like this to clean energy, just for a couple of nickels per gallon used? (rhetorical question)