Slashdot Mirror

I have eliminated most of my commentary to present this analysis of Marvel motion pictures released since 2000. I mark that time period as the beginning of Marvel Entertainment's ability to bring characters and stories to life in a way they were never capable of before.

1. X-Men (2000) - 80% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/xmen/. Released in July with a budget of US$75mil, it grossed more that US$296mil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men_film without Arad and Lee on production.

2. Spider-Man (2002) - 90% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman/. Released in May with a budget of US$140mil, it grossed more than US$821mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_(film)

3. Daredevil (2003) - 44% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/daredevil/. Released in February with a budget of US$78mil, it grossed more than US$179mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daredevil_(film)

4. X2: X-Men United (2003) - 88% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x2_xmen_united/. Released in May with a budget of US$110mil, it grossed more than US$407mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X2:_X-Men_United

5. The Hulk (2003) - 61% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hulk/. Released in June with a budget of US$137mil, it grossed more than US$245mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulk_(film)

6. The Punisher (2004) - 29% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1131721-punisher/. Released in April with a budget of US$15mil, it grossed more than US$54mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Punisher_(2004_film)

7. Spider-Man 2 (2004) - 94% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_2/. Released in June with a budget of US$200mil, it grossed more than US$783mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_2

8. Electra (2005) - 10% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/elektra/. Released in January with a budget of US$43mil, it grossed more than US$56mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektra_(2005_film)

9. Fantastic Four (2005) - 26% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fantastic_four/. Released in July with a budget of US$100mil, it grossed more than US$330mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Four_(film)

10. X-Men The Last Stand (2006)- 56% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x_men_3_the_last_stand/. Released in May with a budget of US$110mil, it grossed more than US$407mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X2_(film)

11. Spider-Man 3 (2007) 62% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_3/. Released in May with a budget of US$258mil, it grossed more than US$890mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikip

I have eliminated most of my commentary to present this analysis of Marvel motion pictures released since 2000. I mark that time period as the beginning of Marvel Entertainment's ability to bring characters and stories to life in a way they were never capable of before.

1. X-Men (2000) - 80% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/xmen/. Released in July with a budget of US$75mil, it grossed more that US$296mil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men_film without Arad and Lee on production.

2. Spider-Man (2002) - 90% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman/. Released in May with a budget of US$140mil, it grossed more than US$821mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_(film)

3. Daredevil (2003) - 44% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/daredevil/. Released in February with a budget of US$78mil, it grossed more than US$179mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daredevil_(film)

4. X2: X-Men United (2003) - 88% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x2_xmen_united/. Released in May with a budget of US$110mil, it grossed more than US$407mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X2:_X-Men_United

5. The Hulk (2003) - 61% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hulk/. Released in June with a budget of US$137mil, it grossed more than US$245mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulk_(film)

6. The Punisher (2004) - 29% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1131721-punisher/. Released in April with a budget of US$15mil, it grossed more than US$54mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Punisher_(2004_film)

7. Spider-Man 2 (2004) - 94% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_2/. Released in June with a budget of US$200mil, it grossed more than US$783mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_2

8. Electra (2005) - 10% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/elektra/. Released in January with a budget of US$43mil, it grossed more than US$56mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektra_(2005_film)

9. Fantastic Four (2005) - 26% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fantastic_four/. Released in July with a budget of US$100mil, it grossed more than US$330mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Four_(film)

10. X-Men The Last Stand (2006)- 56% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x_men_3_the_last_stand/. Released in May with a budget of US$110mil, it grossed more than US$407mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X2_(film)

11. Spider-Man 3 (2007) 62% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_3/. Released in May with a budget of US$258mil, it grossed more than US$890mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikip

I have eliminated most of my commentary to present this analysis of Marvel motion pictures released since 2000. I mark that time period as the beginning of Marvel Entertainment's ability to bring characters and stories to life in a way they were never capable of before.

1. X-Men (2000) - 80% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/xmen/. Released in July with a budget of US$75mil, it grossed more that US$296mil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men_film without Arad and Lee on production.

2. Spider-Man (2002) - 90% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman/. Released in May with a budget of US$140mil, it grossed more than US$821mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_(film)

3. Daredevil (2003) - 44% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/daredevil/. Released in February with a budget of US$78mil, it grossed more than US$179mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daredevil_(film)

4. X2: X-Men United (2003) - 88% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x2_xmen_united/. Released in May with a budget of US$110mil, it grossed more than US$407mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X2:_X-Men_United

5. The Hulk (2003) - 61% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hulk/. Released in June with a budget of US$137mil, it grossed more than US$245mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulk_(film)

6. The Punisher (2004) - 29% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1131721-punisher/. Released in April with a budget of US$15mil, it grossed more than US$54mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Punisher_(2004_film)

7. Spider-Man 2 (2004) - 94% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_2/. Released in June with a budget of US$200mil, it grossed more than US$783mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_2

8. Electra (2005) - 10% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/elektra/. Released in January with a budget of US$43mil, it grossed more than US$56mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektra_(2005_film)

9. Fantastic Four (2005) - 26% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fantastic_four/. Released in July with a budget of US$100mil, it grossed more than US$330mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Four_(film)

10. X-Men The Last Stand (2006)- 56% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x_men_3_the_last_stand/. Released in May with a budget of US$110mil, it grossed more than US$407mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X2_(film)

11. Spider-Man 3 (2007) 62% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_3/. Released in May with a budget of US$258mil, it grossed more than US$890mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikip

I have eliminated most of my commentary to present this analysis of Marvel motion pictures released since 2000. I mark that time period as the beginning of Marvel Entertainment's ability to bring characters and stories to life in a way they were never capable of before.

1. X-Men (2000) - 80% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/xmen/. Released in July with a budget of US$75mil, it grossed more that US$296mil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men_film without Arad and Lee on production.

2. Spider-Man (2002) - 90% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman/. Released in May with a budget of US$140mil, it grossed more than US$821mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_(film)

3. Daredevil (2003) - 44% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/daredevil/. Released in February with a budget of US$78mil, it grossed more than US$179mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daredevil_(film)

4. X2: X-Men United (2003) - 88% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x2_xmen_united/. Released in May with a budget of US$110mil, it grossed more than US$407mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X2:_X-Men_United

5. The Hulk (2003) - 61% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hulk/. Released in June with a budget of US$137mil, it grossed more than US$245mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulk_(film)

6. The Punisher (2004) - 29% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1131721-punisher/. Released in April with a budget of US$15mil, it grossed more than US$54mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Punisher_(2004_film)

7. Spider-Man 2 (2004) - 94% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_2/. Released in June with a budget of US$200mil, it grossed more than US$783mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_2

8. Electra (2005) - 10% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/elektra/. Released in January with a budget of US$43mil, it grossed more than US$56mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektra_(2005_film)

9. Fantastic Four (2005) - 26% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fantastic_four/. Released in July with a budget of US$100mil, it grossed more than US$330mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Four_(film)

10. X-Men The Last Stand (2006)- 56% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x_men_3_the_last_stand/. Released in May with a budget of US$110mil, it grossed more than US$407mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X2_(film)

11. Spider-Man 3 (2007) 62% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_3/. Released in May with a budget of US$258mil, it grossed more than US$890mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikip

I have eliminated most of my commentary to present this analysis of Marvel motion pictures released since 2000. I mark that time period as the beginning of Marvel Entertainment's ability to bring characters and stories to life in a way they were never capable of before.

1. X-Men (2000) - 80% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/xmen/. Released in July with a budget of US$75mil, it grossed more that US$296mil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men_film without Arad and Lee on production.

2. Spider-Man (2002) - 90% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman/. Released in May with a budget of US$140mil, it grossed more than US$821mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_(film)

3. Daredevil (2003) - 44% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/daredevil/. Released in February with a budget of US$78mil, it grossed more than US$179mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daredevil_(film)

4. X2: X-Men United (2003) - 88% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x2_xmen_united/. Released in May with a budget of US$110mil, it grossed more than US$407mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X2:_X-Men_United

5. The Hulk (2003) - 61% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hulk/. Released in June with a budget of US$137mil, it grossed more than US$245mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulk_(film)

6. The Punisher (2004) - 29% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1131721-punisher/. Released in April with a budget of US$15mil, it grossed more than US$54mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Punisher_(2004_film)

7. Spider-Man 2 (2004) - 94% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_2/. Released in June with a budget of US$200mil, it grossed more than US$783mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_2

8. Electra (2005) - 10% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/elektra/. Released in January with a budget of US$43mil, it grossed more than US$56mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektra_(2005_film)

9. Fantastic Four (2005) - 26% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fantastic_four/. Released in July with a budget of US$100mil, it grossed more than US$330mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Four_(film)

10. X-Men The Last Stand (2006)- 56% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x_men_3_the_last_stand/. Released in May with a budget of US$110mil, it grossed more than US$407mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X2_(film)

11. Spider-Man 3 (2007) 62% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_3/. Released in May with a budget of US$258mil, it grossed more than US$890mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikip

I have eliminated most of my commentary to present this analysis of Marvel motion pictures released since 2000. I mark that time period as the beginning of Marvel Entertainment's ability to bring characters and stories to life in a way they were never capable of before.

1. X-Men (2000) - 80% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/xmen/. Released in July with a budget of US$75mil, it grossed more that US$296mil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men_film without Arad and Lee on production.

2. Spider-Man (2002) - 90% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman/. Released in May with a budget of US$140mil, it grossed more than US$821mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_(film)

3. Daredevil (2003) - 44% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/daredevil/. Released in February with a budget of US$78mil, it grossed more than US$179mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daredevil_(film)

4. X2: X-Men United (2003) - 88% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x2_xmen_united/. Released in May with a budget of US$110mil, it grossed more than US$407mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X2:_X-Men_United

5. The Hulk (2003) - 61% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hulk/. Released in June with a budget of US$137mil, it grossed more than US$245mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulk_(film)

6. The Punisher (2004) - 29% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1131721-punisher/. Released in April with a budget of US$15mil, it grossed more than US$54mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Punisher_(2004_film)

7. Spider-Man 2 (2004) - 94% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_2/. Released in June with a budget of US$200mil, it grossed more than US$783mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_2

8. Electra (2005) - 10% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/elektra/. Released in January with a budget of US$43mil, it grossed more than US$56mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektra_(2005_film)

9. Fantastic Four (2005) - 26% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fantastic_four/. Released in July with a budget of US$100mil, it grossed more than US$330mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Four_(film)

10. X-Men The Last Stand (2006)- 56% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x_men_3_the_last_stand/. Released in May with a budget of US$110mil, it grossed more than US$407mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X2_(film)

11. Spider-Man 3 (2007) 62% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_3/. Released in May with a budget of US$258mil, it grossed more than US$890mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikip

I have eliminated most of my commentary to present this analysis of Marvel motion pictures released since 2000. I mark that time period as the beginning of Marvel Entertainment's ability to bring characters and stories to life in a way they were never capable of before.

1. X-Men (2000) - 80% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/xmen/. Released in July with a budget of US$75mil, it grossed more that US$296mil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men_film without Arad and Lee on production.

2. Spider-Man (2002) - 90% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman/. Released in May with a budget of US$140mil, it grossed more than US$821mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_(film)

3. Daredevil (2003) - 44% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/daredevil/. Released in February with a budget of US$78mil, it grossed more than US$179mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daredevil_(film)

4. X2: X-Men United (2003) - 88% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x2_xmen_united/. Released in May with a budget of US$110mil, it grossed more than US$407mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X2:_X-Men_United

5. The Hulk (2003) - 61% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hulk/. Released in June with a budget of US$137mil, it grossed more than US$245mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulk_(film)

6. The Punisher (2004) - 29% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1131721-punisher/. Released in April with a budget of US$15mil, it grossed more than US$54mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Punisher_(2004_film)

7. Spider-Man 2 (2004) - 94% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_2/. Released in June with a budget of US$200mil, it grossed more than US$783mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_2

8. Electra (2005) - 10% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/elektra/. Released in January with a budget of US$43mil, it grossed more than US$56mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektra_(2005_film)

9. Fantastic Four (2005) - 26% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fantastic_four/. Released in July with a budget of US$100mil, it grossed more than US$330mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Four_(film)

10. X-Men The Last Stand (2006)- 56% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x_men_3_the_last_stand/. Released in May with a budget of US$110mil, it grossed more than US$407mil with Arad on production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X2_(film)

11. Spider-Man 3 (2007) 62% http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_3/. Released in May with a budget of US$258mil, it grossed more than US$890mil with Arad and Lee on production. http://en.wikip

since it got a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, the reviewer in the Houston paper is in the minority

You could find just as serious or worse flaws in Star Wars or the Matrix. I mean really, the Aliens in Star Wars just acted like humans in latex and makeup.... basically hokey actors in rubber suits. That doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a great movie and certainly doesn't detract from the fact that it was ground-breaking.

I was criticizing the parent because he was dimissing the movie WITHOUT EVEN HAVING SEEN IT!

As AintItCool.com says All I can really say is this, "Have you seen DISTRICT 9?" Because if you haven't. You can't even enter the conversation yet As far as groundbreaking, I said nothing about the plot. I basically said the camera editing and the alien integration into the movie as a special effect alone are enough to be considered a huge jump forward. When you consider what they did on a $30 Million budget -- then yes, this movie is revolutionary -- it looks better than other movies from earlier this year produced on budgets 10 times greater.

Furthermore, despite some flaws, I found the plot is unique and compelling. So did nearly 90% of the "professional" reviewers out there.

You saw it. You didn't like it. You're entitled to your opinion. But this guy didn't even see the film and he's trashing it.

I haven't seen Moon...but the reviewer in the Houston paper said it was very long and very boring...

The reviewer in the Houston paper probably doesn't know how to deal with movies that aren't filled with explosions and gunfire. It's got an aggregate score of 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is better than District 9's 88%.

Here ya go.

There was.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rollerball/

Indeed, you'd need a hell of a lot of trucks to move that much currency. And laundering that much is nigh impossible.

Yes, a lot of big trucks, indeed.

Monkey Shines

The TV show did not suck. At least, not as much as the new movie.

The critic ratings at RT are a really low 34%, but the community rating of 73% is pretty impressive

The TV show did not suck. At least, not as much as the new movie.

The show was far from perfect, but, perhaps with the exception of the sleep clinic episode, very entertaining. I wouldn't call it very deep and meditative (or whatever the last story here called it), but S2 was pretty interesting plot-wise. Plus, Summer Glau in her underwear and speculations of possilbe robot-sex.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/terminator_salvation/

Consensus: With storytelling as robotic as the film's iconic villains, Terminator Salvation offers plenty of great effects but lacks the heart of the original films.

I find it odd that a movie about giant killer robots (without hearts) would lack heart but I digress.

Here's some quotes from critics who didn't like it:

"Message to Hollywood: Stop with the time-travel stuff."

"I wish Bale had lashed out against the writers rather than the cinematographer."

"The artistry is top notch, but they've lost track of why the original Terminators were cyborgs and not robots, as they are here."

This isn't the intellectual or thinking person's science-fiction film like The Man From Earth.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/
This is a Hollywood action movie.

Terminator Salvation is to science-fiction movies as Dodgeball was to sports movies...a joke, and maybe even a parody. I've saw T4 last night. I was dismayed by how far the franchise has fallen.

Damn, you could at least lose your dormitory for a movie worth watching.

Even worse result:

<RIAA> See? Illegal file sharing is why Angels and Demons did poorly at the box office and got an average rating of 38%! It isn't the economy or quality, folks, our formula has never failed therefore it must be the file sharers! </RIAA>

"Hey none of us are getting gigs, let's do a remake!"

Yeah, they are all just desperate for work...

Just take Bill Murray for example. In the past 5 years he's only got 12 projects listed on the Internet Movie Database

Including :

The Darjeeling Limited 67% fresh on Rotton Tomatoes

The City of Ember

Get Smart

Broken Flowers 87% fresh

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

That's a struggling actor not getting gigs?

Sigourney Weaver? Bah, she only has 18 film projects listed since 2004. And lots of TV gigs. LOTS. That's hardly working in the world of LA actors though, right? Oh.

Harold Ramis? Well, he's sure slowed down in his writing, but he's been acting a little (Knocked Up,Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, etc), a little producing, a little directing (a few episodes of The Office, etc). It looks like he's picking and choosing and having fun, not really struggling for projects.

"Hey none of us are getting gigs, let's do a remake!"

Yeah, they are all just desperate for work...

Just take Bill Murray for example. In the past 5 years he's only got 12 projects listed on the Internet Movie Database

Including :

The Darjeeling Limited 67% fresh on Rotton Tomatoes

The City of Ember

Get Smart

Broken Flowers 87% fresh

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

That's a struggling actor not getting gigs?

Sigourney Weaver? Bah, she only has 18 film projects listed since 2004. And lots of TV gigs. LOTS. That's hardly working in the world of LA actors though, right? Oh.

Harold Ramis? Well, he's sure slowed down in his writing, but he's been acting a little (Knocked Up,Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, etc), a little producing, a little directing (a few episodes of The Office, etc). It looks like he's picking and choosing and having fun, not really struggling for projects.

but the reality is that it's an excellent movie that people are going to recommend to their friends. O hell yes!

Nearly went to see Wolverine until I saw the rottentomatoes (professional reviewer) score

Star Trek on the other hand has a much better score

I saw Star Trek in an IMAX* theater and it was worth the trouble going there and paying the higher entrance fee.

* It is a blow up, not filmed on IMAX unfortunately :(

but the reality is that it's an excellent movie that people are going to recommend to their friends. O hell yes!

Nearly went to see Wolverine until I saw the rottentomatoes (professional reviewer) score

Star Trek on the other hand has a much better score

I saw Star Trek in an IMAX* theater and it was worth the trouble going there and paying the higher entrance fee.

* It is a blow up, not filmed on IMAX unfortunately :(

Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB would seem to disagree with your friends. As would I: I think this is the best Star Trek movie I've seen (and I've seen them all). Wolverine was a vaguely entertaining but ultimately shallow and formulaic popcorn flick. Star Trek has breathed life into what seemed to many a dead franchise.

Wolverine had less of a fan base

Especially among critics.
Rottentomatoes average of Top Critics:
Star Trek: 91%(about as good as it gets)
Wolverine: 15% (about as not good as it gets)

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/?critic=creamcrop

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wolverine/?critic=creamcrop

Wolverine had less of a fan base

Especially among critics.
Rottentomatoes average of Top Critics:
Star Trek: 91%(about as good as it gets)
Wolverine: 15% (about as not good as it gets)

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/?critic=creamcrop

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wolverine/?critic=creamcrop

Rotten Tomatoes: Trek 95% v Wolvie 37%
MetaCritic: Trek 84% v Wolvie 44%

'Nuff said.

Rotten tomatoes has it rated at 95%, which means that there are very few critics that don't like the movie. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/

As usual, Smidge207 stole this review from someone else and should be modded down accordingly.

Yessiree.

Because Today's +1Informative mods STAY even after tomorrow's "retraction article" which says "disregard yestrerday, it was all made up by the source."

Blending content here AttemptingAWin, Rotten Tomatoes has a recap of Marvel movies. Look at the entry for Ghost Rider.

"...like Daredevil, Ghost Rider went down as a critical dud whose respectable performance at the box office was overshadowed by the beating it took from writers"

Really now!? So the public liked the movies, while certain pundits playing their own game were paid to kill the movie if they could?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/xmen/news/1817540/total_recall_marvel_comics_movies_worst_to_best

We see the Wins from short-term stylings. We need something profound that really rewards longevity.

Are you kidding? The last mission to mars only cost $90 million, so this represents some serious inflation.

On the other hand, that mission didn't turn out so well, so maybe they're hedging their bets.

No, I think you misunderstood GP's comment title.

It's an reference to one of Kelsey Grammer's many movie roles: Police Detective Brunner in Even Money.

I don't know why GP poster would make an off-topic reference to an obscure and forgettable movie less than 2 years old. But the Slashdot moves in mysterious ways, and its ways are not our ways.

The cult boss-rush game will be adapted by Justin Marks, who also wrote the recent Chun-Li movie.

You mean the movie which has a metacritic score of 17% (tied for 89th on their bottom 100) and a rotten tomatoes score of 4%? The only way we'll ever see a proper screen adaptation of a video game is if we stop hiring talentless hacks to write the scripts.

Yes, I've seen "X Men Origins: Wolverine." It wasn't at a screening, either. I found a work in progress print of it, 95 percent completed, on the internet last night. Let's hope by now it's gone.

But the cat is out of the bag, as they say, and the genie is out of the bottle. There's no turning back. But no, I will not tell you the big twist/surprise toward the end. Not now, a whole month away from release. That wouldn't be nice.

Right now, my "cousins" at 20th Century Fox are probably having apoplexy. I doubt anyone else has seen this film. But everyone can relax. I am, in fact, amazed about how great "Wolverine" turned out. It exceeds expectations at every turn. I was completely riveted to my desk chair in front of my computer.

I don't know what the really big headline is here: the fact that "Wolverine" is so good, or that I also found the current top 10 movies in theaters, as well as a turgid domestic drama called "Fireflies in the Garden" with Ryan Reynolds and Julia Roberts -- the latter in a minor role while her husband, Danny Moder, is credited as director of photography.

I did find the whole top 10, plus TV shows, commercials, videos, everything, all streaming away. It took really less than seconds to start playing it all right onto my computer. I could have downloaded all of it but really, who has the time or the room? Later tonight I may finally catch up with Paul Rudd in "I Love You, Man." It's so much easier than going out in the rain!

But back to "Wolverine": this is the prequel to the first "X Men" movie. Directed by Gavin Hood, the film is as cutting edge as it is old fashioned. This may be the big blockbuster film of 2009, and one we really need right now. It's miles easier to understand than "The Dark Knight," and tremendously more emotional. Hood simply did an excellent job bringing Wolverine's early life to the screen.

Hugh Jackman is Wolverine, of course, and he is more a movie star in this movie than ever before. It doesn't hurt that he's spent every waking minute in the gym. Hood doesn't hide that. Jackman fans will get their fill of their hero. He's joined by a phenomenal cast, too â" Liev Schreiber as his evil but equally clawed brother, Victor, aka Sabretooth; Ryan Reynolds (he gets a lot of work, that's for sure) as Deadpool; Dominic Monagan as Beak; Kevin Durand as the Blob; and the sensational sort of Han Solo-ish Taylor Kitsch as Gambit. There's also sultry Lynn Collins as Wolverine's love interest, and Danny Huston as the villainous Colonel Stryker.

I do think the film works so beautifully because the screenplay is so streamlined. David Benioff (whose real name, I read, is David Friedman -- he's married to Amanda Peet) carefully delineated these characters and did a smashing job. I had less trouble following this story than the one in "Fireflies in the Garden." He's made "Wolverine" just the right kind of summer entertainment -- a thrill ride with lots of emotional investment and a hero simply bigger than life. That's all you can ask for.

Now, I did see "Wolverine" on a large, wide computer screen, and not in a movie theater, but it could not have played better. Still, this was a workprint and there were about a dozen things not finished. A couple of times it was possible to see the harnesses on the actors. It didn't take away from the film at all. But obviously someone who had access to a print uploaded the film onto this website. This begs several questions about security. Time to round up the usual suspects!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/

What is Slashdot's responsibility to provide honest moderation?

Both are just aggregates of random people who bothered to comment, and don't pretend to be anything more. If you want a "professional" movie rating, look at the reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, where currently the Tomatometer for Inkheart is at 63%, based on 19 reviews.

But the fact is, making good playable games is less profitable than making lousy games with pretty graphics.

That's because society, as a whole, has been breeding for stupidity for quite a few generations already.

You don't believe me? Consider this one. Or just the number of people who think that "reality TV" and (c)rap music are entertaining.

Perhaps they should rename it "Project Assfuck" - after all, that's what it's doing to the consumer.

The initiative is similar to security tags used in clothing retail that spill ink on garments if they're forcibly removed, thereby destroying the item.

Uhm... those tags come off if you get a rare earth magnet (say, from an old hard drive or something) anywhere near them.

Not that we're supposed to know how things work... after all, knowledge is evil, the almighty corporations want us to be dumb and stupid and drink Brawndo.

Seriously, now. This will not only be cracked damn quick, but it'll fail the first time someone has a non-'net-connected home box (dvd player, console, etc) and they'll get up in arms about it. Plus, it's already been tried once, remember Circuit City and Divx?

6.9/10 on imdb and 93% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Try Rotten Tomatoes. Their system of compiling reviews gives a very good gauge of how good a movie is. Some rules of thumb for the Tomatometer:

• Below 60% is not worth seeing
• Above 90% is a great movie, and you'll like it even if the plot or previews don't look that great
• Between 60% and 90% is in the realm of personal taste. Movies toward the high end you should see if you have at least a lukewarm interest. Movies toward the low end you should avoid unless you already like the plot/director/actors/genre. But you can enjoy anything in this range if you're in the right mood.

> Can't the film makers just countersue to get the losses incurred by this lawsuit?

How will you coutersue if you're bankrupted before you can?

Getting bankrupted was partly coming from having a crappy film in this case. It currently sits at 8% on RottenTomattoes. This is "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" we're talking about, the pro Intelligence Design movie. I suspect the suit was as much about trying to not be associated with such drivel as it was about getting cash from the producers. Still, fair use is fair use, and Ms. Ono needed to face up to that reality to begin with. The suit should never have been brought to trial.

4. Lastly but most importantly -- there is no "problem". Various candidates for the problem to which id cards are the solution have been proposed and they have all been found wanting.

Very nice post. But I disagree on a minor thing with it. When you said there is no problem, you should have said there is no "justification". IMHO the "problem" that they are trying to solve is "lack of total control over population", and as such it exists.

BTW, a good movie to watch about the UK is Taking Liberties.

I think it's important to note that blue-ray disks are still routinely priced 10 dollars more than their full-priced DVD counterparts. Do these movies provide 30% more benefit to the consumer? The difference between DVD and Blu-Ray is more like the difference between VHS and Beta, rather than VHS to DVD. It can be noticeable, but A: only to consumers with theater sized TV's and good eyes and B: assuming there are no technological translations along the way (progressive scan video to interlaced TV, for example). With the exploitive cost difference, the visual difference needs to be large.

HDTV has been a cock-up from the beginning. Supporting both interlaced signals and progressive scan was a huge mistake, one which ensures that content looks awful 50% of the time. In modern televisions, interlaced is a marketing tool to say that your set displays at a higher resolution than it actually does, while degrading image quality. Consumers are now used to horribly jaggy and obviously compressed HDTV broadcast signals, frequently no better than a standard-resolution television. Add in the blur inherent in dealing with resolution / interlaced / phase of moon conflicts, and you get an ecosystem that is utterly baffling, underperforms, and is really only needed for video gaming and displaying computer output.

Oh, and when Eraser, is in your top 20, you need to get more titles. Seriously guys, Eraser? Was Jingle All The Way not available?

where he is currently polling under 30% with a 40% disapproval-approval spread.

And The Dark Knight has a 95% approval rating. The other 5% must be the same people who think Congress is doing a good job.

I mean, how did the original Star Wars movie fare? Not well. How about Dirty Harry? Again, they hated it.

Who hated these movies? Neither film was recognized as the classic that they'd eventually become - most future classics aren't at the time they're released - but I don't recall many scathingly bad reviews and I can't find many at the moment either. Star Wars was considered an exciting popcorn movie - ineffectual, but fun. Dirty Harry was criticized a bit for its politics but was still called an effective thriller.

Here are Rottentomatoes' "top critics" pages on both of these films, you can read some of the original reviews there (ignore the dates, most of these were written on the movies' release):

Dirty Harry
Star Wars

I mean, I dunno what your standards are, but an 88% positive rating from the top critics in the land seems pretty good to me for a film that was never intended to be anything but a light-hearted space romp.

I think you need to re-evaluate what you think of movie critics. Your stance is similar to one that I think a lot of people take, and it's based on this false premise that critics like bad movies and hate good ones. I would bet that 90% of the time, critics like the same movies you do. Where I think this idea that critics are somehow out of touch with the public comes from is the fact that they do not buy into hype. If a summer blockbuster has a $100 million marketing budget, a lot of people are going to be excited about that. Some of those people will even try to convince themselves that they liked the final product, so as not to feel they've wasted all this time and energy on anticipation. (This is the same phenomenon that's been observed in studies whereby the longer someone stands in line, the longer they're willing to keep standing in line, so as not to have wasted their time standing in line.)

Critics are trained specifically to ignore hype and judge a film purely on its merits. That means *good* blockbuster films, like the original Star Wars, do get good reviews. It also means *bad* blockbuster films, like, say, Wild Wild West, get bad reviews - even if they make hundreds of millions of dollars in box office and garner their share of fans at the time of their release. We all know that film's crap now, but the critics were ahead of the public in figuring it out. That's their job.

I'd also argue that not all classic films are really great films by any objective or even most subjective measures - go watch Dirty Harry again and tell me what's good about it. I'll tell you what's good about it: Clint Eastwood and the character that he creates. That's why the film endures today. Without him and without that character, the film would be just another cookie-cutter thriller. But critics don't review characters; they review films.

Anyway, enough of my rant. You should listen to critics if they don't like the latest Indiana Jones film, because they're looking past how cool it is to have Indiana Jones back on screen and instead reviewing the film. And they've generally got pretty much the same tastes as everybody else.

I mean, how did the original Star Wars movie fare? Not well. How about Dirty Harry? Again, they hated it.

Who hated these movies? Neither film was recognized as the classic that they'd eventually become - most future classics aren't at the time they're released - but I don't recall many scathingly bad reviews and I can't find many at the moment either. Star Wars was considered an exciting popcorn movie - ineffectual, but fun. Dirty Harry was criticized a bit for its politics but was still called an effective thriller.

Here are Rottentomatoes' "top critics" pages on both of these films, you can read some of the original reviews there (ignore the dates, most of these were written on the movies' release):

Dirty Harry
Star Wars

I mean, I dunno what your standards are, but an 88% positive rating from the top critics in the land seems pretty good to me for a film that was never intended to be anything but a light-hearted space romp.

I think you need to re-evaluate what you think of movie critics. Your stance is similar to one that I think a lot of people take, and it's based on this false premise that critics like bad movies and hate good ones. I would bet that 90% of the time, critics like the same movies you do. Where I think this idea that critics are somehow out of touch with the public comes from is the fact that they do not buy into hype. If a summer blockbuster has a $100 million marketing budget, a lot of people are going to be excited about that. Some of those people will even try to convince themselves that they liked the final product, so as not to feel they've wasted all this time and energy on anticipation. (This is the same phenomenon that's been observed in studies whereby the longer someone stands in line, the longer they're willing to keep standing in line, so as not to have wasted their time standing in line.)

Critics are trained specifically to ignore hype and judge a film purely on its merits. That means *good* blockbuster films, like the original Star Wars, do get good reviews. It also means *bad* blockbuster films, like, say, Wild Wild West, get bad reviews - even if they make hundreds of millions of dollars in box office and garner their share of fans at the time of their release. We all know that film's crap now, but the critics were ahead of the public in figuring it out. That's their job.

I'd also argue that not all classic films are really great films by any objective or even most subjective measures - go watch Dirty Harry again and tell me what's good about it. I'll tell you what's good about it: Clint Eastwood and the character that he creates. That's why the film endures today. Without him and without that character, the film would be just another cookie-cutter thriller. But critics don't review characters; they review films.

Anyway, enough of my rant. You should listen to critics if they don't like the latest Indiana Jones film, because they're looking past how cool it is to have Indiana Jones back on screen and instead reviewing the film. And they've generally got pretty much the same tastes as everybody else.

I mean, how did the original Star Wars movie fare? Not well. How about Dirty Harry? Again, they hated it.

Who hated these movies? Neither film was recognized as the classic that they'd eventually become - most future classics aren't at the time they're released - but I don't recall many scathingly bad reviews and I can't find many at the moment either. Star Wars was considered an exciting popcorn movie - ineffectual, but fun. Dirty Harry was criticized a bit for its politics but was still called an effective thriller.

Here are Rottentomatoes' "top critics" pages on both of these films, you can read some of the original reviews there (ignore the dates, most of these were written on the movies' release):

Dirty Harry
Star Wars

I mean, I dunno what your standards are, but an 88% positive rating from the top critics in the land seems pretty good to me for a film that was never intended to be anything but a light-hearted space romp.

I think you need to re-evaluate what you think of movie critics. Your stance is similar to one that I think a lot of people take, and it's based on this false premise that critics like bad movies and hate good ones. I would bet that 90% of the time, critics like the same movies you do. Where I think this idea that critics are somehow out of touch with the public comes from is the fact that they do not buy into hype. If a summer blockbuster has a $100 million marketing budget, a lot of people are going to be excited about that. Some of those people will even try to convince themselves that they liked the final product, so as not to feel they've wasted all this time and energy on anticipation. (This is the same phenomenon that's been observed in studies whereby the longer someone stands in line, the longer they're willing to keep standing in line, so as not to have wasted their time standing in line.)

Critics are trained specifically to ignore hype and judge a film purely on its merits. That means *good* blockbuster films, like the original Star Wars, do get good reviews. It also means *bad* blockbuster films, like, say, Wild Wild West, get bad reviews - even if they make hundreds of millions of dollars in box office and garner their share of fans at the time of their release. We all know that film's crap now, but the critics were ahead of the public in figuring it out. That's their job.

I'd also argue that not all classic films are really great films by any objective or even most subjective measures - go watch Dirty Harry again and tell me what's good about it. I'll tell you what's good about it: Clint Eastwood and the character that he creates. That's why the film endures today. Without him and without that character, the film would be just another cookie-cutter thriller. But critics don't review characters; they review films.

Anyway, enough of my rant. You should listen to critics if they don't like the latest Indiana Jones film, because they're looking past how cool it is to have Indiana Jones back on screen and instead reviewing the film. And they've generally got pretty much the same tastes as everybody else.

Use a better site than Yahoo Movies.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/epic_movie/
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/epicmovie

According to Rotten Tomatoes, 2% of Critics liked Epic Movie. It got a 17 out of a 100 on MetaCritic ("Extreme dislike or disgust")

Use a better site than Yahoo Movies.

Big deal that it's "Fresh" - anything over 60% gets that. The fact that it got a 94% is impressive.

I saw it on Saturday (and I, like CmdrTaco, had to get a sitter), and LOVED it. That is what I want a superhero movie to be. Plenty of action, decent sense of humor, a little romance, and a lot of "kickass!" from the audience. Better than Xmen 2/3 or that last Superman. Actually, Iron Man's one of the best I've seen in a while.

Glad it was as good as the trailer made it seem. Now go make me another sequel, Favreau(/Hogan)!

On Rotten Tomatoes Iron Man currently has 94%. That is VERY GOOD.

I usually trust Rotten Tomatoes, they haven't let me down so far, and Iron man is "Fresh". Of course, there may be false negatives, but I haven't encountered any false positives in the last few years.