Slashdot Mirror


Google Announces 'Google Movies'

NW writes "Over at the official Google Blog, a new Google feature was announced - Google Movies. When using the 'movie:' operator in Google, it brings up movie reviews. At the first glance it looks like a custom search across movie review sites. There are also movie 'home pages' like this one which aggregate all reviews AND calculate the total score based on the number of stars. It looks like something similar to Google News - parsing all the reviews and it remains to be seen whether it will be expanded to something like IMDB. There is also no ads, probably for the same reason as Google News. The bottom of the page states 'The selection and placement of reviews on this page were determined automatically by a computer program. No movie critics were harmed or even used in the making of this page.'"

261 comments

  1. Just use booble!!! by lecithin · · Score: 5, Funny

    You can get all sorts of information on movies from Booble. http://www.booble.com/

    --
    It could be worse, it could be Monday.
    1. Re:Just use booble!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Informative? *sigh*

      I went to Pirate Bay to find the latest and greatest in seeded porn movies, and decided to search for Lessons In Lust. Booble had no match, but Google had at least its entire first page filled with reviews.

    2. Re:Just use booble!!! by tehshen · · Score: 1

      Searching it for "one ring" didn't get me the film I wanted... quite the opposite :P

      --
      Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
    3. Re:Just use booble!!! by puiahappy · · Score: 5, Informative

      or just try www.imdb.com (Internet Movie Data Base), i think no other coment needed

      --
      Think like a hacker, act like a hacker, but never become a hacker !
    4. Re:Just use booble!!! by nizo · · Score: 4, Funny

      One advantage of this search site is it has a name that most slashdot people can easily remember.

    5. Re:Just use booble!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Google had sent a cease-and-desist to Booble. Did they consider it sufficient for Booble to get rid of the RGB logo?

    6. Re:Just use booble!!! by XorNand · · Score: 1


      i think no other coment needed

      Eh... I remember using www.webcrawler.com on Lynx.
      Why use another browser or search engine, they both work, right?

      Look at Google Maps. One could thing that there was little innovation left in online mapping: Yahoo and Mapquest had the market cornered. Along comes Google and makes me cool "oh, cool!" all over again.

      --
      Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
  2. Re:Google announces... by randallpowell · · Score: 0

    True but at least they innovate instead of copy the innovation of others like Dell.

  3. Disclaimer by CarlinWithers · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The selection and placement of reviews on this page were determined automatically by a computer program. Doesn't say with what kind of algorithm, I'm willing to bed someone will pay something for this algorithm to favour them. This disclaimer means nothing.

    1. Re:Disclaimer by kurosawdust · · Score: 5, Funny
      Doesn't say with what kind of algorithm, I'm willing to bed someone will pay something for this algorithm to favour them. This disclaimer means nothing.

      Ahh, now the interesting question here is whether you meant to say "I'm willing to bet someone will pay something for this algorithm to favour them" or "I'm willing to bed someone who will pay something for this algorithm to favour them."

      Freudian slip? YOU MAKE THE CALL!

    2. Re:Disclaimer by free2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm willing to bed anyone, and they don't have to pay something to favour them.

    3. Re:Disclaimer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is Slashdot; he's willing to bed anyone. The more algorithms, the better.

  4. Just in case... by Avyakata · · Score: 1, Funny

    "No movie critics were harmed or even used in the making of this page."

    You know, just in case people thought that they'd holf movie critics hostage in order to promote them...

    1. Re:Just in case... by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, I was not-so-secretly hoping that they were harming movie critics.

    2. Re:Just in case... by northcat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's supposed to be funny, turdbowl.

    3. Re:Just in case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called sarcasm...

    4. Re:Just in case... by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "No movie critics were harmed or even used in the making of this page."
      You know, just in case people thought that they'd holf movie critics hostage in order to promote them...

      More likely movie critics will take umbrage with this as it interfers with their ability to hold an audience and make a living. Worse even it may include some of their old reviews on news sites, where the critic isn't making a further dime on their performance and demand royalties from Google.

      Hey. It could happen.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:Just in case... by ggy · · Score: 1

      Well, combine "movie critics" with their acclaimed technology and do the math!

  5. No torrent option yet? by Pac · · Score: 5, Funny

    If I type "movie:Lord of the Rings type=torrent" will it bring up links to the torrents along with the reviews?

    1. Re:No torrent option yet? by Vicsun · · Score: 5, Informative

      No. For torrent links you need to search for lord of the rings filetype:torrent ;)

    2. Re:No torrent option yet? by IANAAC · · Score: 1

      Humor is lost on some people.

    3. Re:No torrent option yet? by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 1

      Funny, but insightful. A search engine should be like a dictionary: descriptive not proscriptive.

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    4. Re:No torrent option yet? by nizo · · Score: 4, Funny
      Interesting. I wonder where that site actually resides:
      $ traceroute 66.90.75.92
      (output truncated)
      12 so-1-2-0.bbr2.SanJose1.Level3.net (209.244.3.141) 77.821 ms 78.083 ms 77.907 ms
      13 as-2-0.bbr1.Chicago1.Level3.net (64.159.4.225) 79.002 ms 79.094 ms ae-0-0.bbr2.Chicago1.Level3.net (64.159.1.34) 80.333 ms
      14 ge-1-1-55.car1.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.68.101.130) 219.136 ms ge-1-2-56.car1.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.68.101.162) 112.364 ms ge-1-2-52.car1.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.68.101.34) 151.132 ms
      15 bendover.mpaa.org (66.90.75.1) ge-1-2-56.car1.Chicago1.Level3.net 279.002 ms 279.094 ms
      16 *

      Ayieeeee!

    5. Re:No torrent option yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's too bad, though. Pretty much everyone has cut off Google from that kind of search nowadays.

    6. Re:No torrent option yet? by Carthag · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Err am I the only one for which it says
      "Find theaters near you
      [homotown] [go]
      [x] Remember this location"?

      Prepares for onslaught of "yes, yes you are" replies.

    7. Re:No torrent option yet? by Vicsun · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry for not meeting your high standards on wit, sir =(

  6. Screw "movies"... by neiras · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...why isn't this being presented as a Google Reviews service, reviewing anything and everything? Now THAT would become a cultural phenomenon.

    1. Re:Screw "movies"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sort of like epinions.com?

    2. Re:Screw "movies"... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      "Worst comment, evar." -- The Picayune Basement-Troglodyte Journal

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    3. Re:Screw "movies"... by generic-man · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google already offers product reviews through Froogle BETA. Just search for any old MP3 player and you can find reviews of both the products listed and the companies that sell them.

      This information is collected and presented by Google, setting them up as a potential competitor to sites like Epinions.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    4. Re:Screw "movies"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're Google. They do everything half passed. E.g. PageRank.

    5. Re:Screw "movies"... by cephyn · · Score: 1

      I already thought of that. Too bad I dont have the design and marketing skills necessary.

      --
      Moo.
    6. Re:Screw "movies"... by TwP · · Score: 1

      why isn't this being presented as a Google Reviews service, reviewing anything and everything? Now THAT would become a cultural phenomenon.

      I'll review anything for you. Let's start with that new 42" plasma TV from Dell. Just ship it to my house and the review will be written within a week of receipt.

      But I do like your idea . . . set up a specific google search (like froogle) to index all the review sites on the web. Stuff like "Tom's Hardware", Kevein Kelly's "Cool Tools" site, etc. The only trouble is identifying a review site, or worse yet, identifying a single page on a site or a single blog entry where something was reviewed. New HTML meta tag called "review"??

    7. Re:Screw "movies"... by generic-man · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oops, spoke too soon. Upon further review, the reviews referenced by Froogle are just aggregated from other review sites like BizRate and PriceGrabber. Google's not creating or managing any of its content... yet.

      Remember when Deja.com, formerly DejaNews, tried to re-establish itself as a portal for product reviews? That didn't pan out too well, and the company was eventually swallowed up by Google. Fortunately, Google has their hugely-profitable ad business to fall back on.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    8. Re:Screw "movies"... by igrokme · · Score: 1

      The comment didn't say "product" reviews it said "anything and everything" and used the word "culture". I was imagining plays, operas, opera companies, orchestras, bands, and maybe even websites, companies, consultants, ISPs, stock brokers, beaches, schools, scientific theories, etc. Not everything is a product.

      As for comparisons with epinions, it seems to be the difference between push and pull, a search engine (for reviews or anything) vs an encyclopedia. Users register with epinions and push data into it -- google would troll the web for things that looked like reviews.

      Not sure how technically feasible it is, yet, to decide what is and is not a review (let alone a reputable review) -- I'm sure that limiting the search to movie reviews is partly how Google intends to keep the noise level low.

      Neither am I sure how great a "cultural phenomenon" it would be, mostly because of the technical difficulties. If I'm searching a whitelist of sites which review things I'll inevitably miss out getting reviews on "anything and everything". If I search the entire google index then we get into something like a natural language definition of "a review". If I'm searching for reviews of Ocean City's beaches, do I want to include that beach's local surf shop's glowing praise? Likely not, besides, there'd be too many of them.

      When we get to this level of concept query -- what is and is not a review -- I think it will be used for a lot more than searching for reviews.

    9. Re:Screw "movies"... by generic-man · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that Google should spider RateItAll instead of Epinions, then?

      --
      For more information, click here.
  7. There is also no ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...there is also no education, apparently, either.

  8. doh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No movie critics were harmed or even used in the making of this page.

    Except to have some ratings to present of course. :p

  9. Just wait for the next iteration... by slashrogue · · Score: 5, Funny

    And I quote, "Popcorn and a date to snuggle up with are up to you. For now."

    Here's hoping for the best with all of their future plans!

    1. Re:Just wait for the next iteration... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Google Date Beta

    2. Re:Just wait for the next iteration... by AntsInMyPants · · Score: 1

      You bet! I love popcorn...

    3. Re:Just wait for the next iteration... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Google Date

      For much of this crowd that has available for some time.

    4. Re:Just wait for the next iteration... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Google's going to start providing popcorn? Awesome!

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  10. Hmm by P-Frank · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Hmm by Toasty981 · · Score: 1

      I thought of that, too. Rottentomatoes + MRQE.

    2. Re:Hmm by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 5, Informative

      - No ads.
      - Google goodness and integration.
      - Better search features and movie location.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    3. Re:Hmm by rsmith-mac · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There really isn't any major difference other than that Google Movies doesn't have a front page like RT does, rather it's just a huge DB of reviews. That said however, RT has become increasingly cluttered/ad-riddled since they were picked up by the IGN/GameSpy group, so I see this as a positive thing both for the lack of distractions, and hopefully encouraging RT(and by reflection, Google) in to improving these services.

    4. Re:Hmm by Torgo's+Pizza · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I came. I saw. I like RottenTomatoes better. Seeing twenty, one-sentence reviews at a glance works better for me everytime. Sorry.

    5. Re:Hmm by spisska · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

      The difference is that Rotten Tomatoes has a confusing, graphics-heavy, vomit-colored home page, whereas Google is sparse, utilitarian, and fast.

      Maybe some people like confusing, graphics-heavy, vomit-colored pages. There seem to be a lot of them (at least the confusing, graphics-heavy bit). I've always liked Google for it's simplicity. That and the fact that it works.

      Just for kicks, I tried to find one of my favorite films, Year of the Devil (Rok Dabla) on Rotton Tomatoes. Didn't find a thing.

      Google told me more than I could ever want to know about the film, the actors, the studio that made it, the cinemas and times that the film was playing, where to buy the DVD, etc. Everything except where to find an .srt with English subtitles.

    6. Re:Hmm by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I can't use RT anymore since they changed their ad scheme, and the rendering under Firefox is pretty gross.

      Yay Google!

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    7. Re:Hmm by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      Looks fine to me. Firefox 1.0/Linux

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    8. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think the major difference is that with a site like Rotten Tomatoes or IMDb, you need to already know the name of the movie you're looking for. Whereas, with Google you could (in theory at least) simply search for a phrase from a movie or a description of a scene or whatever.

      I can see this being very useful. "What was the name of that movie where CmdrTaco defends Earth from the space aliens? ..."

    9. Re:Hmm by Fraew · · Score: 1

      there's also http://www.metacritic.com - which covers video, music and even books, too

    10. Re:Hmm by ozric99 · · Score: 1

      Looks fine to me too. Firefox 1.0/WinXP

    11. Re:Hmm by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

      Unlike with news, I don't want to read reviews just from anyone. I mean, even though some XYZ reviewer that I don't like reviewed some movie first, I don't give a damn.

      I only enjoy reading Filthy's reviews:
      http://www.bigempire.com/filthy/

    12. Re:Hmm by MBraynard · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Trade referrals with me? You do mine, I'll do yours. I got the free Ipod and the free Xbox already.

    13. Re:Hmm by balster+neb · · Score: 1

      I too use RottenTomatoes once in a while. The chief difference is that RT has hand picked quotes from the reviews, which is probably more useful what Google does.

      Also, RT generally has more reviews per movie than Google has. This can be a problem when a search for a movie yields very few reviews. However, I suppose Google will improve in that respect.

      In any case, RT is pretty cluttered and ad-infested these days. Google's simplicity is refreshing.

    14. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did it. 7 days for credit.

    15. Re:Hmm by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1

      Oh, Rotten Tomatoes works if you want to get reviews for a specific movie, but what if you wanted to know about a movie? Perhaps, browse an not so well-defined genre?

    16. Re:Hmm by malloci · · Score: 1

      Because until now, most people hadn't heard of it?

      I'm being a horrible sarcastic person here, and not asking a genuine question ;)

    17. Re:Hmm by zobier · · Score: 1

      The RT design is prety horid compared to google's

      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
    18. Re:Hmm by Hanji · · Score: 1

      by making a few minor improvements.

      To pick some of the best examples, making the map live-scrollable so that you can actually examine the area you will be driving through without waiting a minute for the page to load every time you click one of those little scroll arrows a minor improvment?

      What about the ability to search for a movie based on some event in it, or an even more ill-defined criterion, such as "Awesome Car chase", to pick the googleblog's example. That's a completely different service from anything RT offers.

      --
      A Minesweeper clone that doesn't suck
  11. Re:Google announces... by PogieMT · · Score: 2, Funny

    And the worldest highest concentration of self-appointed experts who do nothing but criticize the efforts of others in a vain attempt to build self-esteem!

  12. Oops by ANY5546 · · Score: 1

    There - ARE - also no ads...?

    --
    http://www.freepokerchipset.info
    1. Re:Oops by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Maybe they meant this.

    2. Re:Oops by HyperChicken · · Score: 2, Funny

      I assure you that's a bug, not a feature.

      --
      Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
  13. Good Move by Doesn't_Comment_Code · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is another step in a long chain of smart moves by Google. They have already proven they can create technical masterpieces. But where this (and Google News, and Froogle, etc.) really shines is in the practical usability department. There are search engines out there that will let you search using wildcards and all sorts of other features that are neat from a technical point of view. But I will use Google Movies a whole lot more than wildcards - because I like movies. And I bet a lot of other people will use it for the same reason.

    --

    Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
    1. Re:Good Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have already proven they can create technical masterpieces.

      When did they do this?

  14. Sounds sort of like IMDb Pro... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    There are also movie 'home pages' like this one which aggregate all reviews AND calculate the total score based on the number of stars.
    Sounds just like the MOVIEmeter thing on IMDb Pro, except it's based on how much people are willing to write about something vs. how many people want to read about something.
  15. quit it already by subrama6 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    am i the only one that feels like google is trying to get it's hands in too many pies? wasn't the best part of the search engine that it did one thing simply and well. it seems that apple is being crucified for trying to branch out a bit with the ipod photo and shuffle, yet google gets deified for everything it touches.

    1. Re:quit it already by damu · · Score: 1

      Their underlying technology is all searching, which they still do great. What they are doing is not putting their hands into too many pies, but taking some slices of the search pie and putting icing on it.

      dam

      --


      Useless sig.
    2. Re:quit it already by Qwijib0 · · Score: 1

      But google stil does that one thing really well. You can go to google.com and still see a sparse page and perform a search. These extras are just that-- extras. Some are useful (froogle, local...), and some are gimmicks (google by phone). If you don't want to use them, you don't have to. If the search quality was slipping, then you'd have a point-- but it isn't, and you don't.

    3. Re:quit it already by nizo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps, however they are smart enough to realize that indexing all that information out there on the web is the way to go. I mean even with search engines, trying to find things on the web sometimes feels like standing under Niagra falls with a teaspoon (basically they want to be the guy who makes the teaspoon :-) ). And since they are already indexing everything up the wazoo, why not present the data they already have anyway in different ways?

    4. Re:quit it already by kebes · · Score: 1

      Google search is great because the added functionality does not get in the way of the basic functionality. A simple search is still clean and efficient. The added power is available to people who need it (i.e.: people who want a given feature will learn to use it).

      Compare this to bloated software, where new features ruin the experience of using the application (longer load times, flashy panels getting in your way, etc.). I like Google because everything they add is neat and useful, and because these additions do not cripple or change the functionality that already exists.

    5. Re:quit it already by HyperChicken · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're search quality IS slipping. I have to dig further into the results to find something useful. And for general queries, for get about it! General queries results are filled with spammer results on the first couple of pages.

      --
      Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
    6. Re:quit it already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I concur... This is what led me to stop using the other search engines that have come and gone, they kept loading other crapola into their portfolios, went public, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they've had success with their business model and it's still a good service, but I'm ready to abandon the google ship as soon as a viable alternative comes along.

      A company that generates over $1,000,000,000 in ADVERTISING revenues and everyone on slashdot gets a sticky keyboard every time she announces some new feature.

      Lots of people are being burned by click fraud + auction style advertising rates.

      The search results become less relevant everyday as a whole industry has spawned around 'search engine optimization'

    7. Re:quit it already by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      Well, I obviously don't know as much as Google does but... If I were them, I would always be trying to think of good products which call the attention of people to google, since Microsoft and maybe others seem to be trying to poke into the "search engine market"...

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    8. Re:quit it already by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      Not trolling or anything, but what do you mean by general queries? When I search at google, I never feel affected by that problem... Care to give some examples?

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    9. Re:quit it already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, what part of "Do No Evil" can you not process in that hollowed-out turd you use for a head? It's not like you have any reason to be concerned that your browsing, porn viewing, shopping, movie watching, travelling, and email habits are being cross-referenced and analyzed.

      Christ, people are paranoid nowadays.

    10. Re:quit it already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    11. Re:quit it already by KillerDeathRobot · · Score: 1

      Since when is Apple being crucified for their various iPod offerings??

      --
      Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
    12. Re:quit it already by Twintop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't see how this is a very general query. I was thinking along the lines of "houses" or "animals". The results that come up are about CD burning software. Most people who would do this search are looking for software to download, not things like reviews of the programs or information about how to write your own. Those are specifics inside of what is already being presented.

    13. Re:quit it already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the constrast: A specific query would be "Nero cd burner" or "cdrecord"

    14. Re:quit it already by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      Seems perfectly fine to me...

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    15. Re:quit it already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Not only is it slipping, this new movie things is a complete wash. Google says "we've created a new 'movie:' operator that enables you to find movie-related information faster and more easily, whether you're looking for titles or actors, director or genre, famous lines or obscure plot details."

      Well, I tried my 3 favorite movies of all times.

      Neither the obscure plot detail of "movie:gigantic piano" or even the actual partial film title "movie:5000 fingers" found the film "The 5000 Fingers of Dr. T" (a Dr. Seuss movie).

      Then I tried a famous line: "movie:ghost with the most" did not find "Beetlejuice".

      Then I tried another famous line: "movie:be excellent to each other". And it did not find it, at all, either.

      Ironically, typing "be excellent to each other" into the regular google search window, without the movie crap, immediately yielded the correct movie: Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.

      Looks like Google Movies is going to be in beta quite a long time.

    16. Re:quit it already by kchoboter · · Score: 1

      icing on pie?

      note to self.. try this sometime :)

      --
      4B4556494E
    17. Re:quit it already by Mant · · Score: 1

      If you don't like it, just stick to the regular search. Nothing about making maps/froogle/gmail/movies/desktop stops the search engine doing one thing well.

      Now Google results are getting clogged up with spam, but that is a separate issue. The quality of the main search can go down or up completely independent of other search types they do. Nor would pulling people of other things and putting them on the main search necessarily make things better.

    18. Re:quit it already by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Looks like Google Movies is going to be in beta quite a long time.

      What a surprise, this is totally unlike all Google's other services.

    19. Re:quit it already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're search quality IS slipping

      Are you sure you are spelling your queries correctly?

  16. IMDb rocks by gustgr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It will not beat IMDb. Maybe Google will try to buy it soon and turn it into GMDb (Google Movie Database).

    1. Re:IMDb rocks by subrama6 · · Score: 2

      there's no way - imdb belongs to amazon (take a look at the bottom of the imdb launch page). amazon wants to compete with google. this is google's way of competing back

    2. Re:IMDb rocks by rainman_bc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed. Google Movies (TM) seems to be referencing reviews from Commercial sources.

      What makes IMDB awesome is that you get real people who aren't paid to write the review.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    3. Re:IMDb rocks by njko · · Score: 1

      IMDB and RottenTomatoes are excellent , but life isnt fair, sometimes a big company crush a small one, independent of who gives a better service.

      --
      \n.\n
    4. Re:IMDb rocks by generic-man · · Score: 1

      You also get fanboys posting 10/10 reviews of movies whose scores they just want to pump up, and anti-fanboys that post 1/10 scores just to spite the fanboys.

      IMDb has a proprietary way to average the scores to ignore these outliers and favor more experienced reviewers. Google has none of these things, but it might eventually add a more intelligent algorithm.

      Bizarrely, there isn't even a "beta" tag on this new feature! Now we can criticize all we want.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    5. Re:IMDb rocks by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1

      On a side topic, I find the reviews on IMDB to be pretty fascinating. I saw The Grudge with my wife and we both loved it. I read the reviews on IMDB the next day and they swung the gammut from loved it to hated it to didn't understand it (not sure how about that last one, but there were quite a few of them). After reading the first couple of pages I realized just how unhelpful they were as an aggregate. Since the reviews are self chosen, they mainly come from people with either a strong negative or strong positive feeling about the movie. In effect washing out the middle ground. It'll be intersting to do a Google search for The Grudge and see the reviews compare;-)

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    6. Re:IMDb rocks by hibiki_r · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      As far as review quality goes, a monkey with a spatula could give better reviews than imdb. There are several groups of people that try mess with the imdb scores. Some movies get 'hyped up' for no apparent reason, while others get killed just to get them in the top 100 worst movies. Just look at the detailed rankings on any modern movie: 13% of all voters giving a 10 to "the punisher"? Did 24 of the worst 100 movies of all time get made in the last 4 years?

      I'd rather find a few critics that I trust than using IMDB as anything more than a database itself.

    7. Re:IMDb rocks by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I find the text reviews pretty erradic, but the numeric review has been bang on.

      The public might surprise you. Movies like "station agent", "happiness", "love liza", "swimming pool", and "dogville" score a lot better than I would have expected from the general public. (No particular reason I picked them; they were some of the best of the intelligent movies I've seen)

      Don't forget that if you've seen these movies above, you generally understand them and appreciate their worth.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    8. Re:IMDb rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that just can't happen. The free market determines which product is better and that product survives. Ergo any product which servives is the best so the big companies tend to make better products.

    9. Re:IMDb rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone knows you're not supposed to buy things from Amazon.com

    10. Re:IMDb rocks by mbaciarello · · Score: 1

      IMDB is way different, though, at least for now.

      I'm not too fond of movie reviews, but I use IMDB all the time because it has a plethora of additional information films movie.

      What was the exact quote from that guy? Who wrote the song in the final credits? Who was playing the seventh henchman killed by the hero? What's the movie title in France?

      If you quickly need a review, Google is probably faster -- although I, too, prefer amateur critics. IMDB gives you pretty much all there is to know about about a movie, and armchair critics ravings...

    11. Re:IMDb rocks by drsquare · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, this means you get complete retard fan-boys who give 10/10 and write gushing reviews for even the most awful films, or people who bitch and moan about how a film is 'the worst film ever' because it wasn't exactly what they want from a film, or the people who spend five paragraphs moaning that they didn't like the ending, or worse of all: reviews of films based on books which consist of whining fanboys complaining that the film wasn't exactly like the book. Most of the time, I haven't even read the book, I don't give a damn how accurate it is. It's a film not a book, shut the fuck up.

      I read the comments sections a lot though, mainly because I like hearing the opinions of people who agree with me, because they're right.

  17. Re:Google announces... by SirXavier · · Score: 1

    Cool Google Movies , is very interesting !

    --
    SirXavier
  18. Rotten Tomatoes by Vaystrem · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Rotten Tomatoes by kebes · · Score: 1

      call me lazy, but one of the things that makes Google so powerful is the "one-stop-shopping" effect. There are indeed many different search engines that accomplish many different things, but what Google does is make it more efficient to find what you want as fast as possible (especially on topics that perhaps you don't search all the time).

    2. Re:Rotten Tomatoes by spoonyfork · · Score: 1

      RT sold out a couple years ago. They used to have unbiased aggregate reviews but look at the T-Meter reading for some truly horrible movies in the last couple of years. Movies that would have gotten 20% or less now get 60% (e.g. Spongebob, Hitch) which is just enough to make them "fresh". RT seems to include selective reviews instead of all sources. This massaging gives studios decent ratings even for craptacular flicks.

      I welcome more competition in the aggregate review biz.

      --
      Speak truth to power.
    3. Re:Rotten Tomatoes by NickSD · · Score: 1

      If it's so biased then how do you explain "Catwoman" and "Son of the Mask" having such low tomatometer ratings? Simple answer is that there are quite a few more people who liked Hitch and Spongebob than those movies and it's reflected in the rating. Just because you didn't like those movies doesn't mean the majority of people thought the same way. I think Rottentomatoes does a pretty good job of representing the general public.

    4. Re:Rotten Tomatoes by spoonyfork · · Score: 1

      I'd agree with you except the public's reviews are not what determines the tmeter value on RT: it is film critic reviews. Spongebob is a bad movie. Hitch is a bad movie. The only way a critic can like these movies is if they are paid to or are braindead. I can understand paid critics. I cannot understand braindead critics. So they must be paid to like it. This kind of review doesn't help you, me, or anyone else trying to find worthwhile movies.

      I know the public may like something that I do not. How else can one explain the existence of Ashlee Simpson, Survivor, McDonalds, or Celine Dion? I have faith that someone out there truly loves these products but for the life of me I do not know anyone for miles around who does.

      I'm sure there are those that enjoyed Hitch and Spongebob, but a true honest-to-goodness film critic? I think not... unless they were paid to like it.

      --
      Speak truth to power.
  19. Rotten Tomatoes by awclee · · Score: 0, Redundant

    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.

  20. Bye Bye Metacritic by Xetrov · · Score: 1

    Hopefully this turns out to be better than Metacritic. Once google expands to other media such as books and games, metacritic will be in trouble.

    However, I found the scores from metacritic did not reflect how I would score it at all. Then again, reviews seldom do.

  21. Link NOT SAFE FOR WORK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You have been warned; use your discretion.

    1. Re:Link NOT SAFE FOR WORK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you did not know what booble was, then you deserve to look at that sort of smut while at work.

    2. Re:Link NOT SAFE FOR WORK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ditto. I wasn't expecting bad stuff. :(

    3. Re:Link NOT SAFE FOR WORK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Stop browsing Slashdot and get back to work!!

      - Your Boss

    4. Re:Link NOT SAFE FOR WORK by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Stop browsing Slashdot and get back to work!!

      - Your Boss


      Just so you know, many work places actually allow browsing slashdot (or other work-safe sites you may wish too) during down-time at work. Assuming that the person is unable to browse slashdot may be incorrect. Having said that, most work places don't allow you to look at adult websites.

    5. Re:Link NOT SAFE FOR WORK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My workplace meters by accomplishment, not time spent toiling; so long as the projects are done on schedule and well, it's all good.

    6. Re:Link NOT SAFE FOR WORK by damiam · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is safe for work; at least the front page. Maybe Adblock is cutting out something offensive, but it looks fine to me.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  22. YAUSAOGS by rokzy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yet Another USA-Only Google Service.

    which is fine since they have to start somewhere, but why not mention this or put it in the USA category so most of the world doesn't need to waste its time with another of Google's (so far) unfulfilled promises?

    1. Re:YAUSAOGS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works fine with Google.com.au?

    2. Re:YAUSAOGS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Cause guys like you are more than happy to point it out, also I'm in Canada and I'm using it. So putting it in the USA category would be grossly inaccurate.

    3. Re:YAUSAOGS by monkeyfarm · · Score: 1

      So why don't you make one in your damn country? I'm so sick of foreigners bitching and moaning about the US=Centric nature of this thing on the web or that thing on the web... Shit, it's a free web, make your own damn site that does a search on the best cheese producer in Lichtenstein or something. Last I checked Google was a US company. Deal with it.

      --
      What I don't know I just fake...
    4. Re:YAUSAOGS by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      What a troll. So you're not interested despite the fact that whether you can use it or not, its just plain cool, just because its from the US?

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    5. Re:YAUSAOGS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, not because it's FROM the US, because it's FOR the US. get a fucking clue, 'tard. why would anyone care about something they cannot use and probably won't be able to use for a long time, if ever, and isn't especially innovative anyway and has plenty of better alternatives?

    6. Re:YAUSAOGS by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      Because its STILL COOL TECH! Jesus, its obvious you're not a real geek.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  23. Gotta like those christmas lights movies ... ;-) by xmas2003 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I got a chuckle out of the #1 entry for a Google Search for "movies:christmas lights"

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
  24. Another great feature like filetype: by xiando · · Score: 1

    That is my best movie link at the moment, moviename filetype:torrent and volla, you can download anything. I don't think I'll use the movie: link much, though, I love IMDB and I think I'll stick with that. ;)

  25. Use Metacritic by preatorian · · Score: 1
    Metacritic

    Aggregates reviews for movies/games/dvds/books/etc. and is one of the few sites that isn't blocked by my companies firewall...

    Everything is placed on a 0-100 scale so its easy to compare.

  26. If google wanted REAL MONEY by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 0

    They'd syndicate television shows and movies, then broadcast them using a technology similar to bittorrent. Theres ALL sorts of old television shows that they could get for a song, but modern cable wouldn't play. And I'm not even touching on the fact they could show actually good stuff... I'm thinking as a partial archive to modern culture.

    1. Re:If google wanted REAL MONEY by CrazyJim2 · · Score: 1

      You should copywright that idea. But, how do I watch google on my tv? The channels only go up to 99, not to a googol, then it starts at 2 again. Do I need a new tv? At any rate, if properly marketed, that could be worth millions.

      --
      "But theres things mightier than a sword, and there are things mightier than pens. Guns and rap." - CrazyJim1
    2. Re:If google wanted REAL MONEY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Uhhuh. That'd also cost real money but, then again, Google has a wash of capital. Anyway... What does this have to do with anything? You didn't read the article, did you.

  27. Dang! by Arslan+ibn+Da'ud · · Score: 3, Funny

    Popcorn and a date to snuggle up with are up to > you. For now. But that's the feature I need most!
    Guess I'll wait until it's out of beta...

    --

    Practice Kind Randomness and Beautiful Acts of Nonsense.

    1. Re:Dang! by generic-man · · Score: 1

      I don't see a beta tag on this feature. Could it mean that Google actually has the courage to release something?

      --
      For more information, click here.
  28. Sounds like Metacritic by slammin'j · · Score: 0, Redundant
    here are also movie 'home pages' like this one which aggregate all reviews AND calculate the total score based on the number of stars.

    Metacritic has been doing this for a while now, and I think they do it well. They also index game, music and book reviews, assigning them aggregate scores. It's my first source for research prior to video game rentals.

  29. If google keeps doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then I won't have to use it to search for anything. I'll just have to go the main google site to get everything I need.

  30. Doesn't seem to work on international Google by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    Searching for movie:Titanic yields this short message:

    "No movie showtimes or reviews were found for Titanic."

    Yes, in english and all, strangely enough. If Google can display a message in english, what's the deal about not being able to show reviews in english? And even if you wouldn't *understand* english, surely you'd still understand what "3.8 / 5" meant. Or what 4 stars of 5 meant.

    So I have to wonder why the service is only semi-enabled for international Google?

    It doesn't even list reviews for movie:Fucking Åmål when searched in swedish Google, even if it's a swedish movie.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  31. Ratings bad for Anime by JoshuaDFranklin · · Score: 1

    No actors, poor ratings. But then again, who would use it just for the ratings?

  32. movie: ZIP by John.P.Jones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    movie: ZIP

    Brings up showtimes at local theaters... Goodbye moviefone hello google

    1. Re:movie: ZIP by WillieT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did you happen to notice that it links the times to movietickets.com? Hmmm, wonder if they get $$ for clicks?

    2. Re:movie: ZIP by jbarr · · Score: 1

      GREAT find!

      And bookmarking this link gives you a nice start page.

      Google never ceases to amaze...

      --
      My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
  33. Problem by nearlygod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem that I foresee with this is timeliness. If you search for Sideways you don't get any results! I'll stick with Rotten Tomatoes.

    --
    The Tools Of Ignorance wanna be a tool?
    1. Re:Problem by SoulMan · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you aren't doing something wrong? I get a list of showtimes in my area when I Google "movie:sideways"

      --
      what?
    2. Re:Problem by nearlygod · · Score: 1

      Where are the reviews, etc? Not a very good interface if I can't find more than showtimes.

      --
      The Tools Of Ignorance wanna be a tool?
    3. Re:Problem by joranbelar · · Score: 1

      Interesting: Try doing a search for "Pinot Noir".

    4. Re:Problem by leibnizme · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you search for "movie:sideways" Google assumes you want to know about showtimes in your area, and asks for your location.

      If you search for "movie:sideways review", however, Google gives you links to the reviews.

  34. agreed on imdb rocking, disagree on gmdb by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 1

    I really don't think the imdb folks would sell anyways.

    On a related note I just wish the folks at zap2it licensed IMDB's scores (rather than the usual 4 stars which often are completely bogus) on my linux box I use freeguide + tv_imdb to achieve the integration but it's too slow (freeguide is VERY slow, and it takes a while to do the tv_imdb pass, and no I don't keep my box on 24/7 so I can't cron it at 2am) and on my (much faster) win32 gaming box I haven't found any TV listings app that I can use the same way (currently running freeguide which, again, is way slow despite the computer being an a64-3500+: this is one of the cases I wish somebody wrote a native win32 app for this)

    --
    -- the cake is a lie
    1. Re:agreed on imdb rocking, disagree on gmdb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMDB already sold itself to Amazon.com

  35. Re:Gotta like those christmas lights movies ... ;- by UWC · · Score: 2, Informative
  36. Re:Gotta like those christmas lights movies ... ;- by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    Huh? Try movie:christmas lights next time? :-) (no 's' in movies)
    I mean, if you're trying to look for movies with this new feature.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  37. Re:Gotta like those christmas lights movies ... ;- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Seriously, dude, your spamming is pathetic.

  38. Any chance... by IronChefMorimoto · · Score: 1

    ...that this service will weed out the following movie types, since doing reviews on these are pretty pointless anyway:

    - Ben Affleck movies
    - anything with "Spy" and "Kids" in the title
    - all anime movies based on children's playing cards
    - all new Star Trek movies involving Berman or Braga in the production
    - movies dealing with George W. or Jesus Christ
    - sequels to movies where characters are played by different actors/actresses
    - chick flicks (so my wife won't find a good one to force me into)

    IronChefMorimoto

  39. But could we... by IANAAC · · Score: 1
    No movie critics were harmed or even used in the making of this page.'"

    But COULD wee harm them? At least let us use them a bit.

    Bunch a blowhards.

    1. Re:But could we... by AsimovBesterClarke · · Score: 1

      Ya' know, I used to feel that way, too. Truely, a sub-...., I don't know, mammal? spine'ed? life form.

      Then, one day it dawned on me. This peckerhead hates every movie I like. And likes, nay, adores, every movie I believe to be utter swill. Viola! Now I know which movies to go see, and which ones to avoid.

      --
      Ads are broken.
  40. Rotten Tomatoes plus by lockholm · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The valid comparison isn't so much IMDB as it is Rotten Tomatoes, which also compiles reviews for movies. However, with the google version, you don't even have to know the name of the movie:

    "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.

    1. Re:Rotten Tomatoes plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but "science nerds" didn't bring up Real Genius. Useless.

    2. Re:Rotten Tomatoes plus by danila · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile "house of flying daggers" brings up nothing at all. Of course, IMDB and RT both find Shi mian mai fu for me. So Google Movies is an amateurish product, which gets a lot of exposure by virtue of Google leveraging its monopoly on search.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  41. Parsing Issues by Flamesplash · · Score: 1

    For the local drive in it only picks out (2nd listing) the first movie for each screen that night.

    --
    "Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
  42. Movie Review Query Engine by prakslash · · Score: 2, Informative

    If and when I want reviews on a movie, this is the best review aggregator site I have found so far:

    MRQE

    1. Re:Movie Review Query Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's better than Google. Compare the results for "Sideways"

    2. Re:Movie Review Query Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a catchy name like that how can it lose!

    3. Re:Movie Review Query Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMDB seems to be doing just fine.

  43. It's too bad that.... by HankYarbo · · Score: 1

    it can't automatically filter out reviewers whose taste
    doesn't agree with mine :) since the numbers of stars they
    would use to rate a movie are irrelevant to me.

    1. Re:It's too bad that.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. Once Google buys TiVo and teams up with Amazon, they'll use your social network to determine which reviews are best. http://www.broom.org/epic/

  44. Only works when English is selected? by n0dalus · · Score: 1

    Like any self-respecting user of Google, I choose to change my language in the preferences to my native language, which is Hacker.

    While everything else one the site appears to work properly with this language setting, 'movie:' searches do not.

    Not even searching for movies like Hackers returns any results.
    Hopefully this terrible oversight will be fixed soon.

  45. no MRQE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you already know the movie title and just want to find reviews, seems sites like MRQE are still better.

  46. Its better than IMDB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
  47. Re:Google announces... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google bought Slashdot?

  48. Shills by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Doesn't this just encourage the movie industry to game the Google system and post fake good reviews for their movies? I mean, I know the industry already does this, but now they're encouraged to spam the Intarweb with more and more shill reviews to get their star rating up on Google.

  49. could be a bit smarter by miyako · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmm, this looks farily nice, when it finds the movie that you are looking for.I particularly like that it works well for searching for the name of a particular actor. The biggest problem I've found when playing around with it is that it doesn't seem to offer spelling suggestions,for example if you type "movie:Shawn of the Dead" it returns no results, but simply running a google search for "Shawn of the Dead" the first result is for the actual title "Shaun of the Dead". There also doesn't seem to be any sort of spell checking, so for example you get lots of results for "movie:Vin Diesel" but no results or spelling suggestions for "movie:Vin Diesal". (you may now engage in making fun of my taste in movies and actors).
    The sort by rating function is nice, I tried typing "movie:2005" and sorted by rating to get a list of top rated movies of 2005.
    Another example of strangeness I've found is that for current movies, it gives you a chance to search for show times, but does not show the results for the movie until after you search for show times, for example, I entered "movie:Hitch" and had to enter my zip code to search for show times, and on THAT results page it gave me the reviews results.
    Overall, good idea google, but it does still need some work, I think I'll stick with imdb for now.

    --
    Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
  50. Who Decides? by filmguru · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I won't complain about famous reviewers like Roger Ebert getting top listing (he always does on IMDB under "external reviews"), but it seems strange that there are so many reviews from Boxoffice Online, Epinions.com, and rec.arts.movies.reviews. And yet, no where is a smaller independent reviewer like http://www.filmguru.net/ mentioned. What's up with that?

    (Shameless plug)

    --FilmGuru
    1. Re:Who Decides? by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's a major issue with The Google Way, I'm afraid, and this one's less retractable than the whole spam issue. You see, Google seems to believe in a certain democratization, if you will, of information, somehow equating popularity with importance. This might work for search algos, but for a news aggregator, that rather sucks; I mean, I really wouldn't want to get my cricket headlines from Al Jazeera, for instance.

  51. Yea... but I heard by Altus · · Score: 5, Funny


    that they are only doing English movies. Where are the french movies damnit! we wont sit idly by while google continues to push it anglo-centric agenda on the world!

    --

    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    1. Re:Yea... but I heard by farghen · · Score: 1

      Try Google Maps, you won't be too pleased with this view of the world either.

    2. Re:Yea... but I heard by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      Where are the french movies damnit! we wont sit idly by while google continues to push it anglo-centric agenda on the world!
      Presumably when the French "justice" system stops handing out ridiculous rulings against them.
    3. Re:Yea... but I heard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Yea... but I heard by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      Duh, French movies are right here ;-)

    5. Re:Yea... but I heard by WWWWolf · · Score: 1
      that they are only doing English movies. Where are the french movies damnit!

      Hmm. What French movies I've seen recently, now let's see... typetypetype... movie:"le pacte des loups" ...blammo! 52 reviews. Shows the English title too. Not bad.

      Hell, it does even Finnish movies. movie:"mies vailla menneisyyttä"... blam. 17 reviews.

      Okay, just two random tries, but still not bad for an American search engine =)

  52. Similiar to Rotten Tomatoes, but not as good by bjdevil66 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  53. Where's the Beef? by Frisky070802 · · Score: 1
    I don't see anything new here relative to other similar systems, except perhaps being slightly faster.

    One thing I think would be appropriate for Google to do would be to interpret the reviews and come up with a synopsis beyond average ratings. For instance, "20% of reviewers thought the movie is hilarious but 40% of reviewers thought it is boring".

    Another thing they can do is link other related movies, not just by actors, but by "if you liked X you'll like Y". And even recommend new movies based on how you rate movies on their site.

    --
    Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
  54. Re:Gotta like those christmas lights movies ... ;- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    where is the -1 fkn stupid?

  55. Detailed analysis of what this all means by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

    Google == command line Yahoo.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    1. Re:Detailed analysis of what this all means by NaruVonWilkins · · Score: 1

      That's pretty interesting. A lot of these features are offered in other forms on other sites - but with Google, we're eating it up.

  56. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  57. Still needs work by AceCaseOR · · Score: 3, Informative

    I did a search for Manos. I didn't get what I was looking for. Maybe the crawlers need to run a little longer.

    --
    Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    1. Re:Still needs work by beef3k · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I noticed the same. Your infamous classic is one thing, but if you search for something very recent like Constantine you get absolutely nothing.

    2. Re:Still needs work by automatix · · Score: 1

      Maybe the crawler has taste. :)

  58. Re:Google announces... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am waiting for Google "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters". OP is not a troll.

  59. Something weird is going on by blamanj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The same thing happens for "Ray" and "Million Dollar Baby". The interesting part is that it clearly knows that these are movies, because it offers to find nearby theatres. If you do a search for a nonsense word or phrase, you don't get the same offer.

    So why is it suppressing reviews of currently playing movies? It's enough to make one speculate about Hollywood pressure, but I'm sure there's a more innocent explanation.

    1. Re:Something weird is going on by evangellydonut · · Score: 1

      If you do a search for "Garden State", "Million Dollar Baby" will be one of the results. On the same token, if you search for "Collateral", thanks to the Jamie Foxx connection, "Ray" will be one of the results...

      this is definitely interesting...

    2. Re:Something weird is going on by Gulthek · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because if you search for a currently playing movie it (correctly or incorrectly) assumes that you are more interested in showtimes than reviews. You can correct its behavior by adding "review" to the end of the movie search.

    3. Re:Something weird is going on by blamanj · · Score: 1

      Good call. It seemed unlikely to be sinister, but it just felt weird.

      So why don't they give us both!

  60. Wikipedia done asploded again.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think their servers just went critical.

  61. Comparison. by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Insightful
    IMDB is only so good. Lots of background trivia about actors, the films, and sometimes lists of notable quotes, but It's less sterling when it comes to surfing for comments. Google tosses up a handful right away. Here's and example of one film I'd like to get my money back on: Cat In The Hat

    What I'd like to know is how people can actually give this film more than 2 stars. Beautiful sets but the film is mostly garbage.

    On IMDB you can see the 3.2/10 rating but have to click on the links to see the spread and more than just one viewers comments.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Comparison. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if its too hard for you to click on the rating to get an expanded view, its your own damn fault you spent the money.

    2. Re:Comparison. by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      if its too hard for you to click on the rating to get an expanded view, its your own damn fault you spent the money.

      I actually watched it close to opening date, while visiting my family during a Christmas break. It was certainly a grim experience. Critical reviews were mixed and I hadn't seen the critic comparison chart in the Detroit Free Press (if it was still part of the features section) where I generally agree with a couple critics from certain media sources.

      A nice feature would be for Google to allow me to establish a list of critics I most agree with and see their assessments of a prospective film. Some films I see anyway, but now and then I'll skip one if the critics I trust most give it a bomb.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  62. How do the review scores work? by gorbachev · · Score: 1

    I was checking a bunch of reviews and I didn't see any score on the original, yet Google displays a 4 out of 5 score on the review.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
  63. "No movie critics were harmed..." by GrouchoMarx · · Score: 1

    Aw, they had such a great opportunity to rid us of those self-important louts and the missed it!

    --

    --GrouchoMarx
    Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?

  64. Didn't find Casablanca by RNLockwood · · Score: 1

    Searching for
    movie: Play it, Sam
    did not find Casablanca. Alas.

    --
    Nate
  65. ROTFL!!! by toby · · Score: 1
    I am genuinely asking this question, not being a horrible sarcastic person.

    I'm gonna moderate you up for that!!! ... uh wait...D'oh!

    --
    you had me at #!
  66. The Oscars by chaffed · · Score: 1

    An interesting use of Google Movies maybe using this to see how flawed the and utterly pointless award shows are.

    --
    What could possibly go wrong?
  67. shizzolator by mcguyver · · Score: 1
  68. MOD UP PARENT by LoneGunner · · Score: 1

    If I had mod points you'd be getting them.

  69. Don't expect accurate results... by PuppiesOnAcid · · Score: 1

    This feature is still in beta.

    1. Re:Don't expect accurate results... by generic-man · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it isn't. It just sucks in that typical "We don't want to pay for content, so we'll aggregate what others have collected" Google way.

      Like Google News, there are no ads and there likely never will be. People don't like to have others profit off their content.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    2. Re:Don't expect accurate results... by PuppiesOnAcid · · Score: 1

      This I know. The grandparent was my feeble attempt at a joke. :-D

  70. Google is going into the Video-on-Demand Business by littlerubberfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The last /. google story was on the new google campus in the Dalles.
    What happens when you combine the following:

    1)A huge bundle of OC lines running down the Columbia Gorge. (some for a Hanford-Los Alimos network, some for Internet2, and some standard teir one backbone.)
    2)30 acres, and possible 80 acres more of server farms in an inductrial park.
    3)A 2000 mW power plant less than a mile away, with google asking for a guaranteed supply AND a guarantee that the power-hungry aluminium smelting plants won't re-open.
    4) Google's recent purchases around the country of dark fibre.
    5) The release of a google movie tool.

    Video servers need to be magnitudes more powerful than a normal SQL/static HTMl web page...It seems to me as if google is slowly setting up for a video on demand service.

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
  71. google rocks by toiletmonster · · Score: 1

    google rocks. everything they do is sweet and beautiful. i love google. *hug*

  72. Of course... by Wee · · Score: 1
    But COULD wee harm them?

    ...I could, but I wouldn't. I'm just not that kind of person. Live and let live, I say.

    -B

    --

    Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

    1. Re:Of course... by IANAAC · · Score: 1

      I go wee when I lean on a key too long :-)

  73. Whats up with google anyway? by squatex · · Score: 1

    Server Error The server encountered an error and could not complete your request. If the problem persists, please mail error@google.com and mention this error message and the query that caused it.
    Returned on every query I run.

    1. Re:Whats up with google anyway? by squatex · · Score: 1

      never mind. fine now.

  74. Tags - stage one by shpoffo · · Score: 1

    This is just the first stage of tag searches, as per Technorati's development of a 'Folksonomy' semantic structure.

    .
    -shpoffo

    ..... do you hear it?.......

  75. Google slashdotted? by hools1234 · · Score: 0

    Interesting that the second story on Slashdot is about Google movies and now I can't search google! Server Error The server encountered an error and could not complete your request. If the problem persists, please mail error@google.com and mention this error message and the query that caused it. Has google managed to be overrun with slashdotters trying out the new service? HA!

    --
    iSnack 2.0 - Download it now to your iToast 9.0
  76. Server Error by Claire-plus-plus · · Score: 1

    Google is giving me server errors when I try to search. Co-incidence or did /. strike again? Is this a job for Mulder and Scully?

    --
    99 bottles of beer in 175 characte
  77. movie: ray by sleepyG · · Score: 1

    negative ghost rider the pattern is full

  78. Not really... by Kidbro · · Score: 1

    but why not mention this or put it in the USA category

    Maybe because the story doesn't even mention the US specific part of the service at all?
    It took me a while to figure out what the hell you were whining about, but yep - the theatre mapping service (which isn't even mentioned in the slashdot article!) sure is "US centric". The other part of the service (the cool part; the one your local news paper won't do for you!) is pretty world wide, no?
    Or do you consider the fact that it seems to use mainly American movie reviews enough reason to deem the service useless outside the US.

    Or have I simply been trolled? ;) I get this weird feeling that I have.

    1. Re:Not really... by rokzy · · Score: 1

      click the first link, 3rd paragraph, 1st line: "...U.S. zip code...". it's not like it's some obscure detail. THIS is the main part of the new service - the part about getting reviews can be done by clicking on IMDB engine instead of Google engine (in firefox), and the part about not knowing the title could be done using "movie Tom Hanks lost" instead of the amazing new "movie:Tom Hanks lost".

      btw, just because someone criticises something doesn't make them a "troll".

  79. MOD UP PARENT by haut · · Score: 1

    Everyone should know this!

  80. How are they determining what is a review by The+Barking+Dog · · Score: 1

    I run a site that reviews films on DVD, and I don't see any of my site's reviews among the results. How is Google deciding what is a review, and how are they parsing it for scores?

  81. integration by harshaw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's been interesting over the last couple of months to see the new google services and how well they integrate with each other.

    for instance, I use google local and at some point it squirreled away a cookie of my location. This information is used by google maps and also the movie reviews.

    when I type movie: Hotel Rwanda it brings me to a listing of show times and links in my town. Another click on "7:40" brings me to the another site (movietickets.com, fandago.com, etc) where I can order a ticket. The point is: two clicks to getting movie tickets. Why would I go to any other site at this point? it's so easy with google, especially when I type it into the built in toolbar on my browser.

    At this point it seems like any horizontal web app is a possible target for google.

  82. Armchair Film Critics Get Top Billing by Sundroid · · Score: 1

    Google's "movie" feature benefits Joe and Jane Modem more than anyone else. After some tests, it is clear that quite a bit of search results are from epinions.com and Google's own online "Groups" community. This is not to say that big-name movie critics employed by major papers in New York and Chicago have more insight into the art of cinema, but still, I don't see how this new thing from Google is better than imdb.com or any other movie-centric websites. Of course, we know what that chunk of blank space on the right side of the page is for.

  83. Awful reviews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Unfortunately the reviews that Google links to are terrible. These people woudn't know a good movie if it yanked on their earlobes shouting "I'm a good movie!". More importantly, the reviewers seem to give consistently good reviews to the typical hollywood drivel that uses big-name actors and special effects as an excuse for the lack of a decent plot and substandard screenwriting.

    Mod me down, -1 Troll.

  84. Re:Gotta like those christmas lights movies ... ;- by xmas2003 · · Score: 1

    Oooops - I screwed this one up guys using the wrong operator - thought Google was being screwballish and thought I'd point out an funky example - sorry 'bout that ...

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
  85. Re:Google announces... by Elranzer · · Score: 1

    Sounds like Rotten Tomatoes to me...

  86. Re:Google is going into the Video-on-Demand Busine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A whole 2000 miliwats of power?!?!? Whoa...I'm im pressed ;)

  87. IMDB sold out, welcome google! by __aailob1448 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    For several months now, IMDB has stopped ratings for new movies from being displayed until a few days after a movie opens in theaters.

    So now, whenever i'm considering watching a new movie in the theater and I go to IMDB to check the rating and figure out whether it's worth my money, I get a screen telling me that the movie is still unrated. An idiot might take the risk and go watch it anyways, a lesser idiot (such as me) will go to rottentomatoes.com and check the rating there.

    I am very disappointed by this and I do hope google develops this new service further to offer a viable alternative to the IMDB.

  88. Metacritic? by techstar25 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'll stick with metacritic.com to get my film reviews. While I'm there I can also get videogame, dvd, and cd reviews. Plus, they give a rating from 0-100 which is much more useful than the 1-5 Google is using.

    1. Re:Metacritic? by _Neurotic · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I've been using Metacritic for years now. One of the best sites on the web IMHO.

    2. Re:Metacritic? by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 1
      Plus, they give a rating from 0-100 which is much more useful than the 1-5 Google is using.

      Totally. Titanic gets 3.8 stars? That could be anywhere from 68 to 72! How can I make educated decisions that way? I'll totally go see a movie rated 71, but 70? I think not. I do have minimum standards! With Google Movies I won't be able to tell if this movie is good enough for!

      When I get my computer generated movie review scores averaged from a wide variety of people with different scoring systems and techniques I want as many digits of meaningless precision as possible!

  89. what are their sources? by halfelven · · Score: 1

    I wonder what are the criteria used by Google to include a review in the search results?
    If i search for "Alexander movie review" with the normal www.google.com method, my movie review comes up around #60 or so, but if i do a "movie:Alexander" then my review does not show up at all.
    (Note: my review is on my blog)

  90. Re:Google is going into the Video-on-Demand Busine by njh · · Score: 2, Funny

    "What happens when you combine the following:..."

    Superman III?

  91. Tired of the Slashdot Google PR machine by blackhaze · · Score: 1

    Hello,

    I'm a number of growing Slashdot readers that are tried of the "Slashdot" google-PR machine.

    Please shed some light on some other news, most of the "google" news on Slashdot are no more then PR for Google!

    Show some support for something other then google.

  92. fire: | fox by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Why did they split the URL and search input fields in Firefox? In Mozilla, it's one field, and it's really fast and convenient. With Google rolling out new products that look like new URL protocols like "movie:", the combo field would be even more useful. Especially with a Firefox plugin that actually made it work like a URL protocol, hitting several engines with the same query, in addition to Google, selecting them by the protocol entered.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  93. I still prefer Yahoo videos by adeydas · · Score: 1

    I'd say that I would still have preferred an implementation of Yahoo video search by Google. With their huge database, imagine how much pr0n we would have been able to download.

  94. What?! No porn listings!? by 3gg_ch3n · · Score: 1

    I thought all new developments in web technology were driven by pr0n!?

  95. Rotten Tomatoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/ has been doing this for years.

  96. Re:Google is going into the Video-on-Demand Busine by Quantum+Skyline · · Score: 1

    I didn't know Google was that energy efficient.

  97. But where is maps.google.com? by phoebe · · Score: 1

    I want to see a map of all local cinemas showing a particular film, either "movie:constantine" shows a link to a local area map, or I can search on http://maps.google.com/ for the same term. However it looks like they haven't reached that level of integration yet as it just shows places with the name "constantine":

    http://maps.google.com/maps?q=movie%3A%20constanti ne&sll=40.838190%2C-73.941978&sspn=0.235840%2C0.46 7004

    Here's hoping ...

  98. Dont call me Babe by Phoe6 · · Score: 1

    I found Normal Google apparantly better than this movie operator. I think you can add more.

    --
    Senthil
  99. What?? by astro-g · · Score: 1

    you mean Google!=Internet?

  100. Re:you dummy! how does that help me work at google by Flaming+Foobar · · Score: 1
    > (seriously -- each of those is a story posted by timothy on google in roughly the last 30 days.)

    Google is one of the fastest-growing and thus interesting IT companies, and also easily the most popular search engine in the world. Slashdot is news for nerds. Do the math.

    --
    while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done
  101. vintage reviews too by mnbjhguyt · · Score: 1

    it seems it's indexing older reviews too. a search on nightmare pops up reviews from 1984 and 1990.

  102. and tv programs too! by mnbjhguyt · · Score: 1

    they are indexing close captions from tv as well!
    check out The simpsons!

  103. My Review Site by MMMDI · · Score: 1

    Oddly enough, my own movie review site doesn't seem to be linked up there (even when searching for far-from-mainstream junk), though I get ample hits from the normal google search. Go figure on that one.

  104. No movie critics were harmed in the making... by lahvak · · Score: 1

    That's too bad. I don't think I can use it until they fix that.

    --
    AccountKiller
  105. The power! The power! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two thousand milliwatts?! How will humanity survive?!

  106. How about a non-commercial google search. by lexiconographolologi · · Score: 0

    Sometimes I want to filter out every page selling something, yet that is impossible. That could be google's pay service, a non-commercial, business-free search.

  107. Found a GLITCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enter movie: "fargo" and it give movie times in North Dakota, instead of reviews of the movie of the same name.

  108. Re:movie: ZIP (Mobile) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was vital for my mobile: sidekick. It was a pain to load movieticket, moviefone, etc, just to get movie listings in a theatre nearby.

    Either the graphics were slowing me down, or they have a javascript button to submit zip code. It was an utter pain!

    Playing with the google's movie: zip, it's a dream! For those who don't have a browser, you can SMS to 46645 with "movie: zip" to get 5 text of the closest movie theatre with listings. I tried it out and it's amazing! (google is now on my phone listing) ::fan boy-ism rising::

  109. Metacritic--Not impressed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your search for Citizen Kane yielded a total of 0 results, displayed below

    gewg_

  110. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  111. Re:Google is going into the Video-on-Demand Busine by evilviper · · Score: 1
    3)A 2000 mW power plant less than a mile away

    I have a 2,000 milliwatt power plant less than a mile away, too. I call it... a battery. In fact it's MUCH less than a mile away.

    4) Google's recent purchases around the country of dark fibre.

    Gee, an internet company, needing more bandwidth... It can't just be that they need more bandwidth for serving up images to more people.

    Video servers need to be magnitudes more powerful than a normal SQL/static HTMl web page...

    I must say, that's an incredibly stupid sentiment... On-demand servers aren't going to be doing video processing (that would be done before-hand), just serving up large files. So an SQL or HTTP server would be using up magnitudes more power.

    And these same points applied to Yahoo many years ago, and they aren't serving up full-length movies yet.
    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  112. ditto Yahoo! by Rocko's+Modurn+Life · · Score: 1

    Yahoo does this too and if Google just started this, Yahoo has been doing it longer.
    And while I haven't tried Google's database thing, Rotten Tomatoes does it as does Metacritic, and Metacritic does music too, so it ain't nothing new, it just has the Google name.

  113. Few movies by IWTB · · Score: 1

    Some searches for japanese movies (like "Ski High") return nothing...

  114. Re:Google announces... by edanshekar · · Score: 1

    Hrm, seems like you haven't received an invite. Gmail does have POP support.