The Dumbest Movie Idea EVER?!?

Ok. Variety's review is up. It's positive. If you want a worthy critic, this is one.

For the most part, I neither love nor hate critics in specific or in general. If 85 out of 100 critics pan a particular movie, I'm going to have a strong inclination to believe it is something worthy of our attention here. And consequently, I'll make every effort to see it at some point. But if a particular critic happens to bag a movie I like, I don't hold grudges (I may offer specific criticisms on the review in question, however).

For example, you cited Roger Ebert. Over the years, I have admired his work, both as a film critic and social commentator. There have been instances, however, that I have strongly disagreed with him. One specific example: His review of Gods and Generals was so off base that to this day, I have strong doubts that he actually saw the movie. I have cited specific examples in another thread in the past where he made specific errors in the review that led to my suspicions. I won't bore the readers by recounting them here. Nonetheless, I suspect that most of the regulars on this board are on the same page when it comes to their evaluation of critics.

Originally posted by moviewizguy  I said earlier that you hate critics when they don't agree with you but you love them when they agree with you. It's like Roger Ebert giving a positive review for "Pan's Labyrinth" and loving him and shouting, "ROGER EBERT GAVE PAN'S LABYRINTH 4 STARS!" However, when Roger Ebert gave a positive review to "Orphan," you will say something like, "He's been losing his head for the past several months. Why should I listen to him?" It's not as if you have never been guilty of what you're accusing me of right now.

It's going to end up in the 50s-60s range, I think. I was just happy that it reached as high as the 90s. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: As has been endlessly established on this thread and elsewhere, the "90+ Approval Rating" for G.I. JOE was as bogus as an NRA-sponsored poll suggesting most Americans want automatic weapons available on every street -- It was achieved through a very clever, but blatantly suspect, method.

The numbers we're seeing now for JOE (currently in the low 40s range) are far more realistic ones -- though they, too, remain inflated by the ploy of pre-screening the film only for Comic-Con/Fan-Boy "critics"... 

 

Thank God it isn't getting royally trashed by critics... yet. It's 39%, which makes it better than Stephen Sommers' Van Helsing, which I just realized to be a piece of dog sh*t. I saw the trailer, and the dialogue doesn't seem so heavy-handed and littered with the god-awful stylings of Richard Roxburgh. And I got a nice laugh out of Duke and Ripcord's bi-play.

Originally posted by dEd Grimley It's... Pretty much gotten thrashed by the critics at this point. And it probably makes them a little bitter, even, when they aren't given a pre-screening. That probably worsens the review even worse.

Yes, when a movie is not being prescreened, it just makes the critics lick their lips as they get ready to explain why the studios made that decision. And they usally mention it within the first sentance of the review.

When you say "you" down below, are you talking to me as a person?  I'm surprised if you know how I feel about Roger Ebert.  I wouldn't be surprised if you remembered how I felt about Prairie Miller.

To lay that out, if I agree with them, I agree with them, and if I don't agree with them, I don't agree with them, and if I disagree with them far more than I agree with them, then I don't hold them in very high regard. 

Like Prairie Miller.

So, if you're going to talk to me about my opinions about movie critics, you'd better size me up by looking at what I've said about movie critics.  I offer you Prairie Miller so you have a chance of making your point.  Look her up.

Of course, none of what you said below excuses the fact that you pick and choose facts that are convenient to your argument while ignoring facts that are inconvient and often disprove your argument.

Originally posted by moviewizguy Originally posted by cvcjr13 Think concepts, not words. You did say exactly that when, on one hand, you started repeatedly pointing out the Rotten Tomatoes meter, yet on the other hand you ignored which 11 critics contributed the reviews behind that number, you ignored how tepid the praise was within those positive reviews, and you ignored how all other critics were denied a pre-screening of the movie. I said earlier that you hate critics when they don't agree with you but you love them when they agree with you. It's like Roger Ebert giving a positive review for "Pan's Labyrinth" and loving him and shouting, "ROGER EBERT GAVE PAN'S LABYRINTH 4 STARS!" However, when Roger Ebert gave a positive review to "Orphan," you will say something like, "He's been losing his head for the past several months. Why should I listen to him?" It's not as if you have never been guilty of what you're accusing me of right now.

Originally posted by cvcjr13 When you say "you" down below, are you talking to me as a person?  I'm surprised if you know how I feel about Roger Ebert.

I meant "you" as in person. I'm generalizing.

Of course, none of what you said below excuses the fact that you pick and choose facts that are convenient to your argument while ignoring facts that are inconvient and often disprove your argument.

*sigh*

Now now... Let's not get petty here.