I've had it up to here to those snooty people who do movie reviews in newspapers and on TV. Lots of money and effort are spent to make movies. Some of those movies are directed towards a certain audience, like children. Automatically those movies are rated D or Worse. Rate the movies based on how the intended audience would like the movie, instead of how you snooty, high brows liked it.
This has been another BDBopper rant. Have a wonderful day! LOL
Originally Posted by aashee
I'm with you! I've never figured out what the criteria is for a "good" movie rating. I like what I like and rarely read reviews. I already know they won't be any use for my personal taste.
I pledge allegiance to the Earth, one planet, many gods, and to the universe in which she spins.
I'm totally on the opposite side of the fence here. There is so much crap out there and many critics do a very good job at their jobs. There are critics I've been reading for decades and really trust their judgements and opinions. (Richard Shickel, Peter Travers, Martin Bernheimer, Gene Siskel, Rex Reed, and even Roger Ebert, etc.)
By the way, a recent article in Newsweek has a group interview with all the 5 Oscar nominated directors and several mention Rex Reed several times. Spielberg, when asked what one memorable thing a critic wrote about a film of his, immediately mentioned Reed writing that the mother ship when it finally appears onscreen reminded him of one of Mae West's earrings.
And just last week a totally unncecessary waste of film stock was released in theaters titled "When A Stranger Calls." On metacritic.com it is probably one of the worst overall reviewed films of the year, yet it was the number one film in America.
Barnum was so right when he said that one should never underestimate the taste of the American public when it comes to entertainment.
I think that most of the movies....I mean trashy, un-original remakes....are really trash these days. I agree with some of the critics reviews. I personally hate how the directors made the newest pink panther! Pink Panther is suppost to be a cartoon Pink Panther! Not a person! If it is called the Pink Panther and has no Pink Panther in it, then why name it the Pink Panther??!! They could have atleast digitally animated the panther and Steve Martin could have voiced him. But in the other Pink Panther films, atleast they showed the character and played his music in the opening credits.
I mean many of todays hollywood movies are really pathetic remakes and that is one reason why the theatre industry ain't doin so well.
I am curious about Curious George though.
I seriously hope you're joking.
"Here You Leave the World of California Today and Enter the World of, um, er, California Today."
Do remember who goes to films on their opening weekend: mainly teenagers (some of whom will actually watch the movie). That was pretty much a strictly teen movie. Heck, even its premise has been parodied in the "Scary Movie" series. I think they make movies like this so small children and parents WON'T be in the theater at the same time as the hormonal teens.
I can't remember when I last saw a film on the first night of its release. I saw HP&tGoF on the Sunday of the first weekend.
"Here You Leave the World of California Today and Enter the World of, um, er, California Today."
You can thumbs down me then. I'm a snooty movie reviewer. I honestly feel that movies made nowdays need to be picked apart. Often, these cheesy remakes and sequels are truly garbage, I couldn't see actually paying money to see some of these. Not to mention, that taking a couple of kids to the movies with all the overpriced snacks etc is very expensive. I would rather endure a snooty movie reviewer than sit through a bad film made by a snooty producer that just expects people to swallow his/her crud.
Also, has anyone ever been in the Hollywood filmmaking system? It's brutal. People are treated very poorly by these big studios. It's hard to get in and truly talented people are being ignored while big studio cronies and friends of so-in-so are getting paid emormous amounts of money to produce really stinko films.
And all this goes for TV as well.
oh...my....God....
You better be kidding...otherwise....my God.....I dont know what to say...
I'm thinking it's just a generation gap thing.
ie. There are people alive today that have never seen the original Star Wars films in the theatre...
Nope. I think it is stupid to make a fil based after a cartoon character in it without the cartoon character in it.
Steve Martin is a funny guy, so I bet I will see the film, but I just don't like how they did not make the real pink panther cartoon character a part of the story.
Anyway, Hollywood is in a big slump right now. How many remakes of past films are being made compared to original ideas that have never been though up of before? I can't wait for Hollywood to get out of the re-makes, and get back to being more original.
nope not a generation gap...atleast I do not think so...I'm thinking it's just a generation gap thing.
ie. There are people alive today that have never seen the original Star Wars films in the theatre...
Peter Sellers already had made this movie, DW. Steve Martin's is a remake.
1st Amendment-Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
DW ~ Have you seen the Peter Sellers version of the film?nope not a generation gap...atleast I do not think so...
I know
Yes and he was very dissapointed that Peter Sellers didnt voice the panther
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Bookmarks