|
Grex > Cinema > #62: Grex goes to the movies-- the Spring Movie Review item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 278 responses total. |
gregb
|
|
response 102 of 278:
| 
May 10 16:05 UTC 2004 |
I never listen to critics. If a movie looks good to me, I'll see it.
Only once has that method failed me (remake of "The Front Page.")
It's funny when someone says, "yah, that looks good," but if they hear
a bad review, they go, "boy, I'm glad I didn't waste my time/money on
that." Heaven forbid they should actually make up their own minds.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 103 of 278:
|
May 10 17:14 UTC 2004 |
I usually only read critics after I've seen a movie. (Though I do look up
spoiler reviews if I'm worried, as I mentioned above.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 104 of 278:
|
May 10 19:11 UTC 2004 |
I've found it pretty consistent that the movies that get a 1/2-star from
reviewers are movies that I *know* I won't like.
|
richard
|
|
response 105 of 278:
|
May 10 20:12 UTC 2004 |
I always think that a very good sign for a movie is that you have one
critic raving about it, and another hating it. The best movies provoke
strong reactions, they don't provoke yawns and two star reviews. The best
movies you either love or hate. Dogville is like that. Some critics
hated it, others loved it. Very few were on the fence.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 106 of 278:
|
May 10 20:57 UTC 2004 |
I tend to disagree with critics pretty much across the board, but I've decided
that this is because what I look for in a movie is not what a movie critic
looks for. I am looking for something that tells a good story with believable
characters that is not set in current life and which has an upbeat ending.
I do not wish to invest my time in something that will depress me. I want
to come out of a movie with a smile on my face.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 107 of 278:
|
May 10 21:04 UTC 2004 |
Sounds like you should watch movies from the 1930s.
|
tod
|
|
response 108 of 278:
|
May 10 21:05 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
fitz
|
|
response 109 of 278:
|
May 10 21:46 UTC 2004 |
Re #97 I don't take it personally. I know that some of my reviews are
heavily weighted around the C average, the pressure for grade inflation being
non-existant. I also knew that American Splendor was rated very highly on
IMDb before I saw the movie.
Nevertheless, I have a modest value to the other grexers who think that
they agreed with my evaluation in the past. So, I simply see
it as a matter of trusting a friend and knowing something about where you
and your friend have differed in the past. I guess that this rather
echoes McGee's response #100.
|
bru
|
|
response 110 of 278:
|
May 11 01:21 UTC 2004 |
I don't know, some of the movies made in the 1930's were awful downers
|
rcurl
|
|
response 111 of 278:
|
May 11 01:59 UTC 2004 |
I like tragedies - in movies or in operas. They put me in a more thoughful
mood than comedies or "happy endings", which generally I find pointless or
unrealistic. Also, tragedies have an identifiable *end*, so you are not left
wondering what will happen next.
|
gregb
|
|
response 112 of 278:
|
May 11 14:19 UTC 2004 |
But isn't that why we go to the movies, to get away from our own
reality? I'm with Twila. I want to be entertained, to get my blood
pumping, to cheer for the underdog...to feel good. I want to be part
of a world that doesn't exist yet, or one that has, but twisted around
somewhat.
|
gull
|
|
response 113 of 278:
|
May 11 15:12 UTC 2004 |
I don't mind a happy ending if it's a reasonable one. I don't usually
like movies where they really twist things around in unbelievable ways
to get to the happy ending. I sometimes find a tragic ending kind of
cathartic.
|
aruba
|
|
response 114 of 278:
|
May 11 15:26 UTC 2004 |
I find that depressing movies, especially ones about real people, can haunt
me after I'm done watching. (That is, I can't get them out of my head for
a long time.) So I usually avoid those movies now.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 115 of 278:
|
May 11 15:45 UTC 2004 |
My own reality does not include the grand tragedies of opera: if it did,
I would be too busy to go to movies or the theatre (no one in opera ever
goes to the movies - or to the bathroom, for that matter).
|
tod
|
|
response 116 of 278:
|
May 11 16:19 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 117 of 278:
|
May 11 16:29 UTC 2004 |
It really annoys me that if they have two people working together and they
strike up a relationship, if it's a tv series or a series of films, they
ALWAYS end up breaking 'em up or killing one or both of 'em off.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 118 of 278:
|
May 11 16:55 UTC 2004 |
Now if they end that weather movie Day after Tommorrow with
a view of the Great Nebraska Sea, they are not looking for the
happy ending.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 119 of 278:
|
May 11 17:18 UTC 2004 |
There probably is a nice sunrise.....
|
gull
|
|
response 120 of 278:
|
May 11 20:45 UTC 2004 |
A friend of mine described it as an "Earth snuff film." ;>
|
gregb
|
|
response 121 of 278:
|
May 12 18:20 UTC 2004 |
I watched "A Wrinkle In Time" Monday. Not bad, but a little too close
to "The Neverending Story" in theme. I read the book when I was a kid.
It might'ov been the first sci-fi novel I read, I'm not sure. From
what I remember, the movie was fairly close to the book, but as in all
Disney flicks, there were notable differences, too.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 122 of 278:
|
May 12 19:55 UTC 2004 |
re #121: "A Wrinkle in Time" was a much beloved book from my childhood,
so I watched the Disney version of it the other night, too (or at least
the tail end of it..) I thought it was awful, particularly the alteration
of the ending so that Meg manages to destroy "It" and liberate the people
of Camazotz. Part of what was interesting about L'Engle's books was the
idea that a character can be heroic without saving the universe; that life
and death and success and failure can play out on a more familiar scale.
Changing the protagonist from someone who manages (barely) to save her baby
brother into someone who liberates a whole planet messes things up
substantially in my opinion.
|
otter
|
|
response 123 of 278:
|
May 16 22:38 UTC 2004 |
resp:118 Ads for that movie have made me remember a bit from Robin
Williams "Reality, What a Concept", in which he's a very old man
talking about past events.
"I remember the Great Quake of '88, when everybody in California surfed
to Denver".
|
gull
|
|
response 124 of 278:
|
May 17 13:11 UTC 2004 |
"Remember World War Three? All six seconds of it?"
|
krj
|
|
response 125 of 278:
|
May 17 16:56 UTC 2004 |
"Laws of Attraction": Decent romantic comedy; not the best movie ever
made, and the ending is a bit flimsy, but it delivers on its promises
and it's nice to see Pierce Brosnan in a movie where he's not killing
people. Brosnan and Julianne Moore are two high-powered divorce
lawyers, on opposite sides of cases, and Brosnan takes a liking to
Moore. Nice to see SNL's Nora Dunn (remember her?) as a judge.
Speaking of Brosnan's franchise role: I hadn't heard this before
until Leslie mentioned it, but it's confirmed surfing the web:
it's not at all certain that Brosnan will appear in the next
James Bond movie, the 21st. It had seemed set, but according to
Brosnan the producers have become indecisive. Brosnan says he
would be happy to play the mythological secret agent one last time,
which would be his fifth, but there are plenty of other fine actors
who could also assume the role.
There is some speculation that the producers were floating a
trial balloon and might back away from it, given the audience's
general satisfaction with Brosnan's incarnation of Bond
|
drew
|
|
response 126 of 278:
|
May 17 20:29 UTC 2004 |
James Bond should *definitely* be getting long in the tooth by now.
|