Print Page | Close Window

Members' Discussion of FINAL D 5 in 3-D

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: INFO on POSSIBLE 2011 RAZZIE® CONTENDERS
Forum Name: Forum Discussion & Add'l Info on FINAL DESTINATION 5 in 3-D
Forum Discription: Where to FInd/Participate in our DISCUSSION as well as LINKS to Other Info on the Film...
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5248
Printed Date: July 25 2014 at 3:07pm


Topic: Members' Discussion of FINAL D 5 in 3-D
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Members' Discussion of FINAL D 5 in 3-D
Date Posted: August 08 2011 at 9:33am
OTHER THAN MOVIEWIZGUY, WE EXPECT MOST FORUM MEMBERS (and a MAJORITY of AMERICAN FILM CRITICS) to CONCUR WITH THIS WEEK's WORST of the WEAK CHOICE... 

SO...WHAT R U WAITING FOR?  

LET the RANDOM SLAUGHTER BEGIN! 

...and FOR the CURIOUS, HERE's a http://www.razzies.com/forum/official-razzie-take-on-final-destination-5-in-3d_forum549.html - to READ YE OLDE HEAD RAZZBERRY's COMMENTS on http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum-discussion-addl-info-on-final-destination-5-in-3d_forum550.html -



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: August 08 2011 at 10:21am
I personally expect this will suck, but then again I also thought that Fast Five, Captain America, Rise of the Planet of the Apes and the Glee Concert Movie would all suck (and see what happened with them).  

So I am not going to say anything about this one until after reviews are in (or maybe untill I've seen it myself)....  



-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 08 2011 at 12:00pm
Don't worry, I doubt this one will be following those movies' example.  
 
And one request to moviewizguy: please DO NOT wet yourself if or when the first 10 reviews from RT are good. WAIT until they reach 100 reviews so we know for a fact if this is rotten or not. We all know you have been dreaming about this movie since it was annouced, but if you think there's a chance in hell of the 5th installment of a horror movie franchise that went stale 5 years ago is going to redeem the series ... then you really are dreaming!  

Originally posted by Vheid

I personally expect this will suck, but then again I also thought that Fast Five, Captain America, Rise of the Planet of the Apes. 


-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: August 08 2011 at 12:18pm
Of all the movies Vheid listed, Fast Five was an "adrenaline thriller", The First Avenger was a superhero film, I can't classify Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and Glee: The 3D Concert Movie is a concert film. Assuming RotPotA was not a horror, I can't see how Final Destination 5 will pull an upset on us.


-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags 8; TMNT '014. Ags 13; Let's Be Cops. Ags 15; The Giver, The Expendables 3. Ags 29; Jessabelle


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 08 2011 at 2:49pm
Well, "Fast 5" was a straight up action movie, and "RotPotA" is a sci-fi thriller. Case closed for "FD5". 

Originally posted by GTAHater767

Assuming RotPotA was not a horror, I can't see how Final Destination 5 will pull an upset on us.


-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: jesse685
Date Posted: August 08 2011 at 4:21pm
Agreed! I knew this would suck when I first heard about it. And it'll still be bad enough when we worry about Spy Kids 4 and the Conan the Barbarian and Fright Night remakes.

-------------
"If you can't make it good, make it 3D!" Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
F**k Yeah/WTF Were They Thinking Awards Results Live-Tweet @jesse685


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: August 08 2011 at 5:32pm
I am having second thoughts whether all three of thm are going to be as bad as we are expecting them to be... but we'll see...

Originally posted by jesse685

Agreed! I knew this would suck when I first heard about it. And it'll still be bad enough when we worry about Spy Kids 4 and the Conan the Barbarian and Fright Night remakes.


-------------


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: August 08 2011 at 8:46pm
We've had our fair share of swing and misses this summer in terms of what we originally assumed would be bad, but i have a strong feeling this will not be one of them.

-------------
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 08 2011 at 9:22pm
I heard the Fright Night remake was actually pretty good. I mean, it's not as if the original is a masterpiece, because it wasn't. It was quite cheesy if you think about it.  

Also, I think it's finally time for people to talk about this music video the FD5 cast did:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lNEQAXX43g - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lNEQAXX43g
As said before, it's a parody of Saved By the Bell.

Additionally, I would like to point out this video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCbLcvdAuRs - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCbLcvdAuRs
If you watch between 1:25-1:52, Tony Todd says that if FD5 make $50 million, the two upcoming sequels will reveal who he is. Seeing how the FD films generally make over $50 million quite easily, I think it's safe to assume we'll be getting #6 and #7 in the near future. 

Originally posted by jesse685

Agreed! I knew this would suck when I first heard about it. And it'll still be bad enough when we worry about Spy Kids 4 and the Conan the Barbarian and Fright Night remakes.


-------------


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: August 08 2011 at 9:48pm
How about we discuss the music video instead. It's an accurate portrayal of how i feel about this specific film, and future Final Destination movies even being made:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlzoL-wQwio - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlzoL-wQwio   

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Also, I think it's finally time for people to talk about this music video the FD5 cast did:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lNEQAXX43g - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lNEQAXX43g
As said before, it's a parody of Saved By the Bell.


-------------
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin


Posted By: jesse685
Date Posted: August 09 2011 at 1:42am
LOL!!! LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOL

-------------
"If you can't make it good, make it 3D!" Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
F**k Yeah/WTF Were They Thinking Awards Results Live-Tweet @jesse685


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 09 2011 at 8:00am
Wow, this is the THIRD time you have posted about that. You're as obsessed about that music video as the studio has been about continuing to make "FD" movies!  

Originally posted by moviewizguy

.
Also, I think it's finally time for people to talk about this music video the FD5 cast did:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lNEQAXX43g - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lNEQAXX43g
As said before, it's a parody of Saved By the Bell.


-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 09 2011 at 8:03am
Yeah, the original Fright Night was a far from perfect movie, but that is not the point. The point is all these endless remakes. Hollywood has no new ideas, so it's like they just reach into a hat with 20-30 year old movie titles inside, pick out a random title...and remake it. 

How lazy can you get?  

Originally posted by moviewizguy

I heard the Fright Night remake was actually pretty good. I mean, it's not as if the original is a masterpiece because it wasn't. It's quite cheesy if you think about it.


-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 09 2011 at 9:23am
Well, I wouldn't have posted it 3 times if somebody, you know, actually responded to it. It's not that I'm obsessed, it's that nobody responded to it -- and it's actually pretty funny!   


Originally posted by Michaels


Wow, this is the THIRD time you have posted that.



-------------


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: August 09 2011 at 10:44am
The original Fright Night is still many times better than either of the Schwarzenegger/Conan-movies (neither of which I've been able to sit through untill the end)... I have to admit that the ending of Fright Night was all over the place, but I found the build up towards the ending pretty solid... 

In the end, it's all just another rip-off of Rear Window (just like Disturbia)... So the Fright Night-remake is technically a remake of a rip-off of Rear Window! 

Originally posted by moviewizguy

I heard the Fright Night remake was actually pretty good. I mean, it's not as if the original is a masterpiece, because it wasn't. It was quite cheesy if you think about it.  





-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 09 2011 at 12:15pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Well, I wouldn't have posted it 3 times if somebody, you know, actually responded to it. It's not that I'm obsessed, it's that nobody responded to it -- and it's actually pretty funny! 

Maybe it's because no one gives a flying f***, just maybe.

As for "Fright Night", I have an idea for H-Wood. I hope they are sitting down for it, because it might blow their minds. If you want to make a movie about a vampire as a serial killer ... make a wholly original movie about a vampire as a serial killer! Wow, I bet that blew them away! But no, they have to make a movie about a vampire as a serial killer and then attached the "Fright Night" name to it in order to leech off the success of another movie. Lazy bastards indeed.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 09 2011 at 2:10pm
Well, that's not my problem, is it? Either talk about the video or I'll keep bringing it up. Either way, it's appropriate for this thread. I don't see how I'm doing anything wrong and yes, it is a viral hit, so whether you like it or not, many other people do like it.  



-------------


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: August 09 2011 at 2:13pm
What kind of logic is that? Are we forced to do what you like or you'll continue to harass us? You have to admit, that's what it sounds like you're saying...  

Originally posted by moviewizguy

 
Well, that's not my problem, is it? Either talk about the video or I'll keep bringing it up. Either way, it's appropriate for this thread. I don't see how I'm doing anything wrong and yes, it's a viral hit, so whether you like it or not, many people do like it.


-------------


Posted By: jesse685
Date Posted: August 09 2011 at 7:14pm
At least we're getting some huge discussion about the Fright Night remake. Let's hope we're right next week that it's terrible.

-------------
"If you can't make it good, make it 3D!" Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
F**k Yeah/WTF Were They Thinking Awards Results Live-Tweet @jesse685


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: August 09 2011 at 8:11pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Well, that's not my problem, is it? Either talk about the video or I'll keep bringing it up.


Wow Gee-Wiz... just wow, I've seen you post some crazy things, but this ranks up there, look if you want to post it that's fine, that's your right, BUT YOU CANT MAKE US TALK ABOUT SOMETHING WE HAVE NO INTEREST IN DISCUSSING!!! And you wonder why people on this forum consider you a joke (and that's putting it nicely) So stop posting the damn video, cause i think at this point 99% of the forum could care less and it's just bringing alot of self-inflicted heat on yourself.


-------------
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 09 2011 at 8:37pm
Originally posted by Vheid

What kind of logic is that? Are we forced to do what you like or you'll continue to harass us? You have to admit, that's what it sounds like you're saying... 

Well, it does because you post links to videos as well and people seem to respond to them while barely anyone responds to mines. I spent approximately 8 hours to edit my Jane Eyre horror recut trailer and only Vits responded to it. You shouldn't be surprised when you see me acting all ticked off when people keep responding to the links you post but not the links I post. Call it jealously if you want, but I post videos to broaden some things that we can discuss about rather than just the movie itself. If nobody is responding to my videos, it seriously limits the things we can discuss about a certain movie so why not just respond to the videos in the first place? It brings in some interesting things to talk about.

Originally posted by Mayhem5185


Wow Gee-Wiz... just wow, I've seen you post some crazy things, but this ranks up there, look if you want to post it that's fine, that's your right, BUT YOU CANT MAKE US TALK ABOUT SOMETHING WE HAVE NO INTEREST IN DISCUSSING!!! And you wonder why people on this forum consider you a joke (and that's putting it nicely) So stop posting the damn video, cause i think at this point 99% of the forum could care less and it's just bringing alot of self-inflicted heat on yourself.

I don't see how people would like to discuss about the Smurfs trailer more than a video that actually has some artistic credibility. And why aren't you guys interested in the video when it has something to do with the film we're discussing right now, which you guys are interested in talking about? It makes no sense. Seriously, not talking about the video limits the things we can talk about on this thread. And also, it's becoming a viral hit and you guys like to get up to date with pop culture, don't you?


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 09 2011 at 10:09pm
If someone wants to post a video here, that's fine. HOWEVER, if no one replies to it, they should take that as a clue that no one liked or cared about it, and NOT post it again and again until it's finally mentioned. But again, it's MWG we're talking about, and most of the time, he doesn't see the writing on the walls. I have posted videos myself, some have been replied to, and some have not, but I can take a hint when it didn't interest anyone because no one replies about it. This is just MWG trying to get everyone psyched over a movie that ONLY he gives a damn about, and it has ended in epic fail.
 
As for the "Smurfs"/"Clockwork Orange" video, that was funny as hell, and true, and it reflected how everyone at this forum thinks and feels of the "Smurfs" movie, where as no one gives a damn about some lame "Final Destination/"Saved By The Bell" crossover.


-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: jesse685
Date Posted: August 09 2011 at 10:24pm
moviewizguy, just watched your horror recut of the jane Eyre trailer and the editing was top-notch. However, I wish it was actually horror, like Vits.

-------------
"If you can't make it good, make it 3D!" Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
F**k Yeah/WTF Were They Thinking Awards Results Live-Tweet @jesse685


Posted By: jesse685
Date Posted: August 09 2011 at 10:25pm
Also, I'm OrigamiKiller685 on Youtube if anybody wanted to know. moviewizguy, I actually left a reply on your video.

-------------
"If you can't make it good, make it 3D!" Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
F**k Yeah/WTF Were They Thinking Awards Results Live-Tweet @jesse685


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 10 2011 at 5:10am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

I don't see how I'm doing anything wrong and yes, it is a viral hit, so whether you like it or not, many other people do like it.
I also find the humor about this, because it just shows how clueless MWG is about the mindset of this forum. Since when has the Razzies ever gone along with what is popular? We have Razzed Sly Stallone, Madonna, Britney Spears, "Star Wars", "Indiana Jones", and "Transformers". Do we seem like a group of people who care about what's popular or if people like something?


-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: August 10 2011 at 5:45am
Moviewizguy, Don't be jealous... Sometimes I post stuff and no one responds on my links (except for Vits... I am really glad we have Vits on this forum) and then I leave it at that...

I however always try to respond to the videos you've made and also wanted to respond to your Jane Eyre-trailer...So, I want to apologize for not doing so... When i was visiting the site and checking the new posts, I was using my cell phone and somehow I can't click on YouTube links when I am on my cell phone.... I was planning to watch it at a later time, but I simply forgot... Sorry for that

You are an amazing editor and should deserve some credit for that...


-------------


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 10 2011 at 7:09am
Yeah.Sometimes someone posts like 3 trailers and I only comment on one.I admit sometimes I've felt bumped when I post something or even create a forum no one replies,but I just have to deal with it.

As for that video,I never saw SAVED BY THE BELL(well,I catched a few episodes to give it a shot).But think I just wasn't interested.
Originally posted by Vheid

Sometimes I post stuff and no one responds on my links (except for Vits... I am really glad we have Vits on this forum)
Big smile


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: August 10 2011 at 4:33pm
Holy F.... The first 3 reviews on RT are fresh.... How did this happen...

There will probably still be a lot of negative reviews yet to come... because I would really be shocked if this were to pull a fast five on us...


-------------


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: August 10 2011 at 4:44pm
Two of them are from horror movie sites, so be wary.
 
I have to admit, I'm a fan of the Final Destination movies. I'll have a review of this on Friday.


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: August 10 2011 at 7:29pm

Now it's winning on the Tomatometer 4-0. And Metacritic even lists 1 positive review, 0 average, and 0 negative. Based on current intel, here's what I have to say if the reviews stay up, or if negative reviews start flying in.

If the reviews turn out negative like most of us said: This better not make bank, otherwise we'll have to deal with a 6th and 7th Final Dest film!
 
If the reviews stay positive: How did moviewizguy beat us? Our old system is caving in. If I were HeadRAZZBerry, I wouldn't add any more movies until they were released because the tides are changing and all the movies that look like they're set to blow turn the tables on us and everyone raves about them...


-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags 8; TMNT '014. Ags 13; Let's Be Cops. Ags 15; The Giver, The Expendables 3. Ags 29; Jessabelle


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: August 10 2011 at 7:58pm
This is a most weird occurance. If the tide stays positive, I may not have to do a good, bad, ugly style review. Of course, they could be showing it to only people that would like it. If it's not the case, we should send MWG to Vegas.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 10 2011 at 7:59pm
People, what was already mentioned? WAIT FOR 100 REVIEWS! Please, let's have none of this "Oh my God, the first 10 are in its favor", jumping to conclusions stuff.

-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: August 10 2011 at 8:52pm
HeadRAZZ gave moviewizguy a mention. Let the dude soak in his 15 minutes of fame.

By the way, the reviews for this film have been glowing. It's at 5, but they're from reliable sources. I guess hauling Tony Todd back as Bludworth was all that the series needed after all!

But I'll wait until D-day. Besides, if anything, I've got plans on seeing 30 Minutes or Less.


-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 10 2011 at 9:56pm
People, I know "Fast 5" and "Rise ... Planet of the Apes" were surprise hits, but let's not give this movie any credit just because it got all of ... gasp ... FIVE good reviews ... on a Wednesday. Those numbers will dramatically change come Friday and Saturday.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: August 10 2011 at 9:57pm
If the reviews are as trustworthy as RoadDogXVIII says, does that mean they're a sign of things to come?
 
I can still remember when Fast Five got rave reviews. I heard someone say that from July 2010 and March 2011, so many horrible movies were being released that if a movie was even the least bit better, they offered it the highest amount of praise. It's my understanding that young people across the US have been writing high reviews for films we originally predicted would fail with critics. I've never heard anything about Fast Five, The First Avenger, or Rise of the Planet of the Apes from anyone else, so I doubt I could draw much of a conclusion. Whatever the case may be, I'm going to need to see this film take a serious panning, or else... no more forums without a release first!


-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags 8; TMNT '014. Ags 13; Let's Be Cops. Ags 15; The Giver, The Expendables 3. Ags 29; Jessabelle


Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: August 11 2011 at 8:39am
On the day before its opening, the L.A. Times all but openly plugged FD5 in 3-D with not one but TWO articles, both focused on the "challenges" of keeping a franchise going after four previous films. Here's a http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-0811-ct-final-destination-20110811,0,5669425.story -



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: August 11 2011 at 8:54am
The reviews have dipped and now it's at 58%. Still higher than expectated, though maybe it pulled a mild Fast Five. Either way, my plan to take MWG to Vegas still looks good.
 
On a different note, I may not be able to review this because my car is in the shop for inspection.
 
The Battle: LA review will be up in an hour or two.


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 11 2011 at 9:24am
Roger Ebert(2/4):"I expect this movie to make a lot of money at the box office,spent by fans eager to see still more cool ways for hot young characters to be slaughtered.My review will not be read by any of these people.They know what they enjoy".

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: August 11 2011 at 11:56am
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

The reviews have dipped and now it's at 58%. Still higher than expectated, though maybe it pulled a mild Fast Five. Either way, my plan to take MWG to Vegas still looks good.
 
On a different note, I may not be able to review this because my car is in the shop for inspection.
 
The Battle: LA review will be up in an hour or two.


It's now at 63 and there 18 reviews counted. Headrazzberry might wanna recheck that joke he made earlier, cause it isn't looking good for it.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 11 2011 at 12:18pm
Um, only 18 reviews ... what about the other 82 that have yet to come in? It's like the lottery, people, you have to WAIT for all the numbers to be called out before you can claim that you won or not!

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 11 2011 at 3:18pm
R.T.(53-57%):"It's still only for the gore-thirsty faithful,but it represents a surprising return to form for the franchise".

We need to clear the temr "pull a FAST 5".Will that from now on mean a 5th installment is the best reviewed of the saga,or the only one good?


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: August 11 2011 at 3:37pm
Originally posted by Vits

R.T.(53-57%):"It's still only for the gore-thirsty faithful,but it represents a surprising return to form for the franchise".

We need to clear the temr "pull a FAST 5".Will that from now on mean a 5th installment is the best reviewed of the saga,or the only one good?


I think that depends cause a lot of people like the first two.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 11 2011 at 4:07pm
Or maybe it can simply be when a 5th installment is good.A few days ago,in the new(for me)episode of MODERN FAMILY,2 characters were naming their kinds of guilty pleasures,and they included any sequel from 3 forward,specially 5th ones with a new cast.
Originally posted by whatsthepoint

I think that depends cause a lot of people like the first two.
Yes,but they had average reviews and not good,and that's what counts.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: August 11 2011 at 4:48pm
Pulling a Fast Five means that a film expected to get murdered by critics gets better-than-expected reviews.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 6:59am
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Pulling a Fast Five means that a film expected to get murdered by critics gets better-than-expected reviews.


But still kill at that the box office.


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 8:59am

Well, people were calling "pulling a Fast Five" for Planet Of The Apes before it opened, so I don't think that B.O. has to do with pulling a Fast Five.

 
Also, I don't think that I'll be able to review Sucker Punch before this, so this'll be the next review.


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 9:18am
If you're going in to see FD5, it's because you know what you're expecting. Although I'm a fan of the series, I'll admit it did show its staleness after FD2, which is arguably the series' high point. As expected, the formula hasn't changed, although there are a few new tweaks here, the main one including the addition that the survivors can now kill someone to take their life and maybe, just maybe, escape Death's clutches. It's interesting to note that this new twist is the opposite of what was offered in FD2, in which new life can defeat Death, but taking life is much more readily apparent and dramatic than creating new life. Not only do they have to worry about Death, but they also have to worry about what they are willing to do to survive, which provides some very tense external conflict between the characters. 

As you guys might have figured out from the above, yes, FD5 has a plot this time around. There's also an unexpected ending that you will make you go OMG or WTF, if it isn't already spoiled to you, of course. It's also good to know that Eric Heisserer's tight script devotes some time to the survivors that are getting picked off. You start to feel for them as they are about to die. As much as I'm thankful for this, it's obvious that people still see these films for the opening disaster and death sequences, and they do not disappoint. Without spoiling anything, the opening bridge disaster is a nasty piece of work, utilizing the 3D to the fullest extent. I'm a huge horror fan, but even I found it very hard to watch, jerking my hands back as each character is killed off in grisly ways. Without a doubt, it's the best opening disaster since FD2. 

And the death scenes. Wow. They are disturbing, funny, and shocking and sometimes all at the same time. This is because newcomer director Steven Quale plays with the audience's expectations. He lays out so many things that can kill off a character in a certain scene and when you think this sharp object will impale them, they die in a completely different way. The build up is what makes these films fun to watch (apart from the last one). I also liked the fact that this film returned to the original film's serious roots, which isn't to say that it takes itself too seriously because there's an underlying sense of dark humor that's strangely entertaining and self-aware of itself. 

The ensemble cast is a mixed bag for sure. Our protagonist, Nicholas D'Agosto, doesn't really live up to his character's dramatic arc. He seems to overact his lines although he was much better in the second half. Emma Bell is a bit better although she wasn't as good as she was in FROZEN. Miles Fisher also doesn't live up to his character's internal struggle when giving off a whiny performance. However, the other supporting castmembers are quite good, including Ellen Wroe, Jacqueline MacInnes Wood, and Arlen Escarpeta. P.J. Byrne, in particular, is someone you should look out for, providing some of the film's biggest laughs, playing a character you just love to hate. David Koechner also provides some great laughs. I was disappointed with Courtney B. Vance though because he had little to do. Tony Todd is back since he was last seen in FD2 and he's like the American version of Snape (from Harry Potter). I love the way he delivers his lines with one...word...at...a...time. 

Visually, the film has some above average production values. As said before, the bridge sequence is like something from a $100 million budgeted action flick. The 3D is the best that has been offered so far this year, which comes to no surprise seeing that Quale has worked with James Cameron on AVATAR. Even from the film's ingenious and original opening credits, we have shards of glass, knives, bodies, and blood flying at us in amazing sharpness. Yet the 3D gimmick can only go so far, and Quale knows that so he doesn't overdo it by providing us with scenes of depth. Honestly, it's the best of both worlds. The soundtrack by Brian Tyler is great as well and is definitely different from the previous entries. 

All in all, FD5 brings unexpected new life to the dying franchise. The plot is handled well and most of the performances are good. If anything, this sequel proves that with new blood working behind the scenes can come a refreshing film. If you want to see the film, by all means see it in 3D because it is worth every penny. FD5 is shocking, entertaining, suspenseful, funny, disturbing, and is probably as good as FD2. It seems to be a good year for 5's (FAST FIVE included). 7/10


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 9:25am
Gee, a good review by MWG ... what a surprise!  

-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 9:30am
Roger Ebert(2/4):"I expect this movie to make a lot of money at the box office,spent by fans eager to see still more cool ways for hot young characters to be slaughtered.
 
MWG: And the death scenes. Wow. They are disturbing, funny, and shocking and sometimes all at the same time. This is because newcomer director Steven Quale plays with the audience's expectations. He lays out so many things that can kill off a character in a certain scene and when you think this sharp object will impale them, they die in a completely different way. The build up is what makes these films fun to watch (apart from the last one).
 ------------------------------------------------------------
Guess which of the above reviews I find disturbing? LOL


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 9:50am
Please, MWG was ready to give this movie the old 7 or higher review the nano-second news of the movie was released, like anyone seriously believed his "oh if this is worse than the last movie, I'll give it a 2/10, too" bulls***. Why would we take this kid's opinion seriously? It's like asking a die-hard Yankee fan who covers everything he owns with the team's logo what team he thinks will win the World Series this year. This is the same kid whose logic is "if I post a video that no one replies to, I'll just keep posting it until someone says SOMETHING"? Yeah *cough*armchair critic in every definition of the word*cough*.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 10:04am
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Pulling a Fast Five means that a film expected to get murdered by critics gets better-than-expected reviews.
A 5th movie you mean,right?
Originally posted by Michaels

Gee, a good by MWG ... what a surprise.
But he got it right this time.Sort of.I have a system that if you give a rating that's the same as the concensus or 1 number higher or lower,you got it right.If it's 3 numbers higher or lower,you got it wrong.If it's 2 numbers,I remain bias.

The concensus is basically 5/10,and MWG gave it 7.Bias.
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Why would we take this kid's opinion seriously?
I don't see you reviewing it.I'll take the words of others when MWG's review stop being the only one in the forum,which happens half the times.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 11:06am
No he does not (I think)... He uses the same defenition I use... and I never limited it to 5th installments...

Originally posted by Vits

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Pulling a Fast Five means that a film expected to get murdered by critics gets better-than-expected reviews.
A 5th movie you mean,right?



-------------


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 11:23am
63 reviews now and stil at 57%...

Am I right to asume that GTAHater might take this off of his frontrunners-list?

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

The reviews have dipped and now it's at 58%. Still higher than expectated, though maybe it pulled a mild Fast Five. Either way, my plan to take MWG to Vegas still looks good.



-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 12:39pm
I would hardly call that "pulling a Fast 5", but we still have 37 more reviews to go before we prove once again that MWG is just a bias fanboy who proved Ebert's theory true. 

Originally posted by Vheid

63 reviews now and stil at 57%...


-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 1:26pm
Yeah, why would anyone take me seriously when almost every other critic said this was one of the best films in the series? This film has gotten better reviews than Pirates 4, Cars 2, Cowboys and Aliens, 30 Minutes or Less, and Transformers 3. And according to logic, if this was really worse than the last one, which I rated a 3/10, then yes, I would have rated this even lower. HOWEVER, since it's quite plain obvious from the reviews that it's the best reviewed film in the entire franchise, then you know what happens? I rated it higher than the last one! OH, mai gosh! Like, who woulda thunk it?! If you really think the last one is better than this one, you have no goddamn clue what a good movie is. You're the one getting angry here. Why do you care if I enjoyed the movie? Are you so determined to ruin my enjoyment of the film that you have to attack my opinion? Wow. I pity you. I hope one day you find happiness by watching a movie you truly enjoy rather than attacking peoples' opinions that you don't agree with. Is it that hard to believe that maybe, just maybe, you were wrong about this movie (and Rise of the Planet of the Apes and Fast Five and Captain America)? Oh, dear God. You can't be wrong because you're never wrong. All hail King BHB.  

Seeing you grasping on straws is funny. The fact that I was right when I said this film will get the highest reviews for the franchise (and the fact that everyone laughed at me for saying that), only proves your bigger loss. Also, as I said to BHB, why does it matter if I enjoyed the film? You weren't going to watch it. Even if it reached 100% on RT, you weren't going to watch it. It's for the fans and since I'm a fan, I would gladly spend my money for it. What's in it for you that I enjoyed it? I really don't get it.  


-------------


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 1:41pm
I'm back and, God help me, I actually agree with MWG! I don't consider this bad enough for a review here. The music, specifically the opening credit's, was awesome. The 3D was "OK" and the only reason I saw it in this format was because it's the only format that was available. I liked the ending where it's revealed that (SPOILER) it's a prequel, and the main character is on the plane from the first one. (END SPOILER) In terms of horror movies this year, I'd label it below Scream 4. Grade: B.
 
Don't worry, I'm not getting soft. You'll see that when I rip into Sucker Punch later today.


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 1:50pm
Thank you. It's good that we can agree that it's a film made for the fans of the series. I still thought the 3D was spectacular and the suspense leading up to the death scenes was excruciating! And you gotta love that "Do you come with subtitles?" and then the subtitles appearing after the character said that. Love those moments.  

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

I'm back and, God help me, I actually agree with MWG! I don't consider bad enough for a review. The music, specifically the opening credit's, was awesome. The 3D was "OK" and the only reason I saw it in this format was because it's the only format that was available. I liked the ending where it's revealed that (SPOILER) it's a prequel, and the main character is on the plane from the first one. (END SPOILER) In terms of horror movies this year, I'd label it below Scream 4. Grade: B.
 
Don't worry, I'm not getting soft. You'll see that when I rip into Sucker Punch later today.



-------------


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 2:30pm
Sorry,MWG, but things aren't like that. It would be for others, but you have to admit, you have made a lot of wrong predictions. 

Originally posted by moviewizguy

The fact that I was right when I said this film will get the highest reviews for the franchise (and the fact that everyone laughed at me for saying that), only proves your bigger loss.
 

So, SchumacherH8ter, you only write your "Good,Bad & Ugly" reviews for movies you didn't like? Bummer!   

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

I don't consider bad enough for a review.



-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 2:35pm
I'm not wrong in any prediction if I end up enjoying the films I'm looking forward to.  

Originally posted by Vits

Sorry,but things aren't like that.It would be for others,but you have to admit you've made a lot of wrong predictions.


-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 2:56pm
Okay, MWG, but that still doesn't change the fact that this movie has yet to get the total of 100-200 reviews that most (if not all) movies eventually get on RT, so there's nothing to celebrate just yet. Nor does it change the fact that you're proving Ebert right by being a fanboy who is all excited about the kills. So in the end, your review is just a fan endorsing a movie you were probably going to like no matter what (even if you thought the last movie was "disappointing", probably because of the lame kills).

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Look at the one being biased because, apparently, my 3/10 rating for The Final Destination didn't count.
Seeing you grasping on straws is funny. The fact that I was right when I said this film will get the highest reviews for the franchise (and the fact that everyone laughed at me for saying that), only proves your bigger loss. Also, as I said to BHB, why does it matter if I enjoyed the film? You weren't going to watch it. Even if it reached 100% on RT, you weren't going to watch it. It's for the fans and since I'm a fan, I would gladly spend my money for it. What's in it for you that I enjoyed it? I really don't get it.
 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 3:03pm
I know I'm proving Ebert's theory. Didn't you realize they made these movies (and people watched them) just for the insane kills? And yes, part of the reason I didn't enjoy TFD is because the kills were disappointing, but there are many more reasons why it sucked. FD3 wasn't that good, either . But this time around, there is a story going on in FD5 with the added plot element like I stated in my review. So even though this film does have some terrific kills, the whole "kill or be killed" thing also livens up the series a bit.  

Originally posted by Michaels

Okay, that still doesn't change the fact that the movie has yet to get the total of 100-200 reviews that most if not all movies get on RT, so there's nothing to celebrate just yet. Nor does it change the fact that you're proving Ebert right by being a fanboy who is all excited about the kills. So in the end, your review is just a fan endorsing a movie you were probably going to like no matter what (even if you thought the last movie was "disappointing", probably because of the lame kills).


-------------


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 3:11pm
No, Vits, I do reviews of any movie that I consider flawed enough. For example, I thought that Pirates 4 and Drive Angry were OK, but had enough flaws to justify a review. 
 
Sounds like I should probably get on that Sucker Punch review.  

Originally posted by Vits

 So,you only write those "Good,Bad & Ugly" reviews for movies you didn't like? Bummer!


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 3:12pm
MWG: Considering how excited you get over many movies, I feel you're one of those people that have expectations so high that most (but not every) time, you focus on the things in the movie you were expecting, so you give the movie the rating you were planning to. Also, while you do respect others's opinions(unlike certain members in this forum) you also stay in denial when someone points out very valid reasons as to why a movie you thought was good wasn't, and vice/versa. Bottom line: You predicted this movie to be good and that you'd enjoy it. You enjoyed it, but most of the world thought it was merely average.  
Originally posted by moviewizguy

I'm not wrong in any prediction if I enjoy the films I'm looking forward to.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 3:15pm
That's really not how it works, Vits. I don't rate movies before I see them. I judge them once I've finished seeing them. I was excited for Bad Teacher, but once I saw it, it was disappointing to see that the biggest laughs were spoiled by the trailer. Same with Bridesmaids, which I thought would suck. But once again, the trailer didn't reveal a thing, and left all the best laughs for the film itself. 

And then back to TFD, which I hope would be good, but I hated it when I walked out. And there are movies that I expected would suck, but they surprised me.


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 4:01pm
Well, since you put it that way, HAIL TO THE KING, BABY! Why won't we take you seriously? The reasons have already been stated. 1. You're a fanboy of the series (living up to Ebert's example to a "T"), so of course you're going to be bias. Hell you even admitted lame kills were among the reasons why you hated the 4th movie, and let's face it, the kills are the real stars of these movies, they are so one-note. 2. Now, the Razzies have been wrong a few times this year, with "Fast 5", "Captain America", and "Rise of the Apes", all getting 80% or higher, but where's "FD5" standing? Oops! 55%. Not a run-away hit with the critics if you ask me, so I wouldn't back-up my argument there! So as far I'm concerned, you're opinion of this movie doesn't count or matter.

Frankly, the horror genre is a piece of s*** right now, because it's a shell of its former self, reduced to just fancy ways to kill people, which this series has become the living embodiment of. And these stupid movies will not go away because fanboys like yourself keep supporting them! That is why I don't take your reviews seriously, because you're part of the problem ... that and you've already proven that you have no idea what a good movie is to begin with. And your little 3/10 review (what is that suppose to be anyway, 1/5?) of "FD4" means d***, because that's the same as a comic book fanboy complaining about superficial things like the costumes not looking right. It doesn't prove anything, because you just went right back to giving the old 7 out of 10, like the good old days, because you enjoyed the kills in this one. Sometimes, nothing changes but the seasons.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 5:17pm
*=0,1 and 2
**=3 and 4
***=5 and 6
****=7 and 8
*****=9 and 10


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 12 2011 at 10:18pm
Seriously, you don't find that system at all confusing or overly complex compared to the simple and to the point 1, 2, 3, 4, ? Or better yet, grades A, B, C, D, F??   
 

Originally posted by Vits

*=0,1 and 2
**=3 and 4
***=5 and 6
****=7 and 8
*****=9 and 10



-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 13 2011 at 9:46am
Considering that each of those letter grades include a + and/or a -, it's even more confusing than the 0-10 rating system! 

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: phe_de
Date Posted: August 13 2011 at 1:20pm
Only two reviews in the past 48 hours at RT. I don't know if there will be 100.
Now 68 reviews, and still 56%. Best reviewed of the series.




-------------
Everything is possible, and nothing is sure.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 13 2011 at 4:24pm
Originally posted by phe_de

Only two reviews in the past 48 hours at RT. I don't know if there will be 100.
Now 68 reviews, and still 56%. Best reviewed of the series.


The Final Destination didn't reach 100 reviews so it's safe to say this won't reach 100 reviews until a really, really long time.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 13 2011 at 5:05pm

Vits:

"Considering that each of those letter grades include a + and/or a -, it's even more confusing than the 0-10 rating system!"

 

Then do 1-5 ratings. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Not only that, it is the nearly universal system of REAL, professional critics. 1-10 is the idiot system for IMDb, wannabe critics.

 

MWG:

"The Final Destination didn't reach 100 reviews so it's safe to say this won't reach 100 reviews until a really, really long time."

 

And yet, it's still under 60%, just low enough to be a bomb among critics by RT standards. And it also comes across as the studio doing a last ditch effort to stop bad reviews from coming out, which is a timeless (and tiresome) game they like to play.



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 13 2011 at 6:43pm
Oh!Why didn't you say so?I mean,I thought your complains were more like whining because that wasn't your fav system.But if you think it's more professional...Anyway,I'm glad I use the 1-5 in reviews and the 1-10 in comments.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 14 2011 at 6:23am
Originally posted by Vits

Considering that each of those letter grades include a + and/or a -, it's even more confusing than the 0-10 rating system! 

Thank you, Vits, you fell into my trap perfectly by proving my point. Why do we need THREE degrees of letters and numbers to say the same thing? Why say A+, A, A- OR 10, 9, 8 just to say a movie is great when you can simply say 5 stars? Why say F+, F, F- pr 0, 1, 2 to say a movie sucked big time when you can simply say 1 or no stars?

This is why the 1-10 scale is s***. 1-5 is the critics' system of choice because it's simple, to the point, and people understand it. Having three degrees to describe quality is just retarded. All people want to know is if the movie is good or not, and the 1-10 scale doesn't provide that answer.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 14 2011 at 10:35am
I think the 1-5 is better for reviews.But when critics list the best and/or worst movies of the year or whatever,by using the 1-10 it's easier.
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Why say F+, F, F- pr 0, 1, 2 to say a movie sucked big time when you can simply say 1 or no stars?
I thought the F didn't use + or -.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 14 2011 at 11:25am
But those 1-10 are for Top 10 COUNTDOWNS of the end of the year, not reviews. 

And in good news, this piece of s*** movie came in third place, behind "Rise...Planet of the Apes" and "The Help"! Yes, that's right, this movie lost to a period piece movie about housekeepers! So much for their 6th and 7th installments! Clap  

Originally posted by Vits

I think the 1-5 is better for reviews.But when critics list the best and/or worst movies of the year or whatever,by using the 1-10 it's easier.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 14 2011 at 12:07pm
I'm glad that you're happy that they probably aren't going to make 2 more sequels....which you weren't ever going to watch in the first place. Shocked


-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 14 2011 at 1:47pm
I think he meant that the fact they won't even exist is a victory for good movie lovers ... which it is!  

Originally posted by moviewizguy

I'm glad that you're happy that they aren't going to make 2 sequels....that you weren't even going to watch in the first place.


-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 14 2011 at 4:52pm
Here's another thing to consider:  

If I give a movie a 9,it's one of the best of the year.If I give it 10,it's one of the best ever.If I give it 5 stars,the reader may not know how excellent I thought it was.It's the same thing with 0,1 and 2,and,1 star.

Also,for...I don't know...half the world?...6 is decent rather than average.But by writing 3 stars,the reader will think I think the movie's average rather than decent.For maybe the same amount of people,4 is bad but can also count as average.So if I think a movie deserves a 4,do I write 2 or 3 stars?


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: August 14 2011 at 5:21pm
This reminds me: Mr. Burn, have you ever seen professional film critics use half stars in their reviews? 
 
To Vits:  What!! You think 0-10 is confusing? Sometimes, I'll even rate things out of 20! When my intuition tells me I clearly like one film slightly more than another, I'll add a point without making the difference look too significant. I also have degrees of good and bad assigned to each of the 20, which I'll list at the bottom of this post. Just to say it, If I were you, I'd round off 4 out of 10 to 2 stars. When I compile my Top 40 Films, sometimes I'll rank a movie higher despite having not quite as positive reviews. Box office success, accolades, and my personal opinions also play roles in the order. But generally speaking, if a film is higher on my list, the odds are higher that one will like or enjoy it. And for all the films that got #1 on my Top 40, it was wrong of me to think it should go to the director's heads: It's NOT necessarily a guarantee that they'll enjoy it. If I ever write a full review on a film, I'll always compare it with the general consensus because I know I'm just one of many.
 
To whom it may concern: Here are the degrees of yoi and warui assigned for my 0 to 20 scale:
 
20/20: Perfect
19/20: Outstanding
18/20: Superb
17/20: Excellent
16/20: Great
15/20: Very Good
14/20: Good
13/20: Decent
12/20: Fair
11/20: Average
10/20: Mediocre
9/20: Below Average
8/20: Poor
7/20: Marginal
6/20: Bad
5/20: Very Bad
4/20: Terrible
3/20: Horrific
2/20: Abysmal
1/20: Appalling
0/20: Atrocity Against Humanity  

Originally posted by Vits

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

But those 1-10 are for Top 10 COUNTDOWNS of the end of the year, not reviews.
LOTS OF TEXT OMITTED FROM THIS QUOTE BOX


-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags 8; TMNT '014. Ags 13; Let's Be Cops. Ags 15; The Giver, The Expendables 3. Ags 29; Jessabelle


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 14 2011 at 5:51pm
Yeah, I have seen half stars, and I don't care for it. As for a 20 scale, don't get me started! And as for the so-called "confusion" of 3 vs. 6, that's why critics say that it is THREE OUT OF FIVE at the end of the review, to further avoid confusion. I don't what the rest of the world goes by; the rest of the world uses the metric system, but America doesn't, so why not a movie review system that is equally simpler?


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 14 2011 at 10:51pm
Maybe it's more convenient for people, but I actually like to be really detailed in my ratings.  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

This is why the 1-10 scale is s***. 1-5 is the critics' system of choice because it's simple, to the point, and people understand it. Having three degrees to describe quality is just retarded. All people want to know is if the movie is good or not, and the 1-10 scale doesn't provide that answer.


-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 15 2011 at 5:27am
Problem is, MWG, you're not Roger Ebert or Peter Travers. You're just an "armchair critic," as Burn would call it. Your detailed reviews are not needed beyond your token 7/10. I believe saturnwatcher has said the same thing once or twice before, that you should just cut to the chase with your reviews and not do your usual five paragraph essay that leads to the same rating almost every time. 

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Maybe it's more convenient for people, but I actually like to be really detailed in my ratings.


-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: Film Reel Redemption
Date Posted: August 15 2011 at 6:58am
And now there are two more of these suckers on the way. We already got the message of the first film clearly, you don't just kick Death in the nads and trust your luck (you don't need to keep reminding us). Sadly the makers of this film won't listen since they don't look at these forums...

-------------
You see in this filmmaking world there's two types of people my friend. Those with the knowledge of film and those who think they do but really don't.


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: August 15 2011 at 9:39am
I havn't seen a Final Destination-movie in a long time, So when I saw this I was really suprised how far-fetched and over-the-top all these deads were... and how much it was lacking character develpment and story...

One of the deads even reminded me of a tv commercial from a couple of years ago... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YZcFrBKKCk - link

The ending was just bulls**t, was this entire movie suposed to be a prequel to the first FD???


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 15 2011 at 11:23am
And MWG wonders why I'm always ripping him a new @$$hole for praising this s***!  

But since the deaths are all that matter in these movies, Time Magazine listed the methods of death from the first 4 FD movies. 

Number of death in total: 42. Deaths by vehicle: 10. Deaths by crushing: 7. Deaths by explosion: 4. Deaths by impalement: 3. Deaths by head trauma: 11. Miscellaneous deaths (the most over the top ones, including death by tanning bed): 7.

I can almost see MWG smiling as he thinks back to how all those deaths happened.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 15 2011 at 3:18pm
I never said I was a Roger Ebert. I'm not a critic. I just write reviews because I want to. And what do you mean? Reviews should be detailed. Why should I cut to the chase? If the review is just one sentence long, it's not a review. That's why all reviews are long, in order to include details and such.  

Originally posted by Michaels

Problem is, MWG, you're not Roger Ebert or Peter Travers. You're just an "armchair critic," as Burn would call it. Your detailed reviews are not needed beyond your token 7/10. I believe saturnwatcher has said the same thing once or twice before, that you should just cut to the chase with your reviews and not do your usual five paragraph essay that leads to the same rating almost every time. 

It actually had more character development and story compared to the last two sequels. There's one heartwarming scene (no matter how short it was) when the master chef was talking to the main character which would have never been added in either of the last two films. As for the ending, the answer is yes. How is it BS? It's amazing. Nobody could see it coming and watching it the second time around, there are plenty of clues leading up to it (more than I'll admit that flew over my head).  

Originally posted by Vheid

havn't seen a Final Destination-movie in a long time, So when I saw this I was really suprised how far-fetched and over-the-top all these deads were... and how much it was lacking character develpment and story...

One of the deads even reminded me of a tv commercial from a couple of years ago... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YZcFrBKKCk - link

The ending was just bulls**t, was this entire movie suposed to be a prequel to the first FD???



-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 15 2011 at 7:28pm
Reviews do not need to be long and detailed. In fact, many aren't even a page long. The only purpose they serve is to say if the movie is good or not. All you need is information about the movie (who is in it and what the story is in a nutshell), what worked best for the movie, what didn't work, and your final rating, that's it.
 
A great example would be SchumacherH8er. His reviews here are simple and to the point: what was good, what was bad, and what was the worst about movie, and a closing statement with the final ratings. Cut and dry, with everything all we need to know, and a fun and entertaining read. So take a lesson from that, if you please. We don't need five paragraph long essays when all you going to do is give 7/10 anyway. 

Originally posted by moviewizguy

I never said I was a Roger Ebert. I'm not a critic. I just write reviews because I want to. And what do you mean? Reviews should be detailed. Why should I cut to the chase? If the review is just one sentence long, it's not a review. That's why all reviews are long, in order to include details and such.


A "heartwarming" scene is NOT character development. Character development is when the main character has a set of personality traits and a certain lifestyle at the beginning of the movie, but then has a completely different set of personality traits and lifestyle at the end of the movie. That should be one of the most important aspects of a story, if not THEE most important. Example: Michael Corleone starting out as not wanting anything to do with his Mafia family to becoming the head of the family. Example: Luke Skywalker going from a simple farmboy to a wise Jedi Master. NOT an example: A Chef talking about the main character. And that ending is BS because it's not an ending with closure, it's just a BS way to link all the movies together. Seriously, dude, I don't know how you expect anyone to take your reviews seriously when you don't understand basic aspects of storytelling like character development and endings with closure.
 
Originally posted by moviewizguy

It actually had more character development and story compared to the last two sequels. There's one heartwarming scene (no matter how short it was) when the master chef was talking to the main character which would have never been added in either of the last two films. As for the ending, the answer is yes. How is it BS? It's amazing. Nobody could see it coming and watching it the second time around, there are plenty of clues leading up to it (more than I'll admit that flew over my head).
 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 15 2011 at 8:55pm
Originally posted by Michaels

Reviews do not need to be long and detailed. In fact, many aren't even a page long. The only purpose they serve is to say if the movie is good or not. All you need is information about the movie (who is in it and what the story is in a nutshell), what worked best for the movie, what didn't work, and your final rating, that's it.
 
A great example would be SchumacherH8er. His reviews here are simple and to the point: what was good, what was bad, and what was the worst about movie, and a closing statement with the final ratings. Cut and dry, with everything all we need to know, and a fun and entertaining read. So take a lesson from that, if you please. We don't need five paragraph long essays when all you going to do is give 7/10 anyway. 

I meant reviews from professional critics. Ebert's reviews are always a page long. If you think my reviews are too long, don't read them or skip to the last paragraph where I summarize my reviews. Nobody is forcing you to read them, and I don't think you do anyway seeing as how you only always mention my ratings for the films rather than recall what I do and do not like about those films.

Originally posted by Michaels

A "heartwarming" scene is NOT character development. Character development is when the main character has a set of personality traits and a certain lifestyle at the beginning of the movie, but then has a completely different set of personality traits and lifestyle at the end of the movie. That should be one of the most important aspects of a story, if not THEE most important. Example: Michael Corleone starting out as not wanting anything to do with his Mafia family to becoming the head of the family. Example: Luke Skywalker going from a simple farmboy to a wise Jedi Master. NOT an example: A Chef talking about the main character. And that ending is BS because it's not an ending with closure, it's just a BS way to link all the movies together. Seriously, dude, I don't know how you expect anyone to take your reviews seriously when you don't understand basic aspects of storytelling like character development and endings with closure.

1. You haven't seen the film yet so stop acting like you have.
2. I know a heartwarming scene doesn't mean character development. I just meant that that scene gave empathy to the character, a feeling you don't get when seeing the previous two films. Empathy is crucial to these films in order to feel for the characters when they are in danger. Thus, you are in suspense when their death scenes do finally come.

Also, seeing how someone has quoted Roger Ebert's review of this film, I would like to quote Ed Gonzalez's review, who I think is pretty hard on many films, on the particular scene I was talking about: "The smallest shards of character development go a long way in Final Destination 5. The moment where Sam's boss tastes one of the kid's pasta dishes, which a customer returns because of the 'tasteless' meat sauce, isn't one that any other Final Destination would have made room for. But this great little aside illuminates Sam's insecurities as a person, his sad and resigned view of himself as an inactive participant in his fate—feelings that likely explain why Molly (Emma Bell) breaks up with him prior to the bridge collapse. And just as the reasons for their relationship's demise are left unspoken, so is their reconciliation, though one imagines it has something to do with Sam finally taking his life by the horns, boldly living it in spite of the death that awaits him—if not tomorrow, then in the distant future he hopes to still be sharing with his girl."

You can read the rest of his wonderful review, here: http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/final-destination-5/5677 - http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/final-destination-5/5677

Say what you want about FD5 (but how could you, seeing that you haven't seen it), but it's apparent that it takes into account the development of its characters more than what the previous two entries had combined. In FD3, we only remember the characters as stereotypical high schoolers, from the jock, to the dumb blondes, to the goths, to the virgin heroine, to the bitch sister. In TFD, the characters are reduced even further to names like "the mechanic," "the hot MILF," "the racist prick," "the meathead," "the cowboy." The fact that the characters in FD5 actually have names is an improvement.

3. Are you seriously comparing Star Wars and The Godfather to a Final Destination film? As huge as an FD fan I am, it's a pretty ridiculous thing to do. The FD films never strive to be masterful films like The Godfather and Star Wars.
4. The ending is not BS. On the contrary, it brings the franchise to a "full circle," like many reviews have stated. It's an ending with closure because it establishes the fate of the characters. There's nothing left ambiguous about it. And seeing how the majority of the reviews have stated the clever-ness, even "Hitchcockian" feel, of the ending, the fact that you are against it without having to actually experience it yourself only alludes to your huge ego as much as your snobbish attitude toward the current state of Hollywood films. Additionally, not all films have endings with closure. Say "Halloween," in which Michael Myers disappears by the time the credits role. Where is he? We don't know, yet this uncertainty actually enhances the film's effect on its audience. By the time we go home, we feel scared and paranoid about our environment.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 15 2011 at 9:52pm
It is probably a spectacular waste of time to do much development on a character that you are going to kill off in 2 minutes. But let's not waste time on trivialities. These movies exist solely for the purpose of portraying people getting offed in "creative" ways. I, for one, don't particularly care how anyone spins it. When all is said and done, it is a sick way to entertain people. I'm not sure who scares me more...the people who make this crap, or the audience that is entertained by it.
 
Incidentally...the reason Ebert's columns are generally about the same length is that he is getting paid to write a column for which his paper is reserving a particular amount of space.
 
Addendum...Actually, after pausing to think about it for 2 minutes, it really is no contest: The audience scares me a LOT more than the people who make these films. The people who make them may be sick puppies, but at the end of the day, they are just out to make a buck. If there was no demand, there'd be no supply.


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 16 2011 at 10:09am
Bravo to both saturnwatcher and Michaels for proving yet again that MWG has no clue how to tell what a good movie is. The kid's arguments are so weak, he makes a Sarah Palin speech seem like the Gettysburg's Address by comparison! I mean, at one point he's saying the "FD" movies were neever intended to be as good as "Godfather" or "Star Wars", but then he claims the movie's ending is on par with Hitchcock?! What kind of argument is that, when you're talking the movie both up and down at the same time, especially when the movie is the piece of s*** that it is? Sorry, but I stand by my comment that this kid is the Armond White of the Razzies.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 16 2011 at 10:51am

1. I can say whatever I want about "FD5" because I have seen it (downloaded, no way would I pay to see it) and it is still crap either way. So what if a chef talks about a character, it just makes me roll my eyes because it's so pointless. It just makes me think "Oh, that's so sweet ... too bad he'll be dead by the end of this flick". Why should I care about these people when their only reason for being is to die for the amusement of of people who enjoy that sort of thing? I don't care for these people, their characters aren't going through some great struggle in their lives for me to cheer them on for. They are not going through some journey that will change them. They are there only for us to wait for them to get killed off. And like SW said, character devleopment is a mute point in such a movie like this.

2. No, I was not comparing "Godfather" and "Star Wars" to "FD5". That would be like comparing streak and lobster to White Castle cheeseburgers! I was giving you examples of what REAL character development is.
 
3. The ending is a cop out because it adds nothing new to a series that is already overstayed its welcome. But then again, with horror movies, there's barely any closure anyway, so what else is new. We always have to have that final scare to warm the audience up to the possible sequel. Yeah, a fanboy would love an ending like this, to everyone else, it's just "whatever"! An ending should be just that, an ending that closes up everything, not some cliffhanger that leads to a sequel or winks to another movie.


-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 16 2011 at 11:08am
Originally posted by Michaels

 An ending should be just that, an ending that closes up everything, not some cliffhanger that leads to a sequel or winks to another movie.

If anyone out there seriously belives there won't be a Final Destination 6, I have some lovely real estate in Florida I've love to tell you about.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 16 2011 at 12:07pm
There's an unspoken rule with movies.IF you haven't seen a movie,and during a conversation you just happen to call it with an adjective or adverb,it's OK as long as you're repeating the critics's concensus.Burn,I take that you haven't seen this movie,and you're calling it sh*t,despite having average and not bad reviews.

I've stated before that a good critic isn't about the rating he/she gives,but how good the arguements are.You keep insulting MWG's reviews,yet you never write reviews or actually better arguements.You just give one-liners with jokes and metaphors.



-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 16 2011 at 1:54pm
Here's the link for my buddy Mitch's review:

http://movieswithmitch.squarespace.com/reviews/2011/8/15/final-destination-5-review.html

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 16 2011 at 2:04pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

If anyone out there seriously belives there won't be a Final Destination 6, I have some lovely real estate in Florida I've love to tell you about.
Well, we can always dream that won't be a 6th (or 7th for that matter) movie. This crap-fest made less than $20 million opening weekend. But of course nowadays, studio add up worldwide grosses and DVD sales into their profits and they use that as an excuse for yet another movie. So yeah, we can DREAM all we want, but the truth is that there will probably be yet another movie or two in the works, much to MWG's delight. But to the rest of us, we see this series for what it is. At first, it was a mildly creative twist to the horror movie genre, but it has de-evolved into a series that is just going through the motions.
 
And let's not forget the biggest problem: the movie's villain is an disembodied force that can't be physically faught against, thus there is no real way for the characters to fight against what is causing their deaths. In other words, there's no point to these movies because the characters can never win, they can only delay their fates. So there's no reason to be attached to them or their wants, needs, or desires, because in the end they will die no matter what, and that is why these movies will fail from a storytelling aspect everytime, because the characters will never reach the goals set for them.


-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 16 2011 at 2:39pm
Originally posted by Vits

There's an unspoken rule with movies.IF you haven't seen a movie,and during a conversation you just happen to call it with an adjective or adverb,it's OK as long as you're repeating the critics's concensus.Burn,I take that you haven't seen this movie,and you're calling it sh*t,despite having average and not bad reviews.

I've stated before that a good critic isn't about the rating he/she gives,but how good the arguements are.You keep insulting MWG's reviews,yet you never write reviews or actually better arguements.You just give one-liners with jokes and metaphors.


Well sorry, Vits, I don't live by your unwritten rules. And that's the fun of unwritten rules, since they are not written, they don't need to be followed.

However, I love how everyone here claims to know if someone has seen a movie or not, as if they were in the theater with them at the time. Yes, through methods did not require going to the local movie theater, I have seen this piece of s*** (mostly just for an excuse to add my own MST3K commentary to it), and I stand by my comment that it is a turd. I don't need to make a better argument than MWG, because frankly, his arguments are so weak, he helps me win the argument without me having to lift a finger.

Ebert's review is the only one I need, because he has no starry-eyed illusion of what this movie is, it's just people being killed off in overly creative ways for the entertainment of sick f***s who enjoy watching that sort of thing. That's all this series ever was and that's what it ever will be. And MWG trying to muster up some credit to this turd is quite laughable in my opinion, much like someone trying to give artistic value to the "Hostel" or "Human Centipede" movies! It's all just exercises in blood, guts, gore, shock value, and nothing more.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 16 2011 at 3:17pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Bravo to both saturnwatcher and Michaels for proving yet again that MWG has no clue how to tell what a good movie is. The kid's arguments are so weak, he makes a Sarah Palin speech seem like the Gettysburg's Address by comparison! I mean, at one point he's saying the "FD" movies were neever intended to be as good as "Godfather" or "Star Wars", but then he claims the movie's ending is on par with Hitchcock?! What kind of argument is that, when you're talking the movie both up and down at the same time, especially when the movie is the piece of s*** that it is? Sorry, but I stand by my comment that this kid is the Armond White of the Razzies.
Wow. Learn to read, won't you? I stated specifically in plain English (which apparently you cannot read) that other critics have said that the ending was "Hitchcockian." I'm not even gonna waste a breath arguing with you because you don't deserve to be argued back to. You are one of the worst debaters I've come across online and that's saying a lot, seeing how people act like idiots online. Have fun poking fun of movies like Rise of the Planet of the Apes and then immediately go resilient when it's one of the best reviewed movies of this summer.

Originally posted by Michaels

1. I can say whatever I want about "FD5" because I have seen it (downloaded, no way would I pay to see it) and it is still crap either way. So what if a chef talks about a character, it just makes me roll my eyes because it's so pointless. It just makes me think "Oh, that's so sweet ... too bad he'll be dead by the end of this flick". Why should I care about these people when their only reason for being is to die for the amusement of of people who enjoy that sort of thing? I don't care for these people, their characters aren't going through some great struggle in their lives for me to cheer them on for. They are not going through some journey that will change them. They are there only for us to wait for them to get killed off. And like SW said, character devleopment is a mute point in such a movie like this.

2. No, I was not comparing "Godfather" and "Star Wars" to "FD5". That would be like comparing streak and lobster to White Castle cheeseburgers! I was giving you examples of what REAL character development is.
 
3. The ending is a cop out because it adds nothing new to a series that is already overstayed its welcome. But then again, with horror movies, there's barely any closure anyway, so what else is new. We always have to have that final scare to warm the audience up to the possible sequel. Yeah, a fanboy would love an ending like this, to everyone else, it's just "whatever"! An ending should be just that, an ending that closes up everything, not some cliffhanger that leads to a sequel or winks to another movie.
1. Why should we care for characters in films? What kind of idiotic question is that. I don't know, because umm....lemme guess. Because it's required in a good film? Are you seriously arguing that films should not have character development if they are going to get killed off later? That seriously wipes out films like Titanic, Pan's Labyrinth, and American BeautyWhy care about Rose and Jack in Titanic when it's likely that one of them is going to die in the end?

And you say I don't know anything about good movies? Why care about Ofelia in Pan's Labyrinth when in the very first frame of the film, you see her dying? Why care about Lester in American Beauty when he straight out tells you that he gets shot in the end? And you wanna talk about The Godfather? Why care about the characters in that film if half of Michael's family is gonna get gunned down by the end of the film anyhow? Seriously, they could have skipped with all the character development, go straight to the characters' death scenes, and make it 90 minutes long! Why does it have to be 3 freaking hours?! UGH. And don't get me started with The Godfather Part II, in which they actually bring back Don Vito (in flashbacks) who was killed off in part I. The horror, the horror! Imagine how much of the running time they could've cut out! In fact, why make prequels in the first place? Films like Rise of the Planet of the Apes, X-Men: First Class, and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly should never have been made!

So let's get back to the first question you asked: Why care about the characters in FD5 if they're gonna get killed off? Don't you look stupid right now? If you have seen the first two FD films, there were survivors by the end, and it's still possible that people can survive at the end of these films. And any movie goer should know that it's the journey, not the destination that matters.

2. First of all, you said this movie doesn't have character development. Second of all, you said you saw the movie. One of these two points contradicts the other because if you have seen the movie, it's clear that there is character development. The main character changes from the beginning to the end of the movie like Michael Corleone in The Godfather, and if you couldn't see that, however blatantly the movie shows it to its audience, you're blind. Still, I like to stand by the fact that you haven't seen the movie and that you just made up a bullsh*t reason to say that you have. Oh, pirating. How cool are you? No wonder the film industry is going in the dumps.

3. Why did you watch the movie then? Oh, wait. You didn't. And there's no cliffhanger. If you bothered to see the movie, you would know. A perfect example of a cliffhanger is the ending of Harry Potter 7 Part I. Look it up. And I love how you just went to a completely different direction with your argument with "But then again, with horror movies, there's barely any closure anyway, so what else is new." Make up your mind, won't you?

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

If anyone out there seriously belives there won't be a Final Destination 6, I have some lovely real estate in Florida I've love to tell you about.
Considering that FD5 had a disappointing opening, the chances of a sequel are growing less. Not like you'd care anyway.

Originally posted by Vits

There's an unspoken rule with movies.IF you haven't seen a movie,and during a conversation you just happen to call it with an adjective or adverb,it's OK as long as you're repeating the critics's concensus.Burn,I take that you haven't seen this movie,and you're calling it sh*t,despite having average and not bad reviews.

I've stated before that a good critic isn't about the rating he/she gives,but how good the arguements are.You keep insultingMWG's reviews,yet you never write reviews or actually better arguements.You just give one-liners with jokes and metaphors.

Thank you, Vits. You seem like the only sensible person here. Again, they seem to ignore that this film has better reviews than Cowboys and Aliens, Cars 2, The Green Lantern, 30 Minutes or Less, etc. Additionally, like you stated, any sensible person would know that how good a review is written is how well their argument is presented, not the number at the end (or the beginning) of the review, which these people almost always seem to insist in pointing out.

Originally posted by Michaels

And let's not forget the biggest problem: the movie's villain is an disembodied force that can't be physically faught against, thus there is no real way for the characters to fight against what is causing their deaths. In other words, there's no point to these movies because the characters can never win, they can only delay their fates. So there's no reason to be attached to them or their wants, needs, or desires, because in the end they will die no matter what, and that is why these movies will fail from a storytelling aspect everytime, because the characters will never reach the goals set for them.
Although true, the goals of these characters have always been delaying their deaths, the chance for them to have a full life. In FD2, the characters did succeed in prolonging their lives, and they have since been ignored in the later sequels (wonder why). It's also possible that these films serve to be cautionary tales, like look both ways in a street before crossing.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 16 2011 at 3:28pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn


Well sorry, Vits, I don't live by your unwritten rules. And that's the fun of unwritten rules, since they are not written, they don't need to be followed.

However, I love how everyone here claims to know if someone has seen a movie or not, as if they were in the theater with them at the time. Yes, through methods did not require going to the local movie theater, I have seen this piece of s*** (mostly just for an excuse to add my own MST3K commentary to it), and I stand by my comment that it is a turd. I don't need to make a better argument than MWG, because frankly, his arguments are so weak, he helps me win the argument without me having to lift a finger.

Ebert's review is the only one I need, because he has no starry-eyed illusion of what this movie is, it's just people being killed off in overly creative ways for the entertainment of sick f***s who enjoy watching that sort of thing. That's all this series ever was and that's what it ever will be. And MWG trying to muster up some credit to this turd is quite laughable in my opinion, much like someone trying to give artistic value to the "Hostel" or "Human Centipede" movies! It's all just exercises in blood, guts, gore, shock value, and nothing more.
Wow. You're a great liar. We all know you haven't seen the movie. You know that you haven't seen the movie, so why even bother saying that you're a pirating freak and that watch movies that you hate and loath to hear about when they are announced that they are going through production? I, personally, find it to be a waste of time watching movies you have no interest in because life is too short for that. And someone needs to understand the difference between entertainment and reality. You say that people who watch these movies are "sick f**cks" yet you went ahead and "watched" the movie anyway (hahahahahaha, funny joke, BHB), perhaps for its thought-provoking plot and complex characters. People who go see these movies aren't serial killers. When I went to the prescreening of this film, I saw people of all ages of all races, from youngsters to elderly couples. Are you saying that they secretly want to kill people? No, they understand the difference between film and reality, something that you cannot comprehend. And seeing the ridiculous nature of the FD films, it's even easier to separate them with reality.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 16 2011 at 3:49pm
Well,there are many,many movies where you know how it'll end.But if it's a good movie that can absorb you into the story,you forget about it.Unless is one of those movies that remind you constantly what will happen.
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Well sorry, Vits, I don't live by your unwritten rules. And that's the fun of unwritten rules, since they are not written, they don't need to be followed.

However, I love how everyone here claims to know if someone has seen a movie or not, as if they were in the theater with them at the time. Yes, through methods did not require going to the local movie theater, I have seen this piece of s*** (mostly just for an excuse to add my own MST3K commentary to it), and I stand by my comment that it is a turd. I don't need to make a better argument than MWG, because frankly, his arguments are so weak, he helps me win the argument without me having to lift a finger.

And MWG trying to muster up some credit to this turd is quite laughable in my opinion, much like someone trying to give artistic value to the "Hostel" or "Human Centipede" movies! It's all just exercises in blood, guts, gore, shock value, and nothing more.
1)It's unspoken,not unwritten.It doesn't mean you have to follow it,it means people follow it without realizing.And when I say it's there,I mean I didn't create it.It's just something that happens.
2)Are you expecting an apology?Would it been so hard to say you saw it?And yeah,MWG doesn't give the best arguements.But guess what:while everyone chooses to hear one critic and/or other critics that say the same things,there isn't really a need to review the reviews and say which one is the best.But if you want to do that with you and MWG fine.One problem...only he has written a review.
3)I saw both HOSTAL movies,and I commented on them in their forums if anyone wants to see.I also saw recently THE HUMAN CENTIPIDE(4/10).I swear everytime I go to the bathroom I think of that girl eating sh*t.That movie succeeded at shocking,but because that isn't a genre,it just assumed it was a horror movie based on the events of the story.But the plot is boring.However,I wouldn't compare it to this saga.Regardless of which installment actually scares,they're genuinely horror movies.And although they show many deaths,and therefor blood,is not enough to be considered gory.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 16 2011 at 3:55pm
Originally posted by Vits

Well,there are many,many movies where you know how it'll end.But if it's a good movie that can absorb you into the story,you forget about it.Unless is one of those movies that remind you constantly what will happen.
Very true, Vits. Very true.

Originally posted by Vits

2)Are you expecting an apology?Would it been so hard to say you saw it?And yeah,MWG doesn't give the best arguements.But guess what:while everyone chooses to hear one critic and/or other critics that say the same things,there isn't really a need to review the reviews and say which one is the best.But if you want to do that with you and MWG fine.One problem...only he has written a review.
Vits, I think it's very apparent that neither BHB and Michaels had actually seen the film. They lie just to give their arguments (however poorly structured) some credibility. If anything, the fact that I can see through their lies breaks their credibility even more. They only talk about scenes in which someone who has seen the film mentioned about before (ie the twist ending and chef scene). It's pathetic and sad.



Print Page | Close Window