Movie reviews are bull$hit most of the time.... for me anyway 😕 (Netflix, watched)

[ColoGuy]

Originally Posted by AFtrEFkt

The Mad Max films don't skimp on brutality. Beyond Thunderdome is the only one that got toned down some.

In the second film, The Road Warrior (1981), we see:

• A close-up of fingers severed;
• Myriad injuries and deaths caused by arrow/bolt/pistol/shotgun;
• A protagonist is nailed in the back by Lord Humongous' steel spear;
• Death by steel boomerang to the head;
• Countless people run over by the tires of heavy armored vehicles;
• More deaths by explosions and collisions galore...

Maybe the Mad Max saga simply isn't for you. It's not about a caravan of peaceniks spreading the message of joy.

To each their own but I feel that Road Warrior is a more credible picture of a post apocalyptic world. It might come down to the persona of Mel Gibson vs Charlize Theron - who is one heckuva actress. Could it be that women relate to women and men relate to men - generally speaking?

Beyond Thunderdome is more of a shocking spectacle than a serious effort at gritty realism. Of course I aged a lot between movies and tolerances change. Definitely harder to impress than I used to be.

Generally you are right. Extremely visual violence rarely suits me unless it fits the movie. The beach scene of Saving Private Ryan impressed me - it seemed real. It happened something like that.

Loved Hacksaw Ridge - as violent as any. That also really happened, something like that.

[oeccscclhjhn]

I've seen almost all of Roger Ebert's Great Movies. I didn't agree with a few of his reviews - and he was my go-to reviewer back in the day. I still take a look at Matt Zoller Seitz' reviews - who is one of the reviewers at rogerebert.com. To avoid SPOILERS, when I look at a review of a movie I haven't seen, all I look at is the star rating - and sometimes the first sentence. Radio reveiws are notorious for SPOILING movies - that's how Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby got SPOILED for me - a radio review. Live and learn.

[carnelian]

Many years ago I trusted movie reviews, but no longer.
I am very suspicious of movies with high ratings, especially on Rotten Tomatoes
which when I checked last is owned by Paramount. That tells you something.
I am more likely to accept a very low rating.
My method is to subtract 2 stars from every review.. Two stars mean NO stars.
With many exceptions to the rule.

1. It is in the critics best interest to rate movies higher because--

a. they encourage movie goers, and the movie industry and critics are read more.
b. they like movies more than most of us
c. their newspaper or online site may be owned by a large corporation that profits from good reviews
d. Low ratings suggests their own negative biases. Blatant sex may get a low rating, much violence a high
rating. Very liberalish stories, high rating, pro-religion, good rating. Etc.
e. Critics never tell us the criteria for their ratings, that is, what they value most or least in a movie. This is very important to me.
f. Animated and very original films are overrated IMO.

[ColoGuy]

I can't understand why somebody would put any credence into the opinions of a critic unless they had previous experience with the critic. Critics are notorious for having different values than the average movie goer. Audience reviews are a 100 times more important to me than all of the critics combined.

One persons opinion? Really? This board is loaded with haters of Avatar, Titanic and Star Wars. I wouldn't put hardly any weight to the reviews posted here either. I'm sure some are industry professionals. Their yard stick has no relation to mine.

[mikefong123]

I find most movie critic snotty and annoying. Especially, those who love to rate boring artistic movies as must-see movies. I watch movies for entertainment, for fun. Why would I waste my time watching a movie about some pathetic person dealing with their pathetic life in an artistic movie? Especially a movie that has no action, no point to the movie. Just yap, yap, yap.



I just don't get it? If I want boring, I can go out to my front lawn and watch snails roam my yard. If I want to listen to someone nag me to deah, I can always just ask my wife to nag me, why pay good money for a movie to nag me to death?

[Just Zola]

I used to follow Ebert, and certainly respected his reviews and opinions (quite often he would admit to giving a film he saw in his younger days a low rating only to change that rating to something much higher after a second or third viewing later in his life.)

However, since his passing in 2013 the site itself is a shadow of its former self, with most of its critics all too quick to throw their own brand of personal politics into a film review to the point where it is just impossible to an objective opinion!

That said I do like to read a consensus of opinions from professional and amateur critics alike, whether its from IMDb or RT, or some other review site. I really don't want to be wasting my time and money watching a film without being briefed first.

[ColoGuy]

Originally Posted by mikefong123

I find most movie critic snotty and annoying. Especially, those who love to rate boring artistic movies as must-see movies. I watch movies for entertainment, for fun. Why would I waste my time watching a movie about some pathetic person dealing with their pathetic life in an artistic movie? Especially a movie that has no action, no point to the movie. Just yap, yap, yap.



I just don't get it? If I want boring, I can go out to my front lawn and watch snails roam my yard. If I want to listen to someone nag me to deah, I can always just ask my wife to nag me, why pay good money for a movie to nag me to death?

You have to ask for that?

[ironpony]

Roger Ebert said that Beyond Thunderdome is the best one when it came out. I think I like Beyond Thunderdome better than Fury Road, in some ways, cause it has a better story than Fury Road, though I do acknowledge that Fury Road has better action scenes.

If Roger Ebert say Fury Road while still alive, would he have liked it better than Beyond Thunderdome do you think?

[c charlie]

Originally Posted by nng

Okay I know opinions are subjective but judging movies by movie reviews is not the way to go IMO. Roger ebert gave the new mad max movie a 5/5 but I absolutely hated that movies!!! It was the most boring and stupid movie I have every seen. Movies that get bad reviews like the movie girl in the spiders web are infinitely more watchable imo.

Yep.I thought it was crap.Loved the first one. Mel Gibson before he came over all weird was pretty good


One of our 'national treasures' Barry Humphries, once said of critics "You know, you should never be frightened of critics, they're just like ordinary people; VERY ordinary people"

I can't remember critical response to three very profitable but very ordinary films, only that there was a LOT of hyperbole (which I fell for):

Independence Day; America saves the world, again. Great FX, but a disappointing film. (plus I've never liked Will Smith)

Titanic; again great FX, the film itself not so much.

AVATAR ;I fell for the hyperbole . Watched it at home in 3D.* My perception was of a very well done, very long cartoon. I may watch the next one if Netflix get it.

---only saw one of three in a cinema; Independence, in a cheaper suburban theatre. Thank goodness. I didn't fork out to see the others at the cinema.

* The 3D function came with the medium priced TV, wasn't looking for it. That was seven or more years ago.
I've watched a total of 4 films in 3D. Don't like wearing those glasses.

[luckyram]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

Ahh. That would explain President Lincoln liking "King Kong" on facebook. We live in a strange existence.