ajzepp Posted October 30, 2006 Posted October 30, 2006 I saw the first Saw, and I wasn't impressed, I felt the entire movie was nothing more then, lets see what sick was we can gross the audience out with. The acting was horrible, the actor that played the doctor that was trapped and cut his leg off, has to be the worst actor ever. I had no interest in seeing Saw II after that one. I also saw Hostel and found it to be horrible (except for the hot girls) I definitly won't see Hostel 2 I don't know, maybe its just me and my taste in Movies, I enjoyed both of Rob Zombies horro movies (House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devils Rejects) and not many people liked those. I did go see The Departed yesterday, it was a pretty good movie, but was really long 820244[/snapback] That's interesting, cause last year a friend of mine said 'Devil's Rejects' had been recommended to her over and over by one of her other friends. So we decided to watch it, but we wanted to see the first one too, so we started with '1000 corpses'. Needless to say, I expected the movie to be a totaly piece of sh*t, but oddly enough I was entertained by it. (I happen to find Zombie's wife amazingly hot!) So we were actually looking forward to seeing the second film, but when we did we were really let down. I think the general consensus was that Devil's Rejects was a better film, but we found the opposite to be true. Chalk it up to expectations maybe, I dunno. I liked the first Saw because it offered a clear motive for the bad guy and I thought the way he used people to carry it out was pretty clever. I didn't feel as though my intelligence was being insulted (or totally ignored) by the writers.
USMCBillsFan Posted October 30, 2006 Posted October 30, 2006 That's interesting, cause last year a friend of mine said 'Devil's Rejects' had been recommended to her over and over by one of her other friends. So we decided to watch it, but we wanted to see the first one too, so we started with '1000 corpses'. Needless to say, I expected the movie to be a totaly piece of sh*t, but oddly enough I was entertained by it. (I happen to find Zombie's wife amazingly hot!) So we were actually looking forward to seeing the second film, but when we did we were really let down. I think the general consensus was that Devil's Rejects was a better film, but we found the opposite to be true. Chalk it up to expectations maybe, I dunno. I liked the first Saw because it offered a clear motive for the bad guy and I thought the way he used people to carry it out was pretty clever. I didn't feel as though my intelligence was being insulted (or totally ignored) by the writers. 820328[/snapback] I liked the Zombie films too, and you're right, his wife is very hot... Oh, and I agree with the Descent critiques also. I LOVED that movie.
ajzepp Posted October 30, 2006 Posted October 30, 2006 I liked the Zombie films too, and you're right, his wife is very hot... Oh, and I agree with the Descent critiques also. I LOVED that movie. 820331[/snapback] I've found the rottentomatoes.com site to be really helpful when I research films, and it's pretty rare that a horror film gets a "fresh" rating (60% of critics or more give film positive review), and I think The Descent was pretty high. I can't wait to see it.
Chilly Posted October 30, 2006 Posted October 30, 2006 I've found the rottentomatoes.com site to be really helpful when I research films, and it's pretty rare that a horror film gets a "fresh" rating (60% of critics or more give film positive review), and I think The Descent was pretty high. I can't wait to see it. 820352[/snapback] Critics hate the horror genre, which is why I don't put much stock into what they say.
ajzepp Posted October 30, 2006 Posted October 30, 2006 Critics hate the horror genre, which is why I don't put much stock into what they say. 820410[/snapback] I typically hate it too, cause the vast majority of horror films let me down. That's kinda why I figure when the RT rating is high for a horror flick, it's probably worth a look.
Chilly Posted October 30, 2006 Posted October 30, 2006 I typically hate it too, cause the vast majority of horror films let me down. That's kinda why I figure when the RT rating is high for a horror flick, it's probably worth a look. 820447[/snapback] Same here, but I generally find that I critics are so focused on the work rather then the entertainment value of horror films that its not a good rating to go off of. They overwhelmingly hated the Saw series. Saw I was 45%, Saw II was 36%, and now Saw III is 39%. I loved the whole series. Wolf Creek, one of the most boring films I've ever seen, got a 53% by comparison. Gothika wasn't the best movie around, but I thoroughly enjoyed it and it received a friggin 15% on rotten tomatoes.
ajzepp Posted October 30, 2006 Posted October 30, 2006 Same here, but I generally find that I critics are so focused on the work rather then the entertainment value of horror films that its not a good rating to go off of. They overwhelmingly hated the Saw series. Saw I was 45%, Saw II was 36%, and now Saw III is 39%. I loved the whole series. Wolf Creek, one of the most boring films I've ever seen, got a 53% by comparison. Gothika wasn't the best movie around, but I thoroughly enjoyed it and it received a friggin 15% on rotten tomatoes. 820475[/snapback] That's a good point, and I totally agree that critics often fail to place enough value on the entertainment factor, not just with horrr films but any genre. Armageddon was universally panned by critics, yet I think I had more fun at the theater that day than I'd had in a long time. I was working full time and going to school full time that summer, and to just be able to enjoy that flick was worth every cent of that seven bucks or whatever I paid. The folks on Netflix seem to be pretty good at gauging a movie....Netflix does list critic's reviews, but more prominently are the consumer reviews....usually when the consumer marks are consistently high, the film is worth a chance. Then you have the films that really suck, but dammit they just appeal to you for some reason and the hell with everyone else. That film for me was "Over the Top"
apuszczalowski Posted October 30, 2006 Posted October 30, 2006 That's a good point, and I totally agree that critics often fail to place enough value on the entertainment factor, not just with horrr films but any genre. Armageddon was universally panned by critics, yet I think I had more fun at the theater that day than I'd had in a long time. I was working full time and going to school full time that summer, and to just be able to enjoy that flick was worth every cent of that seven bucks or whatever I paid. The folks on Netflix seem to be pretty good at gauging a movie....Netflix does list critic's reviews, but more prominently are the consumer reviews....usually when the consumer marks are consistently high, the film is worth a chance. Then you have the films that really suck, but dammit they just appeal to you for some reason and the hell with everyone else. That film for me was "Over the Top" 820494[/snapback] I would typically believe a viewers review of the movie then some movie critic. The reason is because a movie critic is analyzing everything when it comes to the movie where a viewer is going to rate it just by how much they enjoyed it. That is why there are alot of movies critics hate, but the audiences love, based pretty much on just how much they enjoyed the movie. Also movie reviewer seem to always think they are above the average movie viewer so they want to give high marks to movies that they think are at a higher level. The foreign subtitle comedy/tradgedy that only about 10 people will ever see will get high praise, and something like a crazy and stupid comedy movie will get bashed by critics, meanwhile the average movie goer might likt the comedy just because it made them laugh alot
ajzepp Posted October 30, 2006 Posted October 30, 2006 I would typically believe a viewers review of the movie then some movie critic. The reason is because a movie critic is analyzing everything when it comes to the movie where a viewer is going to rate it just by how much they enjoyed it. That is why there are alot of movies critics hate, but the audiences love, based pretty much on just how much they enjoyed the movie. Also movie reviewer seem to always think they are above the average movie viewer so they want to give high marks to movies that they think are at a higher level. The foreign subtitle comedy/tradgedy that only about 10 people will ever see will get high praise, and something like a crazy and stupid comedy movie will get bashed by critics, meanwhile the average movie goer might likt the comedy just because it made them laugh alot 820502[/snapback] I agree. I can tell a lot by the way people write their reviews, too....meaning people, not critics. Take for example the sort of movie that is just really stuipd, lots of swearing for no reason and just downright absurd. There are people who LOVE movies lke that. Now while I'm really glad that those folks enjoy those films, I typically don't get into them much. And most of the netflix reviews written by people talk about what aspects of the film they liked and didn't like, other movies they compare it to, stuff like that. So that really helps. But you're exactly right that people look for different things in movies, and I probably run the full spectrum as far as what I look for. Take a movie like "Open Range". I thought the story was "good". The acting was VERY good, and the cinematography was AMAZING. So while I probably wouldn't watch it again based on how much I enjoyed the story, I'd be tempted to watch it again - or at least parts of it - because of the other things. Over the past few years, and thanks to the special features on dvds, I tend to spend more time watching the "making of..." segments adn things like that. It's just amazing all that goes into making a film, and I try and be mindful of that as often as possible. As I get older, I view filmmaking as more of an art form than I used to, cause it really and truly is just that. There is a lot of mindless crap, sure....but there's a whole lot more stuff out there that is the result of a lot of hard work, creativity, and brilliance.
Recommended Posts