EPT+ Show Spoiler +
the climax was a mentally challenged person in a monster costume fighting a blind woman in the woods+ Show Spoiler +
the blind woman wins and thats not even the last terrible twist
[movie] After Earth (Will Smith + Sons) - Page 4
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
ssxsilver
United States4409 Posts
On May 31 2013 22:03 a176 wrote: Why do people still believe the opinions of movie critics mean anything? ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KfBYLhC.png) Well because in my case, movies I enjoy are typically higher rated. That isn't to say there are exceptions, my preferred comedies for example, but if I'm spending 10 dollars a ticket I think it's insane to at least not to research. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On May 31 2013 22:03 a176 wrote: Why do people still believe the opinions of movie critics mean anything? Opinions of the audience are usually worse. | ||
|
FryBender
United States290 Posts
On May 31 2013 22:37 ComaDose wrote: I rank The Village below The Happening. + Show Spoiler + the climax was a mentally challenged person in a monster costume fighting a blind woman in the woods+ Show Spoiler + the blind woman wins and thats not even the last terrible twist No way. At least the village had a kind of a cool twist, in the Happening + Show Spoiler + the grass was killing people just because and there was something about hot dogs I gave M. Night Shyamalan the benefit of the doubt because he deserved it for sixth sense and unbreakable but because of The Happening I will never watch one of his films willingly again. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
 edit: at least if there was one, from what I've read there possibly isn't one. | ||
|
Deadlyhazard
United States1177 Posts
| ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On June 01 2013 00:11 Deadlyhazard wrote: I most certainly trust the opinions of movie critics over audience members. It doesn't take much to impressive the average person, who usually attends films to see special effects and mindless entertainment (I see this people everyday, I work at a movie theater). Critics look deeper into a film than the average movie goer, and I think they're a better indicator of quality. So you only ever watch 'deep' movies? | ||
|
clementdudu
France819 Posts
thats not what he meant. the average movie goer will focus on CGI,cute actress and disregard terrible acting,terrible twist and so on. I understand his point but do not completely agree with it | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On June 01 2013 00:11 Deadlyhazard wrote: I most certainly trust the opinions of movie critics over audience members. It doesn't take much to impressive the average person, who usually attends films to see special effects and mindless entertainment (I see this people everyday, I work at a movie theater). Critics look deeper into a film than the average movie goer, and I think they're a better indicator of quality. Part of going to watch a movie is enjoying it and not necessarily critiquing every little detail. Not every movie should be critiqued like mad. What I mean is, if you watch the movie and enjoy it, that's all that counts. That and for movie critics, it's their job to critize so they have to find something (usually  ). I remember watching some low-rated movie(s) a couple of times and the critics were completely bashing it/them but I enjoyed it/them and would watch it/them again | ||
|
zoLo
United States5896 Posts
On June 01 2013 01:36 BigFan wrote: Part of going to watch a movie is enjoying it and not necessarily critiquing every little detail. Not every movie should be critiqued like mad. What I mean is, if you watch the movie and enjoy it, that's all that counts. That and for movie critics, it's their job to critize so they have to find something (usually ). I remember watching some low-rated movie(s) a couple of times and the critics were completely bashing it/them but I enjoyed it/them and would watch it/them again I agree. Watching a movie is suppose to entertain you. I always get a laugh out of people who complain when a movie is unrealistic. If a movie was realistic, then it wouldn't be fun to watch. You are better off not even watching it since it'll be as realistic as life. There are some occasions where that type of movie can work, but most of the time you want to see a movie that can suspend your disbelief and just have fun watching. That is why I find horror movies hard for people to accept since the characters in the genre are often dumb for wandering off by themselves to only get killed. If a horror movie was realistic, then you can expect the characters to stay together and sit tight thus ending the movie in about 10 minutes. I personally do not always base my movie viewing off of critics and ratings. Just because one person does not like the movie does not mean you wouldn't. It is better to just watch it yourself and see if you like it or not. If money is an issue, then there is always the matinee option where the ticket price is cheaper. As for After Earth, I'll probably won't see it since I do not like M. Night at all anymore. | ||
|
Fake)Plants
United States373 Posts
On June 01 2013 00:11 Deadlyhazard wrote: I most certainly trust the opinions of movie critics over audience members. It doesn't take much to impressive the average person, who usually attends films to see special effects and mindless entertainment (I see this people everyday, I work at a movie theater). Critics look deeper into a film than the average movie goer, and I think they're a better indicator of quality. I too work at a movie theater, and while I see your point I actually have started to trust the average viewer scores on these sites more than the critics. There are a handful of critics that write really good reviews, but the more I read them the more I get this feeling that most critics are jaded. I seriously read a review for "Bad Teacher" that at one point said; "'Bad Teacher? Should have been called 'bad movie."' That's so fucking lazy. It takes quite a bit of work to make a movie, and only about a fraction of that time and energy to write a half-assed review that shits on the movie before people get to see it. That being said... the critics were right about this one I feel haha. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On June 01 2013 02:29 zoLo wrote: I agree. Watching a movie is suppose to entertain you. I always get a laugh out of people who complain when a movie is unrealistic. If a movie was realistic, then it wouldn't be fun to watch. I feel like there's an important nuance to add here, even though it doesn't necessarily go against anything you said. There is a difference between being able to enjoy movies that are unrealistic and enjoying movies that break their internal logic. I have absolutely no problem with unrealistic movies (quite the opposite) and with suspension of disbelief, but I start to get annoyed when there are elements that contradict each other. For example, let's imagine a movie in which an intelligent character has a technology that instantaneously maps and displays all of his surroundings in great detail and to the extent that he chooses (he could map the entire planet if he wanted to). It's pretty unrealistic, but I'm perfectly fine with it. If that character gets lost with that piece of technology in his pocket and doesn't think about using it, however, I'm going to get annoyed (cough, Prometheus, cough). Lack of realism isn't an issue, but logical inconsistencies are (I know that's not necessarily what was being discussed!). | ||
|
zoLo
United States5896 Posts
On June 01 2013 03:20 kwizach wrote: I feel like there's an important nuance to add here, even though it doesn't necessarily go against anything you said. There is a difference between being able to enjoy movies that are unrealistic and enjoying movies that break their internal logic. I have absolutely no problem with unrealistic movies (quite the opposite) and with suspension of disbelief, but I start to get annoyed when there are elements that contradict each other. For example, let's imagine a movie in which an intelligent character has a technology that instantaneously maps and displays all of his surroundings in great detail and to the extent that he chooses (he could map the entire planet if he wanted to). It's pretty unrealistic, but I'm perfectly fine with it. If that character gets lost with that piece of technology in his pocket and doesn't think about using it, however, I'm going to get annoyed (cough, Prometheus, cough). Lack of realism isn't an issue, but logical inconsistencies are (I know that's not necessarily what was being discussed!). That's not being realistic. That's just Ridley Scott being dumb, lol. But I know what you mean. When I say realistic, I meant scenarios in movies like the latest Fast and Furious 6. There is a scene of high performance cars taking down a plane by shooting a rope dart on the plane's wings and bringing it down. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
StealthBlue's movie meter: 3/10. | ||
|
Kingsky
Singapore298 Posts
| ||
|
ZerO_0
United States137 Posts
| ||
|
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On June 01 2013 02:29 zoLo wrote: I agree. Watching a movie is suppose to entertain you. I always get a laugh out of people who complain when a movie is unrealistic. If a movie was realistic, then it wouldn't be fun to watch. You are better off not even watching it since it'll be as realistic as life. There are some occasions where that type of movie can work, but most of the time you want to see a movie that can suspend your disbelief and just have fun watching. That is why I find horror movies hard for people to accept since the characters in the genre are often dumb for wandering off by themselves to only get killed. If a horror movie was realistic, then you can expect the characters to stay together and sit tight thus ending the movie in about 10 minutes. I personally do not always base my movie viewing off of critics and ratings. Just because one person does not like the movie does not mean you wouldn't. It is better to just watch it yourself and see if you like it or not. If money is an issue, then there is always the matinee option where the ticket price is cheaper. As for After Earth, I'll probably won't see it since I do not like M. Night at all anymore. ya, agree with this although I still find some horror movies enjoyable lol as long as their is some plot and it's not a survive everyone getting killed to only discover it was on of your friends killing them(aka scream). | ||
|
Flossy
United States870 Posts
On June 01 2013 00:04 kwizach wrote: I won't be watching this, but I'm curious to know what the twist was. Could someone please explain it in spoiler tags? edit: at least if there was one, from what I've read there possibly isn't one. + Show Spoiler + There wasn't a twist. Made me pretty upset. | ||
|
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
oops reading your spoiler before realizing what it was XD Oh well ^^ | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On June 01 2013 03:35 zoLo wrote: That's not being realistic. That's just Ridley Scott being dumb, lol. But I know what you mean. When I say realistic, I meant scenarios in movies like the latest Fast and Furious 6. There is a scene of high performance cars taking down a plane by shooting a rope dart on the plane's wings and bringing it down. Yeah but if you'll note, Fast 6 has 72% on RT. The difference between good and bad doesn't lie on realism (unless you're Perd Hapley,) it's in making sure the story isn't contrived and inconsistent within its own standards. Fast 6 is dumb because they meant it to be dumb and ridiculous. After Earth is dumb by poor judgment and it actually takes itself really seriously. And yes, the average viewer/person is an idiot. | ||
| ||
