I wouldn't know, MWG, since you are often prone to overpraising movies for
A). Being slightly entertaining on some level or
B). Being emotional on some level.
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.
BHB: The below is not true. I don't like the Nicholas Sparks adaptations...at all.
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn
You should also take into account that any movie made by Hollywood will be based on only a LITTLE bit of fact, but then overly dramatized for entertainment effect. And of course, MWG always has a soft spot for anything emotional, regradless if the overall product sucks. Still doesn't change the fact it's a bad movie that has already been forgotten.
Just having a movie about people being awake during surgery isn't dramatic enough, there have to be twisty subplots and other elements thrown in.
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.
You should also take into account that any movie made by Hollywood will be based on only a LITTLE bit of fact, but then overly dramatized for entertainment effect. And of course, MWG always has a soft spot for anything emotional, regradless if the overall product sucks. Still doesn't change the fact it's a bad movie that has already been forgotten.
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.
1)MWG -- I don't know if you're "late to the party," but aparently it's you and I vs. Burn, not you vs. me, so calm down.
2)I meant things like how small the O.R. was(that's actually debatable) or the fact characters kept coming in and out of there like it's nothing, especially the anesthesiologist, who's supposed to be there all the time...
How would you know? Did you personally experience "anesthesia awareness"? I would hate that feeling. However, I do remember an interview with a woman who went through anesthesia awareness, and said the film depicted it so realistically that it brought her to tears.
I know it doesn't look like much difference,but it is. I originally gave this a 10, but I realize the errors(on my own,then double-checked in forums) so I lowered the grade.
Still, 9/10 -- that's supposed to be saved for only the best of the best, movies that will be remembered decades from now. The "Godfathers," the "Citizen Kanes," etc. This movie, is already forgotten, and it's from only 3 years ago. And Alba and Christian just plain suck -- they were only hired for their looks...
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.
Because the errors aren't big enough. At least half the plot holes critics mention have an obvious explanation, but they didn't pay attention enough. Jessica Alba's was far from an awful performance, despite coming close. She deserved the nomination, but didn't deserve to "win" and I'm glad she didn't. As for "Worst Couple"...Well, she and Christensen don't make a good couple. The nomination with Dane Cook is alright, and but with Ioan Gruffud she has a lot of chemistry!
I don't understand why you admit the movie has errors and bad acting, but yet you still give it such high ratings? That's like Roger Ebert pointing out all the flaws of a Uwe Boll or Seltzerberg movie, but then giving it an A- anyway.
As for "Good, Bad, Ugly," yeah, it might be long, but it's considered an instant classic, and a staple of the Western genre.
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.
I take back what I said about the performances. Alba was mildly bad, but Christensen was a little above average, which is surprising considering his other performances. Although he wasn't as good as Howard and Olin.
There are a lot of errors in the movie. I've been through a lot of forums and stuff searching, and I agree with most them but I don't think they're enough to consider the movie bad.
Right before I watched this I watched THE GOOD,THE BAD & THE UGLY(5/10). Now that's a movie that hardly keeps you awake.
I'm still waiting for Joby Harold to do another movie!
Not true, a TRULY bad movie fails to get it's plot across. But the big STOP sign was the choice in cast, because as "good" as the performances were, the two leads are looked down upon by critics and audiences, which was the kiss of death and it will never be respected.
Which is kinda sad, because if an actor who is usually looked down upon finally stars in a good movie with a genuinely good performance, then what happens? It's not really fair. I think people are blinded by their hatred of these two actors that that's the reason why this film got negative reviews. I'll admit I defend some movies that people don't like because I understand their complaints but I really think if Alfred Hitchcock himself were alive today, he would enjoy this film.
Moviewizguy,you don't know Hitchcock's taste.I know what it's like to defend bad movies for considerin'them good,but the performances are another thing.I'm not sayin'H.C. and J.A. were Razzie worthy,but they weren't great.And what you say can't be truth.Look at PRECIOUS.The actors in that movie are anythin'but dramatic actors.We have a comedian who won the Oscar and two singers,one of which won a Razzie years ago and a few good acting awards this year.
B.H.B.,did you watch the movie?'Cuz all your comments are'bout general opinions,rather than your own.
Originally posted by moviewizguy
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn
And of course, what a surprise, quoting Ebert once again. Because if he says it's good, it MUST be. Again, I respect the man's opinion, but just because he says he liked the movie, doesn't mean that we should not pay attention to the other 99.9% of critics who say the movie sucks.
Well, Roger Ebert is actually a well-respected critic and the fact that he doesn't hate these two actors just proves his un-bias-ness.
Moviewizguy,it doesn't matter if he's the greatest critic of all times.We can't rely on 1 person's opinion.A movie's quality it's defined by the majority's thoughts.
B.H.B.,the movie may have 20 or 30% good reviews,but that's far from 0.1% like you say.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Furl
Google Boomarks
Google Buzz
MySpace
Newsvine
reddit
StumbleUpon
Twitter
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Post Options
Quote 
Topic: See If You Can Stay AWAKE to the End...
Again, I respect the man's opinion, but just because he says he liked the movie, doesn't mean that we should not pay attention to the other 99.9% of critics who say the movie sucks.