The early word on "Malificent" is...

[BigTxEars]

Something tells me you've never seen a Japanese Godzilla film, because the USA movie was actually pretty spot on in regards to portray of the character. Only the awful 1998 film portrayed Godzilla as a true foe versus humans.

Godzilla suffered a bit because of characters that served more as exposition pieces than actually characters, but the thing they did very correctly was staying true to Godzilla as a character.

And like I said I wanted the ole guy to tear apart stuff, thus I was disappointed in the movie. I could care less what the critics think of the movie, it did not alter my desire to see it or how I felt about it afterwards.

And I prefer the 98 version for that very reason, Godzilla tore stuff up.

I don't want nor need a lesson on the balance of nature from a 300 foot monster. I want car crushing, building destroying, people killing mayhem in excess!

 

[BigTxEars]

It got generally great reviews.



It got generally good reviews.



It got generally good reviews.



And their opinions are not reflective of the overall consensus from critics. Critics, by and large, still agreed that they were good films.

Ok so instead of the three biggest names in movie critics who are nationally syndicated I should have used Susie Smallwood from the Portland Tribune.....who would ever defer to those three nobodies for movie reviews, I mean other than a national audience?

How about you keep letting them tell you what they enjoy and I will just find out for myself what I enjoy

 

[216bruce]

For what it's worth regarding critics...they generally can tell 'why' something is good or bad or 'why' they liked or didn't like something. This is opposed to a typical fan or movie-goer whose comments are usually not much more than "I liked it because it was awesome" or "I hated it because it sucked". Good, reliable, authoritative critics have some background in film history or film study, some just seem to 'get it'. They can offer up decent comparisons and reasons. Typical movie fans just 'like what they like' and that's why they like it- just because they do.
My two or three all-time favorite movies were mixed review at best. Doesn't mean I don't love them for my own reasons, just means that they weren't great in the eyes of others-mostly critics. And that's fine too.

 

[lazyboy97o]

What are you talking about?

You posted

"Plenty of people love to boast that they do not consider the opinions of critics, but if this was true then the critics would not have a job."

So the "plenty of people" who boast they do not consider the opinions of critics are lying ?

Yes, as a general rule people deny the amount they can be influenced by others.

 

[Tommye1078]

Ok so instead of the three biggest names in movie critics who are nationally syndicated I should have used Susie Smallwood from the Portland Tribune.....who would ever defer to those three nobodies for movie reviews, I mean other than a national audience?

How about you keep letting them tell you what they enjoy and I will just find out for myself what I enjoy

Man you talk a lot. Maybe you should be a critic. That way I could pay no attention to what you wrote...

 

[Tony Perkis]

And like I said I wanted the ole guy to tear apart stuff, thus I was disappointed in the movie. I could care less what the critics think of the movie, it did not alter my desire to see it or how I felt about it afterwards.

And I prefer the 98 version for that very reason, Godzilla tore stuff up.

I don't want nor need a lesson on the balance of nature from a 300 foot monster. I want car crushing, building destroying, people killing mayhem in excess!

Then watch Pacific Rim because the Godzilla movie you want is not Godzilla. Criticizing a movie for not being something it isn't meant to be is a bad reason to trash it.

Toho, the company that holds the rights to Godzilla, have renamed the 1998 film's monster as 'Zilla because it wasn't Godzilla.

 

[Tony Perkis]

Ok so instead of the three biggest names in movie critics who are nationally syndicated I should have used Susie Smallwood from the Portland Tribune.....who would ever defer to those three nobodies for movie reviews, I mean other than a national audience?

How about you keep letting them tell you what they enjoy and I will just find out for myself what I enjoy

Obviously, a consensus opinion from critics is more informative and valuable than isolated incidences. Like everything ever.

As I said, enjoy what you want, but don't devalue an entire group's profession, who study film history and techniques, because you think everyone's opinion is equally valid and informed. They're not. Film critique isn't just "is it good" vs. "is it bad". It's an art of critical thinking and the appreciation of film history and technique.

That's why, when paying $12 for a movie, I tend to defer to their best judgement. If I relied on trailers alone, which aren't created by the filmmakers, then I would have seen the universally panned Transcendence.

 

[BigTxEars]

Obviously, a consensus opinion from critics is more informative and valuable than isolated incidences. Like everything ever.

As I said, enjoy what you want, but don't devalue an entire group's profession, who study film history and techniques, because you think everyone's opinion is equally valid and informed. They're not. Film critique isn't just "is it good" vs. "is it bad". It's an art of critical thinking and the appreciation of film history and technique.

That's why, when paying $12 for a movie, I tend to defer to their best judgement. If I relied on trailers alone, which aren't created by the filmmakers, then I would have seen the universally panned Transcendence.

I don't agree but no harm no foul. They are trying to rate something that is way too subjective for that IMO.

But crap $12 for a movie? It's $5.50 here before 6pm, $7 after for a ticket. where do you live? That's a huge difference in price.

 

[BigTxEars]

Then watch Pacific Rim because the Godzilla movie you want is not Godzilla. Criticizing a movie for not being something it isn't meant to be is a bad reason to trash it.

Toho, the company that holds the rights to Godzilla, have renamed the 1998 film's monster as 'Zilla because it wasn't Godzilla.

So I can't say I did not care for a movie if in fact I did not care for it? Uh not sure that's how personal choice works. No offense but you need to be a bit more self reliant in what you think. Sorry my desire to speak my mind about a movie I saw offends you.

And where did I trash Godzilla? I said I was disappointed in it. That I wanted more Godzilla in the movie. That I did not want a lesson in the balance of nature from a huge lizard. That is trashing it to you?

Stop with Godzilla lessons, I know the history as well as you do. The ole guy has played the bad guy more than a few times in his history.

What is your objection to me being critical of either critics or movies? They are both putting their product out for public consumption, part of that is receving feedback on that product.

Still called Godzilla in the USA BTW :

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/godzilla-special-edition-
dvd/3484642.p;jsessionid=6986D94508C33177C5D834A54E0AD007.bbolsp-app02-113?id=54858&skuId=3484642&st=godzilla&lp=7&cp=1

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120685/

 

[BigTxEars]

Man you talk a lot. Maybe you should be a critic. That way I could pay no attention to what you wrote...

Feel free to not read what I post. Free country and all you know..

Or better yet chose me on your ignore list, it is a sweet feature you can use

 

[BigTxEars]

Yes, as a general rule people deny the amount they can be influenced by others.[/.

Your opinion is noted.

 

[BuddyThomas]

Down to 43% on Rottentomatoes as of today.

That's still not keeping us from giving the movie a try this weekend.

Now it's at 42%. Dropping by the minute. But at least it's higher than A Million Ways to Die in the West which is at 32%.

Damn. There goes my movie weekend down the drain.

 

[BuddyThomas]

Variety is now predicting that it will rule the weekend box office, taking in about 60 Million, which would be the highest opening take of Angelina's career. That seems like a lot, but the film's budget was 180 Million, so who knows how this is all going to play out.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Your opinion is noted.

It is not opinion. We are all more easily influenced then we will admit.

 

[BigTxEars]

It is not opinion. We are all more easily influenced then we will admit.

It is indeed an opinion.

 

[BigTxEars]

But hey, 96% still want to see that movie, so according to BigTX's logic, it should be a mega-hit!


This summer overall has been a buzzkill as far as movies go. I still haven't seen Godzilla or Spidey yet, so there's still hope. Who knows, if I expect the worst from Maleficent this weekend, it may not be so bad.

I said we will know what the public thinks after the movie opens, and that a 96% "want to see" was a counter point to the critics score posted. Seems to me that the critics are giving it weak reviews and still that many of the folks on that site still want to see it speaks volumes to what effects the critics have on the movie going public. But hey that is just me.

Godzilla was OK but not up to what it could have been by a long shot IMO. Technically it was very well done from a FX point of view. But the story dragged for me and the characters were pretty well just a rehash of characters we have seen before in too many other movies. Honestly I can not remember a single one of their names, they carried no interest for me.

Spidey was a better movie by a long shot. The weakness IMO was Jamie Fox which was a surprise as he is very talented. But his character was over played by Jamie IMO. Too much of a extreme from where he started to where he ended up. Overall a much better sequel than the previous Spiderman II from the last run of movies. This version of Spiderman is the best yet.

 

[Tony Perkis]

I said we will know what the public thinks after the movie opens, and that a 96% "want to see" was a counter point to the critics score posted. Seems to me that the critics are giving it weak reviews and still that many of the folks on that site still want to see it speaks volumes to what effects the critics have on the movie going public. But hey that is just me.

Godzilla was OK but not up to what it could have been by a long shot IMO. Technically it was very well done from a FX point of view. But the story dragged for me and the characters were pretty well just a rehash of characters we have seen before in too many other movies. Honestly I can not remember a single one of their names, they carried no interest for me.

Spidey was a better movie by a long shot. The weakness IMO was Jamie Fox which was a surprise as he is very talented. But his character was over played by Jamie IMO. Too much of a extreme from where he started to where he ended up. Overall a much better sequel than the previous Spiderman II from the last run of movies. This version of Spiderman is the best yet.

"Want to see" and "good" are two entirely different things. Case in point? The Star Wars prequels.

And Spidey 2 was a thematic mess. Godzilla was substantially better. The original Spider-Man 2 was worlds better as well, as that film has the second best performance by a villain in comic book superhero film history....behind Ledger in The Dark Knight.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

"Top Critics" are split roughly 50/50 and I find it interesting that while USA Today and Variety don't recommend it, the LA and NY Times do.

Everyone seems to be saying the same thing regardless. Jolie is entertaining and the movie looks great, but the debate is whether or not those alone make it worth seeing.

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

Caught it yesterday night. Hate to say it, but I'm going to have to side with the critics' opinions on this one. Jolie's performance aside, this movie has nothing going for it except being really really pretty. Acting is worthy of a George Lucas film and the story, what little there is, is boring and predictable. Thank god for Jolie and that one iconic scene (you'll know what it is when you see it) otherwise I would've resorted to a 90-minute nap.

Edited for spelling.

 

[Nemo14]

Caught it yesterday night. Hate to say it, but I'm going to have to side with the critics' opinions on this one. Julie's performance aside, this movie has nothing going for it except being really really pretty. Acting is worthy of a George Lucas film and the story, what little there is, is boring and predictable. Thank god for Julie and that one iconic scene (you'll know what it is when you see it) otherwise I would've resorted to a 90-minute nap.

Who's Julie?