Slashdot Mirror

I think its funny, also, that he complains both about the supposed lack of plot and a lack of action. Action does not equal plot, never has and never will. A plot is a story, and this one is simple and effective. And it was a better acted movie then, say, "Clerks", which Katz no doubt loved because everyone else did. And he says that the Phantoms were never explained? Was he in the bathroom for most of the movie? Every dream sequence, and probably a good half-hour of dialogue, went into explaining and defining the Phantoms. And to slam a movie because it takes place in Manhattan (of course, it had other locations, as well, but he doesn't care to mention that) is just an idiot's ploy to come up with something to whine about. There are many other inconsistancies in the alleged review, but screw it. I don't have time to respond to them all, since I'm on my way to see the movie. Again.

Of course, all you have to do is read my sig to know I'm biased...

The review he gave the movie predicted these comments and answered them: he praised "Tomb Raider" as a good "popcorn movie", and explained why. He describes "The Mummy" as part of the same category, and explains why "The Mummy Returns" fails to fit it. All in all, very interesting perspectives from a man I still consider the last word in movie criticism.

I haven't seen the movie myself, and I don't intend to: "popcorn movies" don't do it for me anymore. I like to have my brain challenged a little if I'm going to spend $20 to take myself and my date out for popcorn and a show. But I'll take Ebert's word for it: if you're looking for mindless entertainment, this is probably better than most.

But even when ads were good, I would never trust the word of the reviewers they use in their ads. Of course they are going to use the best reviews for their movie even if the movie reeks there will be one or two positive reviews so that is not a good gauge for movie quality.

Right now the only purpose movie ads serve is to alert the general public that the movie exists but they aren't going to convince me one way or another. If I want to know about a movie I will look it up on Rotten Tomatoes or some other review site and look at all the reviews.

Now, I know weird, but I don't know compelling. So I did a quick web search, which revealed:

• Computer-generated movies are not compelling.
• Medical thrillers are compelling.
• Medical dramas are compelling.
• Sharon Stone holding a cigarette is sexually compelling.

I realized I'd been concentrating too much on "compelling". I had to look at the whole picture, and that meant bringing "weird" back into focus. X-Files is weird. It's also live-action (which means compelling), and a major character smokes a lot of cigarettes.

In fact, I have seen Moulin Rouge, because Moulin Rouge is X-Files. Now that I've seen it, I can give a proper review:

Moulin Rouge has been through its ups and downs. It was starting to degenerate into silliness, but the addition of Agent T-1000 has spiced it up a little. I'd have to say that my favorite Moulin Rouge was the one where the guy turned himself invisible, got hit by a truck, and became an invisible corpse.

The verdict: **** (4/5 stars)

]$`};L(;/proc);[I(;];<C{;};1S[;`\/while=1E1L[`\p roc{>=

It appears that Pearl Harbor has been badly received by critics. "Not since Battlefield Earth have critics gotten so creative when bashing a movie." ObCredit: BluesNews.

Alex Bischoff

here

• "Longtime opponents of the hobby might be tempted to ask themselves an important question: How could this sort of overblown silliness pose any threat, except as a monumental time-killer?" -- Philip Booth, ORLANDO WEEKLY

• "This film's only hope is to reach an audience too young to recognize its blatant rip-offs." -- E! ONLINE

  "Dungeons and Dragons is the fantasy genre at its worst and will likely disgruntle even the most die-hard role-playing wonks." -- Rob Blackwelder, SPLICED ONLINE

  "Gamer geeks, I speak your language! And I warn you: Flee!" -- Cody Clark, MR. SHOWBIZ

  "As inept as his direction is, Solomon's script is worse, an awful screenplay that shamelessly swipes some of its characters and scenes from the Star Wars movies without as much as a simple acknowledgment." -- Jeff Vice, DESERET NEWS

My father, a clockmaker himself, enjoyed the book enough that he immediately had me look up Dava Sobell's address via an Internet phone book, just so he could thank her for it directly. This startled me at the time, because I had no idea he knew such a thing was possible. :) I haven't seen the A&E version yet, but it stars Jeremy Irons so it must be good. I mean, how could a movie starring Jeremy Irons be bad?
--

BUT, I was only 12 years old. It had a huge impact on me. Now when I watch Star Wars, it's with a much more critical eye. I see the places where I think things might have been done better, or could have been improved, but I still have a nostalgic fondness for the movie. Also, Star Wars had the advantage of being something that no one had ever seen before: it really WAS groundbreaking. (What annoys me to no end is people who expected Episode I to be as groundbreaking as ANY of the classic trilogy, when we've had 20 years of clones, knockoffs, and (yes) movies that improved upon the original. It's hard to do what Star Wars did, let alone twice.)

My point is, there's a good reason why the original Star Wars satisfies me more than Episode I: it's because of nostalgia. And I recognize this. At www.rottentomatoes.com, they collect movie reviews. Each review is rated as being either positive or negative, and then they tally the percentage of positive reviews, and give the movie that final score.

When the Star Wars Trilogy was rereleased in 1997, they went and collected all the reviews for the rerelease:

Star Wars: 93%
The Empire Strikes Back: 97%
Return of the Jedi: 83%

Then they went back and found the ORIGINAL REVIEWS for those three films when they came out:

Star Wars: 79%
The Empire Strikes Back: 52%
Return of the Jedi: 31%

If this isn't nostalgia at work, then I don't know what is. (Disclaimer: I love Star Wars and I think all FOUR movies are excellent, however, I am trying to point out what time and nostalgia will do to our perceptions).

I don't think that there's any fundamental difference between our perception of old games and old movies. Things that we loved in our youth, we tend to be nostalgic over. We forget their faults and glorify them. This is the Nostalgia Problem.

In case you haven't seen any yet (and you can't get on the site), you can get them here and here.

(hmm.. the trailer is months old... how's that new?)

... and then give us your impression. But don't judge a movie by a trailer !

I'm assuming you're not poor, since you have a computer and internet access. So just go to the local cineplex and spend $8, or even better, go to the mattine and save lots of money.

Seriously, I'm all for looking around at reviews as to not waste money on stinkers, but if you're into sci-fi and animation, I don't see why you wouldn't want to give this movie a try. It got a 54% rating on rottentomatoes.com, and that's much better than "non-flops" like the Perfect Storm (38%). Now Battle Field Earth a 7% ratings (93% negative), well, that I can understand not even wanting to rent it.

... and then give us your impression. But don't judge a movie by a trailer !

I'm assuming you're not poor, since you have a computer and internet access. So just go to the local cineplex and spend $8, or even better, go to the mattine and save lots of money.

Seriously, I'm all for looking around at reviews as to not waste money on stinkers, but if you're into sci-fi and animation, I don't see why you wouldn't want to give this movie a try. It got a 54% rating on rottentomatoes.com, and that's much better than "non-flops" like the Perfect Storm (38%). Now Battle Field Earth a 7% ratings (93% negative), well, that I can understand not even wanting to rent it.

... and then give us your impression. But don't judge a movie by a trailer !

I'm assuming you're not poor, since you have a computer and internet access. So just go to the local cineplex and spend $8, or even better, go to the mattine and save lots of money.

Seriously, I'm all for looking around at reviews as to not waste money on stinkers, but if you're into sci-fi and animation, I don't see why you wouldn't want to give this movie a try. It got a 54% rating on rottentomatoes.com, and that's much better than "non-flops" like the Perfect Storm (38%). Now Battle Field Earth a 7% ratings (93% negative), well, that I can understand not even wanting to rent it.

Yes, this review talked about the final "battle", but it didn't give away the resolution of that battle, and so I think it is safe to say that it was not, in fact, a spoiler.

And you can't expect reviews not to use dialogue, because dialogue is another key element within film, and if one is going to critique a film, one must evaluate a film's dialogue. If we didn't include such elements in a film review, you would be left with very little indeed. Critics use such elements to highlight how the film functions - to give us a sense of what the film is really about. They bring dialogue and scene descriptions into their reviews to support their critiques and praise. It is their evidence.

If you just want a rating, go to RottenTomatoes and look at the ratings without reading the actual reviews, because a review must bring the film into its discussion, and that is not, apparently, what you want.

Here's a very large list of both positive and negative review links at Rotten Tomatoes.

• Luke Thompson, New Times LA
  Bob Graham, SF Chronicle
  

I hope we can all learn something from this piece of trash movie: paid movie critics are insane! Just look at this (also given above). There are actually some positive comments in there!! "An instant popcorn classic." "Really stays with you." p-lease!! Now we know why every movie commercial on TV has at least a half-dozen positive comments from random reviewers from across the nation.

Only listen to your freinds' movie reviews, or those of people who aren't paid to give reviews.