Chappie (2015)

[The Franchise]

Hugh Jackman, Sigourney Weaver and.....Die Antwoord!?

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by Easy 6

I've read plenty of fairly scathing reviews about awesome flicks like Birdman and Interstellar

Both were reviewed at above 70 percent.

While I want to see Chappie, it doesn't bode well that so many people dislike it.

[Beef Supreme]

Number Five is Alive!

[Beef Supreme]

Rotten Tomatoes panned the shit out of Netflix's Marco Polo. I quite enjoyed it. I don't completely dismiss critics, but a lot of them are pretentious douchebags.

[keg in kc]

The first clue that it might not be good was the early March release.

[ragedogg69]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

The first clue that it might not be good was the early March release.

I found that early March releases tend to be the case of studios not knowing what to do with a movie. Like 300 or Watchmen.



From what I have found, it sounds like everyone wanted this to be a live version of the Iron Giant, but it is anything but.

[Radar Chief]

Would smash Yolandi.

[NewChief]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

Would smash Yolandi.

I don't know. She seems like the kind of girl that would be into cutting you or herself in the middle of the act.

[ragedogg69]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

Would smash Yolandi.

Maybe if she didnt have the Downs Syndrome haircut.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by Numbah One

So you don't value reviews at all?

That's all rotten tomatoes is: the average of all the professional reviews printed in newspapers/online.

Don't forget the audience score. If the two are both high, it's a must-see.

Originally Posted by Easy 6

Movie critics annoy the hell out of me, for every time they're right, they're wrong two other times IMO.

I've read plenty of fairly scathing reviews about awesome flicks like Birdman and Interstellar, just to name two recent examples... movie critics like the smell of their own shit.

Don't read the reviews, just look at the average scores. If the reviewers score it low but audience scores it high, it's probably "fun" but not groundbreaking or original. If both score it low, at least wait for Redbox or Netflix. If critics score it high but audience scores it low, it's an art flick - if you like that kind of movie, watch it; if not, pass.

[BigRichard]

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

Don't forget the audience score. If the two are both high, it's a must-see.



Don't read the reviews, just look at the average scores. If the reviewers score it low but audience scores it high, it's probably "fun" but not groundbreaking or original. If both score it low, at least wait for Redbox or Netflix. If critics score it high but audience scores it low, it's an art flick - if you like that kind of movie, watch it; if not, pass.

Spot on

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

Don't forget the audience score. If the two are both high, it's a must-see.



Don't read the reviews, just look at the average scores. If the reviewers score it low but audience scores it high, it's probably "fun" but not groundbreaking or original. If both score it low, at least wait for Redbox or Netflix. If critics score it high but audience scores it low, it's an art flick - if you like that kind of movie, watch it; if not, pass.

If anything, I'd put more weight in the audience score.

Critics are too often guilty of snobbery, like they almost dont feel like they're doing their jobs if they dont say something bad about almost anything... they're the bigshot Broadway critic from Birdman, they're the same kind of people that kept KISS from the rock hall of fame for so long, etc.

IMO.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by NewChief

I don't know. She seems like the kind of girl that would be into cutting you or herself in the middle of the act.

Don't care. Would still smash.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by Easy 6

If anything, I'd put more weight in the audience score.

Critics are too often guilty of snobbery, like they almost dont feel like they're doing their jobs if they dont say something bad about almost anything... they're the bigshot Broadway critic from Birdman, they're the same kind of people that kept KISS from the rock hall of fame for so long, etc.

IMO.

I'm a recovering critic, so I'm probably biased. The problem, as I see it, is knowledge and studying. The more you know, the more problems you see.

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

I'm a recovering critic, so I'm probably biased. The problem, as I see it, is knowledge and studying. The more you know, the more problems you see.

I understand where you're coming from.

But Roger Ebert wrote several Russ Meyer movies, so they're all hypocrites to some degree is what I'm saying. Anyway, I have rarely used critical acclaim to decide which movies I see... if the subject matter and trailer looks good, chances are I'm going to like it.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

I'm a recovering critic, so I'm probably biased. The problem, as I see it, is knowledge and studying. The more you know, the more problems you see.

Have you seen 'Chef' ?


Good flick. It was obviously Faveau's therapy for his critics. I thought it was interesting