Slashdot Mirror

I can see them working, but it's not the best system. Rotten Tomatoes is still far superior for movie review comparisons, IMO.

Final note: don't try "Movie:" (proper use is no caps). This is case-sensitive.

"val kilmer popcorn" brings up Real Genius
"mike and the bots" brings up MST3k - as the second hit (apparently The Phantom was crying out to be MSTed)

Of course, Rotten Tomatoes picks an exemplary or pithy line from the review to quote, whereas google simply takes the first line of the review, or the line containing your search term. The convenience of having it built into google is seductive, though.

This is exactly what http://www.rottentomatoes.com/ does. I'm not sure if its an automated process on their end or not but it is functionally identical and in an easier to access format for current movies.

A very worthwhile site.

The idea seems quite similar to what the guys at Rotten Tomatoes have done. To which I'm referring the aggregation of multiple reviews by critics across the movie circles. Which is an excellent site for movie reviews as well by the way.

What makes this different from Rotten Tomatoes? And I am genuinely asking this question, not being a horrible sarcastic person.

Lame. But it gives me an excuse to mention a movie that tackles both the student privacy issue and the missing body parts issue.

LOL! For those wondering what the story is, check this link.

Bill Laimbeer's Combat Basketball

I'm seeing an oscar contender shaping up here...

The point of entertainment is to be entertaining

I had this argument with a lit teacher in high school. And again with a college prof. 'Why can't a good story be just that and nothing more? How do we know Tolkein meant all this stuff, and didn't just tell a nice story?' Eventually, I've come around to their view.

Call the underlying stuff morals, call 'em themes. Whatever. But everything has underlying meanings or messages. Good artists sometimes hide the meaning just enough to evoke many interpretations. Some artists push the envelope until most people don't see anything coherent, let alone an underlying message. In fact, if you strip out all meaning, you're left with babble reminiscent of a 3-year-old trying to tell a story: chances are, your mind will reject it as not entertaining.

That also means that you and I are in agreement: I want to be entertained. I don't want the story to stop short, completely swerve into a bizarre realm (like Stephenson's novels, for example), or hand me something that lacks a message.

And no, that isn't a way for professors (I'm not one, btw) to sound highfalutin', seduce students or get tenure. Aesop had morals, jesus' parables had a message, O'Henry and Nietsche and Dickens and Stephen King and... (insert a litany)... and even Surviving Christmas, with it's 7-out-of-100 tomato-meter score, has a message.

OK, maybe I'm wrong about Surviving Christmas. Best I can tell, that's just a vehicle for Affleck to utterly submarine his movie career so people will leave him alone when he goes to poker tournaments. Applegate is maybe just thrilled to take J-Lo's place on-screen. And I've got no idea what Gandolfino is doing in it.

You.

Watch Grave of the Fireflies .

I challenge you or anyone else to say that because that movie is animated, it is in any way "for children". Here, I'll even get you started. It's an older movie, but the same studio.

No one can knock Tim Burton's eerie sense of genius.

I take it you haven't seen his remake of Planet of the Apes.

I see... You're one of those too "mature" to admit he's been watching "The Incredibles" (crappy, boring and predictable btw, just in case someone's planning to buy tickets for it).

Look everyone, it's the head of Disney Animation!

The Incredibles is one of the best movies in recent memory - just in case someone was reading and decided to go with your wierd grinchy opinion instead of something like a 96% rating at RottenTomatoes.

... before one dies was given in the movie My Life Without Me. You should watch it some day.

Yeah, but that's Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crud.

This includes movies. Look at what we have in the theatres right now. The Incredibles is clever, witty, good fun. Then there's the new Bridget Jones flick, which I understand is significantly less plausible. I won't talk about Christmas With The Kranks, beyond mentioning that their rating of 96% rotten on Rotten Tomatoes is singularly impressive.

THINK of the great pieces of cinematic perfection based on comic books!

Insipid and trite, yet full of rubust low quality acting and flat dialog, Hollywood again and again gives us.... Well, crap.

At least they're consistent.

THINK of the great pieces of cinematic perfection based on comic books!

Insipid and trite, yet full of rubust low quality acting and flat dialog, Hollywood again and again gives us.... Well, crap.

At least they're consistent.

THINK of the great pieces of cinematic perfection based on comic books!

Insipid and trite, yet full of rubust low quality acting and flat dialog, Hollywood again and again gives us.... Well, crap.

At least they're consistent.

I suppose that's true, unless someone tells me this is the Gigli of games, which in case I'd stay away from it like...well...Gigli.

Yeah, it got some pretty shit reviews:

"An intermittently charming remake of the 1992 Tom Selleck yarn Mr. Baseball."
-- Malene Arpe, TORONTO STAR

"Commits the cardinal sin of not being quite as funny as its star."
-- Robert K. Elder, CHICAGO TRIBUNE

"The script is much like a nine-inning sitcom that uses an obvious formula to tell a familiar story while garnering cheap laughs."
-- Sara Gebhardt, WASHINGTON POST

"Although the writing and direction are flabby, the drama contrived and the romance utterly unbelievable."
-- Ann Hornaday, WASHINGTON POST

Not so true. AOL is the internet for complete morons - they do everything for you from virus protection to including non-standards-compliant hacked web browsers (mostly versions of ie now) so that you get it all in one application. They also have the insufferable "keywords" so that you don't have to use something that takes a little effort. Like Google.

Local cable and telephone companies expect you to do these things yourself because you're a human being that deserves to have choice (and a normal internet access program that doesn't permanently destroy your computer's tcp/ip settings).

As someone who works regularly with people who know little to nothing about computers and technology, I've found that AOL users have absolutely no safe browsing habits to speak of, normally aren't aware that they need a firewall or sometimes even virus protection, and pretty much depend on AOL to do everything for them. I know that's a sweeping generalization, but it's what I've found. On the other hand, even folks who aren't very tech savvy but use a "normal" ISP have at the very least nominal safe browsing habits, and many are quite good at detecting viruses and phishing scams in email and knowing when they shouldn't click on the "yes to install this java package" button.

The first Mortal Kombat movie was cheesy but fun, but there is no end to the depths of my loathing for the second MK movie. For comparison, Rotten Tomatoes pegs the original Mortal Kombat at 26% fresh, but the sequel Mortal Kombat: Annihilation gets a paltry 5% fresh rating. It's just that much worse. To quote one of the critics: "You know that when an acting joke like Christopher Lambert won't even return for the sequel, some fragile line has been crossed." It's nothing but a string of cameo fight scenes connected with horrible dialogue (think Halle Berry's infamous "struck by lightning" line in X-Men, except *all* the dialogue is like that) and bewilderingly bad CGI (going by looks, it's a reasonable assumption that Babylon 5 had a higher per-episode production budget).

The first Mortal Kombat movie was cheesy but fun, but there is no end to the depths of my loathing for the second MK movie. For comparison, Rotten Tomatoes pegs the original Mortal Kombat at 26% fresh, but the sequel Mortal Kombat: Annihilation gets a paltry 5% fresh rating. It's just that much worse. To quote one of the critics: "You know that when an acting joke like Christopher Lambert won't even return for the sequel, some fragile line has been crossed." It's nothing but a string of cameo fight scenes connected with horrible dialogue (think Halle Berry's infamous "struck by lightning" line in X-Men, except *all* the dialogue is like that) and bewilderingly bad CGI (going by looks, it's a reasonable assumption that Babylon 5 had a higher per-episode production budget).

if you don't believe imdb, then at rotten tomatoes we have, this, this , this and this

if you don't believe imdb, then at rotten tomatoes we have, this, this , this and this

if you don't believe imdb, then at rotten tomatoes we have, this, this , this and this

if you don't believe imdb, then at rotten tomatoes we have, this, this , this and this

Um, no it wasn't. It was really bad. Terrible, even. And 65% of critics will back me up.

I've always wanted to design a system that gets nastier every time a user repeats an error.
In the generic sense, it would start with "Could not do xyz. Please check what you intended to do and try again."
Then, it would progress through "I can't do that. Try again." "You're starting to wear on my nerves. Can't you do anything right?"
Then, it would start to get more down to the source of the problem, beginning with "DOES NOT COMPUTE" and ending, finally, with "You fucking moron, my program works, read the manual before i cut you."
Stupid users always bothering me with crap.

I've always wanted to design a system that gets nastier every time a user repeats an error.
In the generic sense, it would start with "Could not do xyz. Please check what you intended to do and try again."
Then, it would progress through "I can't do that. Try again." "You're starting to wear on my nerves. Can't you do anything right?"
Then, it would start to get more down to the source of the problem, beginning with "DOES NOT COMPUTE" and ending, finally, with "You fucking moron, my program works, read the manual before i cut you."
Stupid users always bothering me with crap.

It is 73% fresh w/ an average 6.7 rating at Rotten Tomatoes right now.

You should check out this IMDB board posting.

Apparently there were 'massive walkouts at the Cannes' and a 30% Rotten Tomatoes rating (which is very bad). I quote:

The common complaint among critics is that while the movie is beautiful, it is souless with too much technological mumbo jumbo and not enough likable characters. The story is said to be at once extremely convaluted and boring with action sequences too far between and countless uniteresting quotes form philosophers or the bible hindering the story.

So althought it saddens me to say this, it really doesn't look like it's worth checking out. That said, everyone is different, and this is just the critics' opinion.

Though this doesn't sound too promising

The critical consensus isn't quite so strong, although some of the better known critics seem to like it quite a bit. The people I know who've seen it all described it as boring, but with some nice eye candy. Sky Captain, on the other hand - this, I'm excited about.

The critical consensus isn't quite so strong, although some of the better known critics seem to like it quite a bit. The people I know who've seen it all described it as boring, but with some nice eye candy. Sky Captain, on the other hand - this, I'm excited about.

Fair and Balanced my ass

OutFoxed Trailers

http://mp.aol.com/audio.main.adp?mxid=1153566 Hear the soundtrack

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sky_captain/ Rottentomatoes reviews

http://imdb.com/title/tt0346156/externalreviews Page with links to several reviews

http://the-flying-legion.com/ fan site

http://imdb.com/title/tt0346156/board/nest/1163158 9 FAQ on IMDB

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0451411633/ qid%3D1094844850/ the book on Amazon

And no, you couldn't find this stuff in 5 seconds on google.

They all thought it sucked, and they're big geeks like me. While there aren't a whole lot of reviews in yet, that seems to be the general consensus.

I don't think I'm in a rush to see this one, if I do.

Also, if anyone hasn't heard of a decent NC-17 movie since Showgirls...

The tomato never lies: Showgirls was not a decent movie, it is thoroughly rotten.

...this one looks promising. I saw the trailer for it the other day.

It looks decent enough from the trailer for what looks like a B movie. I do not know if they are toning it down for the general audience of Internet users (i.e. includes people who cannot get into an NC-17 film), but it appears as though it is an actual movie and not just a porno on the big screen.

See "The Sorrow and the Pity, chronicle of a French city under the occupation" (Rottentomatoes).

Check out this September 2001 quote from Rotten Tomatoes:

In an interview with French TV magazine Télé 7 Jour, "Star Wars" creator George Lucas said that he had no intentions of creating a third trilogy to his popular franchise, even though that's what he had originally intended to do.

Humans find an Aztec-Egyptian-Mayan pyramid some miles below the surface near the Antarctic, which turns out to be the Predators' breeding ground for Aliens..

..one of the worst movies I've seen.

Never seen a 0% movie on rotten tomatoes before.

I have!

If memory serves me right, Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever for the longest time served up a 0% rating with 93 negative reviews and none positive . I know it's not now, but here's the "worst of 2002" list to prove it.

Never seen a 0% movie on rotten tomatoes before.

I have!

If memory serves me right, Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever for the longest time served up a 0% rating with 93 negative reviews and none positive . I know it's not now, but here's the "worst of 2002" list to prove it.

I may be able to understand that not all would recognise the greatest cinematic masterpiece yet to grace the silver screen... tops in every category. Adventure ("I saved the day! I saved the day."), romance ("I got you this bag of jewels! A bag of jewels!"), and hard hitting social commentary ("You want to fuck this?"), a profound and probing study in the psychology of family---especially father-son---relationships ("Now we *can* sew soccer balls, together!"). Beautiful.

But surely at least you have to deeply appreciate any movie that can send 9 out of 10 movie reviewers into shockingly violent fits of dry heaves... it's a beautiful, beautiful thing...

"If you're going to skip one film this year - make it "Gigli.""
-- Tony Toscano, TALKING PICTURES (U.S.)

From here.

C.H.U.D. II: Bud the CHUD

Oh. God.

I laughed, I cried, I stabbed myself in the eye.

There are several movies that have gotten 0%s.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/browser.php?tomatome ter=%3D0%25s&decade=2000s

The new Yugioh movie. 37 reviews, all negative. Never seen a 0% movie on rotten tomatoes before.

It really isn't that difficult to determine Disney's businesses. A quick look at their annual report under Key Businesses will given you a workable list if you are interesting in boycotting.

For movies, you have: Walt Disney Studios, Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone, Walt Disney Feature Animation, DisneyToon Studios, Miramax and the various Buena Vista studios. You can then check in Rotten Tomatoes when you are looking up the critic reviews you can also take a look at the Release Company to see if it is one of the names above. Example: The Village

As you get into other businesses, it gets more difficult. They include: ABC, Lifetime, A&E, ESPN, and local TV stations in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco - among others. However, Disney is just one of the big five - so that gives you four other media companies to choose from - specifically, Time Warner, Viacom, News Corporation and Bertelsmann.

Frankly, I don't think the other four would disagree with Disney on this point.