The "I just saw a movie that doesn't warrant its own thread" (Version 2.0)

[fredgmuggs]

20 minutes of floating through space to classical music. Zzzzzzz....

88 minutes without dialogue, out of 160 minutes.

Cut out even half of that, and you get a reasonable 2-hour movie.

Oh c'mon, I sat through The Wild Wild West with Will Smith. Now that was a bad movie.

[pleasepassthesoup]

Oh c'mon, I sat through The Wild Wild West with Will Smith. Now that was a bad movie.

As the old saying goes, "There's more than one way to skin a terrible movie." or something like that.

[Big_E]

Oh c'mon, I sat through The Wild Wild West with Will Smith. Now that was a bad movie.

Yeah, but that movie got a 21% rating from Rotten Tomatoes. It's known not to be a good movie...2001 is supposed to be a classic.

[fredgmuggs]

Yeah, but that movie got a 21% rating from Rotten Tomatoes. It's known not to be a good movie...2001 is supposed to be a classic.

I'm not sure how that Rotten Tomatoes thing work. Does that mean 21% of the people who have participated in a poll on their site actually liked that movie? That's quite disconcerting to me that anyone could like that movie.

[Soriambi]

I'm not sure how that Rotten Tomatoes thing work. Does that mean 21% of the people who have participated in a poll on their site actually liked that movie? That's quite disconcerting to me that anyone could like that movie.

Yes. The percentage is the percentage of critics who gave it favorable reviews. Keep in mind, though, that a favorable review could be anything from "Best Movie Ever!" to "This was kind of entertaining for what it was," so an equal percentage doesn't necessarily mean an equal consensus. It's a pretty good guideline of what critics thought, though. Also, it's not as reliable for older movies, since the sample of reviews is biased (only some of the reviews are from the same period of the movie, etc.)

[fredgmuggs]

Yes. The percentage is the percentage of critics who gave it favorable reviews. Keep in mind, though, that a favorable review could be anything from "Best Movie Ever!" to "This was kind of entertaining for what it was," so an equal percentage doesn't necessarily mean an equal consensus. It's a pretty good guideline of what critics thought, though.

Whoa, it's from critics and not some 15 year old kid voting? Now I'm really disheartened.

[Soriambi]

Whoa, it's from critics and not some 15 year old kid voting? Now I'm really disheartened.

Yes. There's an audience meter there, too (the one to the right, by the popcorn), but the main percentage you see there is the critic percentage. It's like the top 150 print based sources and top 75 web based sources for reviews or something like that that are eligible to be included. (The numbers are different, I'm pretty sure, but that's the idea.) For RT, though, 21% is pretty awful. It might be higher than you'd think for that movie, but you need to be almost trying to do much worse than that a lot of the time.

[fredgmuggs]

Yes. There's an audience meter there, too (the one to the right, by the popcorn), but the main percentage you see there is the critic percentage. It's like the top 150 print based sources and top 75 web based sources for reviews or something like that that are eligible to be included. (The numbers are different, I'm pretty sure, but that's the idea.) For RT, though, 21% is pretty awful. It might be higher than you'd think for that movie, but you need to be almost trying to do much worse than that a lot of the time.

I thought it was like that IMDB movie ranking thing that I take with a huge grain of salt. Thanks for explaining how it works. (although I seldom if ever look at the rotten tomatoes site)

[philleotardo]

I thought it was like that IMDB movie ranking thing that I take with a huge grain of salt. Thanks for explaining how it works. (although I seldom if ever look at the rotten tomatoes site)

I haven't seen many IMDB ratings that are wildly out of line.

[fredgmuggs]

I haven't seen many IMDB ratings that are wildly out of line.

A find a recent movie will get a big push.

[Big_E]

I haven't seen many IMDB ratings that are wildly out of line.

2001: A Space Odyssey
Citizen Kane

[philleotardo]

2001: A Space Odyssey
Citizen Kane

The Matrix

[JL25and3]

2001: A Space Odyssey
Citizen Kane

Star Wars

[fredgmuggs]

2001: A Space Odyssey
Citizen Kane

I like Citizen Kane quite a bit, although I know you do not. I'm not saying it's one of my personal favorites but I'll watch it whenever I run across it on TCM.

[Soriambi]

I thought it was like that IMDB movie ranking thing that I take with a huge grain of salt. Thanks for explaining how it works. (although I seldom if ever look at the rotten tomatoes site)

I almost always look at it when deciding whether to see a movie, especially if there's a movie that I thought looked intriguing but with the potential to be very bad. That doesn't mean that I always see a movie if it's highly rated or never see one that is rated low, but I usually take it into consideration and read a few of the positive/negative blurbs to see whether I want to spend the money.

[JL25and3]

I like Citizen Kane quite a bit, although I know you do not. I'm not saying it's one of my personal favorites but I'll watch it whenever I run across it on TCM.

I'm in the "one of the greatest ever" camp on that one. There were a couple of nice visual quotes from Citizen Kane in The Artist.

[Soriambi]

I like Citizen Kane quite a bit, although I know you do not. I'm not saying it's one of my personal favorites but I'll watch it whenever I run across it on TCM.

Kane is a good movie, but I think it's a bit of a victim of its hype when it comes to not being liked by some. It might be one of the most historically important movies ever made because of how it changed the way movies were made, but ultimately I don't really care about that when I'm watching it from an entertainment perspective. If I was watching it when it came out I probably would have been blown away from the techniques, but since I have seen the techniques in countless movies before, I wasn't terribly impressed by that aspect of it, though it's certainly pretty much technically perfect. I appreciate the importance, but I don't know that that improves the quality at all. That being said, I think it was a well done character study. My main issue with it, probably, was that there's a lack of urgency in the story, which is often an issue with that kind of biopic/look back at a person, but I think it was more pronounced here. I thought that the reporter's goal (finding out what the word meant) wasn't exactly thrilling and the payoff is kind of disappointing, too, though I liked the payoff more than some do.

Edit: By the way, speaking of the greatest movies, I have now finally seen the top 10 AFI movies. I was sitting at eight for pretty much forever but saw the last two over the past few weeks. Almost up to 80 overall now.

[JL25and3]

Edit: By the way, speaking of the greatest movies, I have now finally seen the top 10 AFI movies. I was sitting at eight for pretty much forever but saw the last two over the past few weeks. Almost up to 80 overall now.

I'm not sure if I've ever seen Lawrence of Arabia straight through. Otherwise, the only ones in the top 100 I haven't seen are Intolerance and Sunrise.

[YankeePride1967]

I would hardly go by Rotten Tomatoes as anything to categorize a movie as being good. It just means it's popular. Borat made over $100 million, should that have won Best Picture?

[Soriambi]

I would hardly go by Rotten Tomatoes as anything to categorize a movie as being good. It just means it's popular. Borat made over $100 million, should that have won Best Picture?

But Rotten Tomatoes is about popularity among critics, which could be more valid than popularity among the general public.

[Big_E]

Kane is a good movie, but I think it's a bit of a victim of its hype when it comes to not being liked by some. It might be one of the most historically important movies ever made because of how it changed the way movies were made, but ultimately I don't really care about that when I'm watching it from an entertainment perspective. If I was watching it when it came out I probably would have been blown away from the techniques, but since I have seen the techniques in countless movies before, I wasn't terribly impressed by that aspect of it, though it's certainly pretty much technically perfect. I appreciate the importance, but I don't know that that improves the quality at all. That being said, I think it was a well done character study. My main issue with it, probably, was that there's a lack of urgency in the story, which is often an issue with that kind of biopic/look back at a person, but I think it was more pronounced here. I thought that the reporter's goal (finding out what the word meant) wasn't exactly thrilling and the payoff is kind of disappointing, too, though I liked the payoff more than some do.

See, to me, I don't care about technological breakthroughs or advances in cinematography or whatever. For a drama, give me a good story, well acted, at a decent pace. I just found Kane boring. And since I knew what "Rosebud" was going in to it, that "mystery" was gone.

[penfold]

My first reaction to seeing a lot of classics such as Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, etc. was "What was all the fuss about?" It seemed that the critics were getting themselves into a lather over something that was simply okay. It sometimes takes multiple viewings to me to go along with the hype. Other times (2001: A Space Oddity), I'm convinced that the critics were just swayed by film-school-masturbation.

[Mr Coffee]

film-school-masturbation.

I rented that once.

It, too, was overrated.

[YankeePride1967]

But Rotten Tomatoes is about popularity among critics, which could be more valid than popularity among the general public.

I thought it was also the public? When I go on the movie page it gives a percentage of critics and viewers.

[YankeePride1967]

Sadly I think as a whole movie quality in recent years has been bad. I can't think of one film in the last 10 years that to me stands out as an all-time great. Just throw money at special effects and call it a movie.