out of all the directors that emerged this decade, (and only this decade) it is easy to suggest that chris nolan is the best of the bunch....i predict "the dark knight" will catapult him higher as one of the greatest of any era (bold prediction, but his track record so far have been impeccable)

I have enjoyed EVERYTHING of his I've seen.

Memento
Insomnia
Batman Begins
The Prestige
and when it comes out The Dark Knight

He has a VERY solid resume IMHO.
____________________________________


Last 7 movies I saw:

Hancock: C
Untraceable: D (Bad Criminal Minds Episode)
The Great Debaters: B
Cloverfield: C+
Rambo: C
Get Smart: B-
Iron Man: B

he's the most consistent of directors that i can think of right now.

>I have enjoyed EVERYTHING of his I've seen.
>
>Memento
>Insomnia
>Batman Begins
>The Prestige
>and when it comes out The Dark Knight
>
>He has a VERY solid resume IMHO.
>____________________________________
>
>
>Last 7 movies I saw:
>
>Hancock: C
>Untraceable: D (Bad Criminal Minds Episode)
>The Great Debaters: B
>Cloverfield: C+
>Rambo: C
>Get Smart: B-
>Iron Man: B

Batman Begins was good. The Prestige was good. The Dark Knight isn't even out yet; unless you saw an advance then it's pure stannery to already claim it as a hit.

--------

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight/?critic=creamcrop

based on these reviews, count me in as a stan

you are.

and as far as Rotten Tomatoes goes -- those are the same reviewers who thought this steaming pile of feces http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/grindhouse/ (with melted baby feces on top) was good

--------

>and as far as Rotten Tomatoes goes -- those are the same
>reviewers who thought this steaming pile of feces
>http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/grindhouse/ (with melted baby
>feces on top) was good

"those reviewers"? RT compiles reviews from every media outlet in the country.... its the critics mass opinion, not individual.

but i will agree with you that Insomnia was his only misstep.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

www.itsallthewaylive.net

www.twitter.com/allthewaylive

jeebus, I know how RT works. and I don't think I give a shit about a composite score that includes freelance fanboys with internet access, along with the East Illinois Pioneer Press Weekly.

people need to stop using it around OKP / real life as a validation of how good a movie is / isn't.

--------

guess what? even the top media critics are biased in some way, have different tastes than me, or are otherwise idiots. and the good ones I often disagree with.

so no, posting a RT score doesn't mean anything to me. but if you are convinced to like what other people tell you is good, go for it.

--------

anything over 75%, i'm going to see. anything 80% and over it's a good bet that i'm going to like it.

anything under 25%, i'm not likely to see. anything 20% and under should only be shown at guantanamo bay.

and thus a good benchmark to use.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

www.itsallthewaylive.net

www.twitter.com/allthewaylive

--------

Indy 4 and Wanted were over 75% and I thought they both sucked.

Hancock was entertaining but only got a 37%.

The Tomato-Meter has been off this summer IMO.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

surely there are folks that saw "ironman" and "wall-e" this summer and wondered about the 90%+ ratings. those ten people were part of the batch that didn't like those films.

>Indy 4 and Wanted were over 75% and I thought they both sucked.

then consider yourself part of the 25% and move on

>Hancock was entertaining but only got a 37%.

consider yourself part of the 63% that thought so... i mean, i find it shocking that "the happening" actually received such a high rating at 19%, but it doesn't cause me to question the system...

>The Tomato-Meter has been off this summer IMO.

i don't think so. if you do your research (read a couple of reviews -- then check the reviewer's other ratings of movies you did/didn't like), you'll generally find that what you didn't like about "indy4" and "wanted" was mentioned in those reviews and either you ignored them or took a risk by going to see them.

i personally thought "indy4" was alright (i'd give it 2 or 2 1/2 stars) but i'd not recommend it to the general public. especially if they hadn't seen the previous 3 movies...

as for "wanted" i'd like to see that in the theaters, but not in the shitty theaters that it's showing at here in seattle. if it was showing at pacific place, i would've gone by now because it looks like something that i'll regret not seeing on something bigger than a 46" lcd.

"hancock" looks like a rental. it looked like a rental from the get go. i didn't need to read reviews to tell me that.

nor for most movie-goers.

just because you agree with most of RT doesn't mean it has any significance for others.

--------

says arnold: it's not about a tomato recall... or something of that nature...

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/help_desk/about.php

otherwise, don't bother visiting the site... and don't complain when you go see "saw 7" because your friend said it was even better than the first 6. or "the happening" because some dipshit on okp says it's a "masterpiece" and it's at 19% on RT and then you come back here and make a thread talking about how it's the worst movie of all time...

some people (myself not included) enjoy seeing what others consider to be awful movies -- movies that should've never been given the green light. those of us who don't like wasting our money (and more importantly our time) on shite like "the happening" because the trailer looks interesting, flock to rottentomatoes to find out the truth.

if grindhouse wasn't for you, find a critic (or critics) who agree with you and in the future, base your movie going decisions off of that...

or, go based on trailers, teasers, tv spots, word of mouth from friends (or folks on okp) that do or don't have the same tastes as you -- which is essentially rottentomatoes can be as well (depending on how you utilize the site).

if you have friends on okp who are also members on rottentomatoes, and you have similar tastes in films -- add them as friends on rottentomatoes and then you can decide based on those percentages if you're going to go see a film or not... if the (cream of the crop link that i originally posted) top critics are too snobby for you, etc.

i don't know. i can't think of a better site to help you decide if you're going to go see a movie or not. of the last ten movies you went to in the theaters, what made you want to go see them? did you go blindly to all of them without checking out any reviews?

aside from music. with that in mind:

>otherwise, don't bother visiting the site... and don't
>complain when you go see "saw 7" because your friend said it
>was even better than the first 6. or "the happening" because
>some dipshit on okp says it's a "masterpiece" and it's at 19%
>on RT and then you come back here and make a thread talking
>about how it's the worst movie of all time...

I never go on RT, because I've disagreed with enough total scores to invalidate it as a personal resource.

>or, go based on trailers, teasers, tv spots, word of mouth
>from friends (or folks on okp) that do or don't have the same
>tastes as you -- which is essentially rottentomatoes can be as
>well (depending on how you utilize the site).

I may be touchy about RT, but if it works for you -- that's cool. but I can't take another person telling me a movie is definitely good or bad because of a RT score. that makes no fucking sense.

>i don't know. i can't think of a better site to help you
>decide if you're going to go see a movie or not. of the last
>ten movies you went to in the theaters, what made you want to
>go see them? did you go blindly to all of them without
>checking out any reviews?

- social setting (with certain friends, I'd rather see...trying to get pussy, I'd force myself to see...)
- director / cast history
- subject matter and trailer
- recommendations from a small handful of trusted friends

I have one or two reviewers I check in on, but I have honestly never gone or not gone to a movie because of a review. RT is just a collection of opinions, which have no consequence to me.

it's about as good a resource as picking movies based on box office numbers.

--------

I love reading film criticism, and I love RT. But thinking that it's an infallible method is ludicrous.

If I had a nickel every time I disagree with Roger Ebert, my favorite critic of all time, I'd be a rich man. I've agreed with him so many times, but for fuck's sake, he defended Crash like it was his child. Listening to critics is simply not a perfect methodology.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h43MTwLxvE

i haven't been able to completely trust him since.

just like the friend that recommends 100 great movies, then a piece of shit. after that, you do research after your friend recommends something...

>- social setting (with certain friends, I'd rather see...trying to get pussy, I'd force myself to see...)

ah, the latter being one of the worst ways/reasons to see a movie. i could never have respect for someone enough to want to sleep with them if they made me sit through "the happening" or some other shitty movie. seriously. a good example: if halle berry made me sit through "cat woman" (which i still haven't seen/will never see)...

>- director / cast history

but even directors make mistakes. i love me some david fincher, but even he has a alien3 in him. michael mann and steven spielberg make mistakes. other than pt anderson and maybe james cameron i'm going to do some research before just heading off to the cinerama. there's not an actor/actress that i'm just going to go blindly off to their film.

>- subject matter and trailer

i can't think of the last film i did that with. not even "cloverfield." went to that because i like most of what abrams has done in the past. didn't even see the trailer...

>- recommendations from a small handful of trusted friends

even those people can make awful mistakes... but you're right... most of the time (again -- like rt -- percentages) those friends are right.

>I have one or two reviewers I check in on, but I have honestly never gone or not gone to a movie because of a review. RT is
>just a collection of opinions, which have no consequence to me.

that said, that's how you base going on movies based on what your friends say... even your own opinions can turn out terribly wrong. m.night made great films in "the sixth sense" and "unbreakable," but has tanked since... going to see "a.i."/"grindhouse"/"magnolia" (either people loved or hated those films) based on your previously came upon opinions of director's past works, going blindly based on those opinions can lead to suffering.

case in point -- musical artists who put out a different sounding album every time out. for folks to go out to concerts expecting to hear material performed live from the first album, when the artist has moved on to something completely different only leads to disappointment. i avoid (most) bad movies like the plague. i'm sure if someone wanted to, they could visit my dvd list and pick out (at least) 100 movies/shows/etc they hated with a passion. but they'll also be able to tell what kind of shit i do and don't care for.

>it's about as good a resource as picking movies based on box office numbers.

people that pick movies (or anoint them "masterpieces" based on box office numbers alone) are mental midgets...

>ah, the latter being one of the worst ways/reasons to see a
>movie. i could never have respect for someone enough to want
>to sleep with them if they made me sit through "the happening"
>or some other shitty movie. seriously. a good example: if
>halle berry made me sit through "cat woman" (which i still
>haven't seen/will never see)...

that's another issue altogether. so let's just skip that one.

>but even directors make mistakes. i love me some david
>fincher, but even he has a alien3 in him. michael mann and
>steven spielberg make mistakes. other than pt anderson and
>maybe james cameron i'm going to do some research before just
>heading off to the cinerama. there's not an actor/actress that
>i'm just going to go blindly off to their film.

neither do I. it's a starting point.

>i can't think of the last film i did that with. not even
>"cloverfield." went to that because i like most of what abrams
>has done in the past. didn't even see the trailer...

well, for the rest of the world trailers can be pretty influential. they may not *make* me see the movie, but I sure as hell ain't going to see a movie with a crappy trailer.

and you're saying subject matter is unimportant? so you don't have any favorite genres?

>even those people can make awful mistakes... but you're
>right... most of the time (again -- like rt -- percentages)
>those friends are right.

I actually hardly ever go see a movie because my friends say it's good. I do get some insight on the movie based on their reactions, though.

>that said, that's how you base going on movies based on what
>your friends say... even your own opinions can turn out
>terribly wrong. m.night made great films in "the sixth sense"
>and "unbreakable," but has tanked since... going to see
>"a.i."/"grindhouse"/"magnolia" (either people loved or hated
>those films) based on your previously came upon opinions of
>director's past works, going blindly based on those opinions
>can lead to suffering.

lol. you somehow are implying that my method for picking movies is infallible. everyone sees movies they don't like, no matter how much research you do.

my *point* in this bloated discussion is that I do not consider RT any more of a definitive resource than weekend numbers or my cousin's favorite pick.

>people that pick movies (or anoint them "masterpieces" based
>on box office numbers alone) are mental midgets...

oh, so going by popular consensus is somehow "stupid" in comparison to blindly following critic's choices?

I've read a lot of critics who could classify as said "mental midgets"...but regardless, neither group's opinions are definitive.

and let's not forget, several of the best movies ever were shitted on by the beloved media critics

--------

This discussion started because a person said a movie was good, citing the RT meter as his sole evidence. THAT is the point I'm (and I think Will) is arguing against. Your whole lecture on how to take recommendations on film is off point.

You claim that the entire point of Rotten Tomatoes are the percentages. You claim that they are good indicators of whether a movie is good or not. Will and I point out that they don't work for us and we don't agree with the percentages. Your response is to do more research (which invalidates the "whole point" of Rotten Tomatoes which you said were the percentages) or that we should "move on", which is our whole argument (people need to move on from RT because it's not a good indicator).

In the end, the whole point, as Will has said, is that using the RT score as any sort of evidence that a movie good doesn't work and isn't the be-all, end-all that some people like to think it is.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

the original poster posted that he liked those films and mentioned that others did as well. whether he linked to rt, imdb, or a post here on okp, he was just attempting to validate his own opinions of nolan's body of work.

if the percentage you find at the main page (on rt) of a movie doesn't work, then click on one of the tabs that will help you to maybe decide if you should spend your hard earned money or not. whether it's the top critics tab, the rt members that posted their reviews, a combination of both, or just friends you trust that have signed up to rt and rated movies... (listed as one of will_5198's ways of deciding on going to a movie)

one can say they don't go to movies based on opinions -- but basing going to a movie based on what a movie studios opinion of the best clips from a film to make a teaser trailer/tv spot is kind of naive.

that's my counter point. we all go to see movies based on opinions in one form or another -- whether we think we do or not. whether it's a collective of other opinions at RT or some opinion we made based solely on a trailer...

personally? i'd rather select from a pool of hundreds/thousands and go to a movie with at least an 80% rating or more. but before i go, i'll read a negative review or two first, because maybe something will be mentioned that'll make me wait for dvd, or not see it at all.

i love pixar's films. they have a great record of putting out quality shit. but i stayed away from seeing "cars" in the theater. i returned to the big screen for opening days of "ratatouille" and "wall-e." finally saw "cars" on dvd -- and was glad i didn't waste an additional $20 to make the trek to see it in the theater...

>the original poster posted that he liked those films and
>mentioned that others did as well. whether he linked to rt,
>imdb, or a post here on okp, he was just attempting to
>validate his own opinions of nolan's body of work.

And he chose something that doesn't validate it. It's like if someone said M. Night is the best and linked a Basa post.


>if the percentage you find at the main page (on rt) of a movie
>doesn't work, then click on one of the tabs that will help you
>to maybe decide if you should spend your hard earned money or
>not.

LOL. Yeah I know how to work the RT site. You keep acting like the site is great and we just don't know how to use it.

>one can say they don't go to movies based on opinions -- but
>basing going to a movie based on what a movie studios opinion
>of the best clips from a film to make a teaser trailer/tv spot
>is kind of naive.

Never said that. I use Rotten Tomatoes combined with my friend's opinions combined with how I think the trailers looked. I don't go by just one. If a film is 75%+ on Rotten Tomatoes, it means nothing to me if most of my friends didn't like it or if I saw the trailer and thought it wasn't a movie for me. Again, my point is that you are acting like RT is the be-all, end-all while I'm saying it's just one small piece of the decision making process (Oh, and Metacritic seems better. If you've ever read the reviews, you can see that they often help certain films by calling mediocre-to-bad review "fresh". I've seen some downright panning reviews called fresh as well.

>that's my counter point. we all go to see movies based on
>opinions in one form or another -- whether we think we do or
>not. whether it's a collective of other opinions at RT or some
>opinion we made based solely on a trailer...

Straw man. It's not either or.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

It was altogether one of the most entertaining theater experiences in years, bar none.

Probably the best since Sin City.

--------

Two great movies that go great together. I loved it.

Death Proof is an abortion of a film. seriously, maybe the worst major motion picture release in the last decade.

anybody who thought that was good worships at QT's altar or is mentally deranged.

--------

At least The Cat in the Hat had some interesting visuals. But rarely do I ever have to WILL myself to finish a film. And Death Proof is seriously the most bored I've been in a film since Gigli.

I preferred Meet the Spartans. At least it was about something, and revelled in its ridiculousness. Death Proof was just really long and really boring.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>Death Proof is an abortion of a film. seriously, maybe the
>worst major motion picture release in the last decade.

That's laughable. I thought it was very entertaining. I actually slightly preferred it to Planet Terror. It didn't have a lot of substance, but it wasn't supposed to be deep.

And no, I'm not saying it was supposed to suck so it was okay - I'm saying it was supposed to be a deliberately, excessively over-the-top "joy-ride" - and it did that very well.

It had cool characters, interesting dialogue, great visuals, and amazing action scenes. That's what I wanted and that's what I got.


>anybody who thought that was good worships at QT's altar or is
>mentally deranged.

I find that hard to believe, consider MOST people liked it. I know from this very post that you have no trust in Rotten Tomatoes, but at the very least it's confirmation that a large majority of viewers (or at least RT members) enjoyed Grindhouse. The critics did too.

And all of my friends loved it, even the ones who don't even really love Tarantino. My wife, for example, couldn't finish Reservoir Dogs (the ear scene was it for her), didn't like Jackie Brown (far from a QT fanatic) - but she loved both parts of Grindhouse.

>- I'm saying it was supposed to be a deliberately, excessively
>over-the-top "joy-ride" - and it did that very well.
>
>It had cool characters, interesting dialogue, great visuals,
>and amazing action scenes. That's what I wanted and that's
>what I got.

it had boring, cookie-cutter racist caricatures, pointless, self-important dialogue, and what, one action scene?

deliberate, excessive, over-the-top shit.

>I find that hard to believe, consider MOST people liked it. I
>know from this very post that you have no trust in Rotten
>Tomatoes, but at the very least it's confirmation that a large
>majority of viewers (or at least RT members) enjoyed
>Grindhouse. The critics did too.

yeah, QT worshippers. nobody else saw it in the theaters because it was *so* bad.

reviewers were on the QT juice too because of his track record. so like some people in this post in re: to Dark Knight, they already decided Grindhouse would be good without really taking a critical eye to the movie.

>And all of my friends loved it, even the ones who don't even
>really love Tarantino. My wife, for example, couldn't finish
>Reservoir Dogs (the ear scene was it for her), didn't like
>Jackie Brown (far from a QT fanatic) - but she loved both
>parts of Grindhouse.

holy shit, you're in worse shape than I thought.

--------

>>- I'm saying it was supposed to be a deliberately,
>excessively
>>over-the-top "joy-ride" - and it did that very well.
>>
>>It had cool characters, interesting dialogue, great visuals,
>>and amazing action scenes. That's what I wanted and that's
>>what I got.
>
>it had boring, cookie-cutter racist caricatures, pointless,
>self-important dialogue, and what, one action scene?

I didn't find the characters boring.

As for racist caricatures, I don't remember being bothered by that, but I'll have to see it again. I've been waiting for a deluxe DVD, but if Kill Bill is any example, I'll be waiting awhile.

I really loved the dialogue. You can say it's pointless, but to me it was entertaining, believable, and made you feel like you were just seeing the characters hanging out. They weren't discussing shit relevant to the plot; they were just being themselves. I liked that.

The action scene was long and awesome. And it should probably be considered multiple scenes.


>>I find that hard to believe, consider MOST people liked it.
>I
>>know from this very post that you have no trust in Rotten
>>Tomatoes, but at the very least it's confirmation that a
>large
>>majority of viewers (or at least RT members) enjoyed
>>Grindhouse. The critics did too.
>
>yeah, QT worshippers. nobody else saw it in the theaters
>because it was *so* bad.

I think most people were turned off by the presentation, and not the films themselves. It was long as hell to watch both movies.

I don't think it was word of mouth, because that would have affected DVD sales as well, and from what I understand, the DVDs did well (despite people like me who loved the movie but are waiting on a better edition).


>reviewers were on the QT juice too because of his track
>record. so like some people in this post in re: to Dark
>Knight, they already decided Grindhouse would be good without
>really taking a critical eye to the movie.

You are making a huge assumption here. There's no reason whatsoever to assume that the people who liked Grindhouse only liked it because of the "QT juice."

I get that you didn't like it; you don't get (and/or refuse to accept) that lots of people did like it. Love it even. And not all of them are fans blinded by the fact that it was made by QT and RR.

I also dispute your argument that being super hyped and excited about a movie you haven't seen yet automatically means you'll love it and won't judge it critically.

In my opinion, it can work both ways - having such expectations can often lead to disappointment if the film doesn't deliver.

If the film does deliver, the hype might lead to an initial overreaction, sure.

But a bad movie is still a bad movie. Grindhouse was NOT a bad movie.


>>And all of my friends loved it, even the ones who don't even
>>really love Tarantino. My wife, for example, couldn't finish
>>Reservoir Dogs (the ear scene was it for her), didn't like
>>Jackie Brown (far from a QT fanatic) - but she loved both
>>parts of Grindhouse.
>
>holy shit, you're in worse shape than I thought.

Not sure what you mean. My point is that it's possible for someone who doesn't automatically love a QT movie to love Grindhouse and Death Proof specifically.

{for the record, I don't automatically love every QT movie - I've just yet to be disappointed}

- 28 million dollar loss at the box office
- 77th in 2007 DVD sales

Grindhouse was a horrendous so-called movie that nobody cared about then, nobody cares about now and nobody will care about in five years. I'm sorry you liked it.

--------

I don't care whether the movie made money if I enjoyed it.

As I said before:
http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=360896&mesg_id=360896&listing_type=search#369087


>- 28 million dollar loss at the box office
>- 77th in 2007 DVD sales

Where are these numbers from?

Also, isn't it completely unfair to shit on the DVD's sales when:

A) The DVD package is NOT the same as the theatrical movie. Hell, even I haven't bought the DVD, and I loved it. That proves absolutely nothing.

B) The DVD came out in October 2007. Is it surprising that it's not at the top of 2007 sales when it's competing against movies that were out for all or most of the year, rather than just a couple of months?


Other things to consider, since you claim that the movie sucked and the fact that it lost money is proof:

- How about the fact that it was over 3 hours long, and was actually two movies? Not exactly a formula for box office success, regardless of the quality of the movie.

- If your "proof" is that losing money = shitty movie, then there are lots of counter examples to disprove the theory, if I cared to waste the time looking up movie profits.

More importantly though, it means that if the exact same fucking movie could have been made for a lot less money, it would have been a good movie because it made money. How's that work?

No, all it means is that the more money you spend making it, the more money people expect the movie to make. That's pretty obvious.

But of course, in the case of Grindhouse, its length, format and subject matter were pretty big obstacles to it making a shitload of money. Those things aren't really reflective of the quality of the movie, however.

Oh well. I'm not going to keep defending it. I loved it, my friends, loved it, and it seems to me that outside of OKP, the general consensus on the internets (Rotten Tomatoes being but one example) is pretty solidly positive. That's enough for me.


>Grindhouse was a horrendous so-called movie that nobody cared about
>then, nobody cares about now and nobody will care about in five
>years.

No, obviously it's a movie that a lot of people care about, one way or another. It seems to be one of the most discussed movies on OKP at least. People can't shut about it, regardless of whether they loved it or hated it...


>I'm sorry you liked it.

I'm sorry you didn't.

there are about 30 DVDs released the same time or after Grindhouse in 2007 that outsold it. nobody cared except...

>it's always easy to say "only fanboys loved it" - but it can't be proved"

the general public didn't care for it at all, hence the terrible box office numbers and DVD sales. leaving only...

--------

>there are about 30 DVDs released the same time or after
>Grindhouse in 2007 that outsold it. nobody cared except...

Interesting. Where do you find this info though? Not doubting you, just curious.


>>it's always easy to say "only fanboys loved it" - but it
>can't be proved"
>
>the general public didn't care for it at all, hence the
>terrible box office numbers and DVD sales. leaving only...

I am not going to dispute this too hard, because as I've said, the "general public" were turned off by the 3+ hour length, the graphic and extreme subject matter, the unusual format / "low-fi" schtick, etc. The title alone is going to turn off people who don't want to something gory.

And not to make sexist assumptions, but Grindhouse probably had very little appeal to many women, especially if they'd seen the trailer with the chick with the machinegun leg and/or know that PT is about zombies (typically not a big box office draw).

Thinking about it, it was not really geared towards the "general public" to begin with. If they expected it to go gangbusters at the cinema with all those things against it, then they were mistaken, and were certainly banking a lot on the directors' names.


EDIT - The RT % score (92% out of 1000 ratings) among the entire RT community disputes this notion, but again, you don't trust their scoring / methodology. The whole community on RT that saw Grindhouse (all 920 who scored it positively) must be QT fanboys.

For the record, the community scores for the DVDs are 75% for DP out of 494 ratings and 89% for PT out of 404 ratings.

>Interesting. Where do you find this info though? Not doubting
>you, just curious.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2007/GRNDH_dvd.php

>I am not going to dispute this too hard, because as I've said,
>the "general public" were turned off by the 3+ hour length,
>the graphic and extreme subject matter, the unusual format /
>"low-fi" schtick, etc. The title alone is going to turn off
>people who don't want to something gory.
>
>And not to make sexist assumptions, but Grindhouse probably
>had very little appeal to many women, especially if they'd
>seen the trailer with the chick with the machinegun leg and/or
>know that PT is about zombies (typically not a big box office
>draw).

lol -- oh so now it's *all* about subject matter, huh? not like people weren't lining up to see worse shit like Saw II or anything...

the zombie effect? now you're just reaching for shit -- Dawn of the Dead made 3x what Grindhouse did

>EDIT - The RT % score (92% out of 1000 ratings) among the
>entire RT community disputes this notion, but again, you don't
>trust their scoring / methodology. The whole community on RT
>that saw Grindhouse (all 920 who scored it positively) must be
>QT fanboys.

oh wow -- 1000 fanboys loved it while 10 million movie-goers didn't...surprise!

>For the record, the community scores for the DVDs are 75% for
>DP out of 494 ratings and 89% for PT out of 404 ratings.

for the record, even the critics jumped off the QT hype train after realizing how stupid they sounded. remember all those Oscar nominations Grindhouse got, all those best of 2007 lists?

lol, me neither

--------

>>Interesting. Where do you find this info though? Not
>doubting
>>you, just curious.
>
>http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2007/GRNDH_dvd.php

Thanks. Interesting.


>>I am not going to dispute this too hard, because as I've
>said,
>>the "general public" were turned off by the 3+ hour length,
>>the graphic and extreme subject matter, the unusual format /
>>"low-fi" schtick, etc. The title alone is going to turn off
>>people who don't want to something gory.
>>
>>And not to make sexist assumptions, but Grindhouse probably
>>had very little appeal to many women, especially if they'd
>>seen the trailer with the chick with the machinegun leg
>and/or
>>know that PT is about zombies (typically not a big box
>office
>>draw).
>
>lol -- oh so now it's *all* about subject matter, huh? not
>like people weren't lining up to see worse shit like Saw II or
>anything...

Not *all* about subject matter. I also mentioned the exhaustive length, the format, etc. Those are the main things IMO, since I know movies with grim subject matter (Saw, as you pointed out) can succeed. I know, I'm making excuses.

But seriously, did people think a 3+ hour pair of movies called GRINDHOUSE was going to be a box office smash, despite the length, format, gore, zombies, etc?

That's all I'm saying. The barometer for success is not going to be as high given the movie doesn't appeal to as wide of an audience.


>the zombie effect? now you're just reaching for shit -- Dawn
>of the Dead made 3x what Grindhouse did

Fine, it's not just the zombies...

>>EDIT - The RT % score (92% out of 1000 ratings) among the
>>entire RT community disputes this notion, but again, you
>don't
>>trust their scoring / methodology. The whole community on RT
>>that saw Grindhouse (all 920 who scored it positively) must
>be
>>QT fanboys.
>
>oh wow -- 1000 fanboys loved it while 10 million movie-goers
>didn't...surprise!

You mean the 10 million movie goers who didn't watch it?!

And here I thought you were just arguing extensively about how you shouldn't judge a movie until you've seen it (e.g., Dark Knight)?

lol


>>For the record, the community scores for the DVDs are 75%
>for
>>DP out of 494 ratings and 89% for PT out of 404 ratings.
>
>for the record, even the critics jumped off the QT hype train
>after realizing how stupid they sounded. remember all those
>Oscar nominations Grindhouse got, all those best of 2007
>lists?
>
>lol, me neither

I don't see critics retracting their reviews. You can still find tons of positive reviews.

And I never claimed it should win Oscars or get that kind of acclaim. Most of my favorite movies were never nominated (were yours?), so the Oscars don't matter much to me.

As for Best of 2007 lists, I bet Grindhouse is on more than a few (maybe not critics). Shit, for me, it's one of my favorite in many years.

Let's agree to disagree, because we're obviously both pretty entrenched in our opinions.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/author/author-148/

past reviews...

rotten:
batman begins
ironman
into the wild
walk hard: the dewey cox story
300
letters from iwo jima
walk the line
broken flowers
downfall
jackie brown
the wedding singer

fresh:
hancock
harold & kumar escape guantanamo bay
shrek the third
poseiden
the brown bunny
a perfect murder

-------------------------------------------
Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chaidealo/sets/

this guy seems to go from days to weeks though...

fka Invisiblist

www.jamespeach.org

heh

If he hates it, I'll probably love it:
>rotten:
>batman begins
>ironman
>into the wild
>walk the line
>jackie brown
>the wedding singer


These were also good and well worth seeing:
>walk hard: the dewey cox story
>300


This is the only "rotten" one I didn't really like.
>broken flowers


These I haven't seen:

>letters from iwo jima
>downfall

>fresh:
>hancock
>harold & kumar escape guantanamo bay
>shrek the third
>poseiden
>the brown bunny
>a perfect murder

I agree that it's not a perfect system, but in my experience, it's the best thing we have without doing a shitload of research.

Combining RT with viewing the trailer and asking some friends is the best way to determine if the movie is worth seeing.

Is there a better way?

I would never go solely on RT, but in combination with other methods, it's pretty good.

Folks are SO FUCKING READY to declare it the Second Coming. I'm just not that positive.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

that's because they've read the early reviews and see that it's lived up to the hype.

that's it. nothing more.

those are NEVER wrong. plus, it's always good to base your absolute opinion on what other people think + director and franchise worship.

--------

when was the last time the critics pretty much unanimously said that the movie was an instant classic? i can't think of the last film that i went to on opening day that did well at the screenings, only to be disappointed.

actually i can. i can think of movies i went to based on word of mouth by non-critics... folks here recommended "scary movie"... all i read was that it was hilarious. easily in the top 5 worst movies i've ever seen. don't think i laughed once. add "bad boys" (michael bay) to that list, though it was in the top 10.

some folks you hear about the shit they like and you remember it. you check out anything they recommend because they've been right in the past. then there are others who just miss the (your) boat completely...

but, at least we have the appreciation for timbaland instrumentals in common

And that was just two weeks or so ago?

I'm just saying. I'm not saying The Dark Knight is on the same level as Wanted. But I am reserving judgement until I see the flick for myself, and everyone leaving a spot open on their Best Comic Flick Ever lists beforehand is simply strange to me.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

leaving a spot open isn't exactly giving the same as giving that spot blindly to "the dark knight."

reading reviews by prominent critics that have seen screenings where words like "epic" are used (and the word failure doesn't follow), combined with nolan's body of work, and (for the most part) most of heath ledger's and christian bale's choices in what films they choose to be a part of, and you can sign me up for being there on opening day.

i'm not going in *expecting* a 4 star movie. but i know i'll at the very least be getting my money's worth/won't be wasting my time on some movie that is getting horrible screening reviews (read : "the happening" -- which looked like it could go either way in the trailer)

if the word of mouth on "the dark knight" by those critics that have seen it already wasn't so good, i'd probably just wait for the dvd release.

obviously RT has never let you down, which is fine.

but I would never assume a movie is classic without *seeing* it myself.

--------

didn't see "the departed" or "insomnia" in theaters. saw "grindhouse" at the cinerama and had a good time. watched them again on the unrated dvds and still liked them. i enjoy good popcorn movies like "grindhouse." not much substance in "grindhouse," but i thought it was a fun movie. i don't recall coming on here recommending it (other than maybe for the trailers in between the two films.) i tend not to blanket recommend something unless i feel that everyone can find something in it they'd like.

thought "the departed" was good, but very slow. no where near scorsese's best work. and the original was much better. as for nolan's "insomnia," it paled compared to the original -- and the casting was what made it suffer in comparison. pacino and williams were awful casting decisions imo. (or at least seemed so because the casting in the original was so much better.) again, judging films based on opinions... whether it's RT, or comparing the remake to my opinion of the original.

didn't start using RT until quite recently when someone pointed out to me here on okp that the imdb was just members making ratings (i'd link to imdb for informational purposes only), while RT also included actual critics. so, my seeing the 3 films you mentioned had nothing to do with imdb or rt. i went to "grindhouse" because it got very good ratings in both of the local papers (from what i recall). usually one of them likes a film while the other hates it. when they both like it, there's something wrong in the universe.

pretty much ALL of them are stating it's a masterpiece more or less, with the exception of 5 new yorkers with lame ass excuses as it being "too serious" or "too dark" or "too long" (which is the ONLY plausible negative....

they wanted a tim burton-like movie and for an adult real-life version

and rotten tomatoes is full of shit, because there's overtly WAY more reviews than they are posting up on there....

Films that are long and that bombard you with nonstop darkness and seriousness wear me out. Unless this film has some FUN in it, it will absolutely be knocked several notches down in my book. So to say a film is too serious, dark, and long is completely valid to me. I found absolutely nothing wrong with Denby's opinion (in this matter).

Is he right? I don't know, I'll have to see it. But I can see the film turning out this way and being justly criticized for it.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

----
I check for: Serengeti, Zeroh, Open Mike Eagle, Jeremiah Jae, Moka Only.

Agree on Insomnia - pretty good but ultimately forgettable I suppose.

Batman Begins was great, as was The Prestige.

We'll have to wait and see about The Dark Knight, but there's no reason to think it won't be outstanding.

Didn't he also do The Following? That movie was dope as shit.

I can't think of another new director offhand with his resume.

and it's fucking amazing

and a great majority have been linking it between "heat" and "goodfellas"

you're a stan

--------

...but the shit was far, far below The Matrix. And I'm not even a huge Matrix fan.

Just because similar material is covered doesn't necessitate the quality is the same. But when hype gets rolling and the post-screening euphoria hasn't worn off, it's easy to compare films of similar themes without differentiating the qualities of the two.

Goodfellas is in the Top 5 best films of the last 25 years. To say The Dark Knight comes close to that... well, it sounds like hype and hyperbole to me. But we'll see.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

But I only give him THE PRESTIGE as a movie that has made me say "Shit.... keep an eye on this dude." A lot of nice work.... but I ain't giving him the mantle you want to throw at him.

His choices are very calculated.... which is why I think I can see giving him that love (which I'm not saying he doesn't deserve.... I'm just saying, I disagree). But I think someone like Michel Gondry apes Nolan. And I'm not saying he's the best. I'm just saying he's better.

Shit.... I'd probably say someone like Pete Jackson or "Bill" Del Toro owns that title. Others I'd name ahead of Nolan would be like Bryan Singer, Sodorburgh, the Coens.... all better output than Nolan this decade.

But again... not to discredit what the man did in the past few years.... just naming cats who have put out better content.

(Just for note: I thought INSOMNIA was a dull as shit film, and an truly an unnecessary remake)

_
Yo! That’s My Jawn: The Podcast - Available Now!
http://linktr.ee/yothatsmyjawn

folks that thought nolan's version was good should go rent criterion's release of the original.

http://www.criterion.com/asp/release.asp?id=47

but it WASN'T REMOTELY BAD THOUGH!!! also, i liked how the central character was more 3-dimensional in regards of moral character...

i think he means the best to come out of this decade most of the directors you named have been making fims for 20 plus years.
michel gondry is great i'd put him up there with the best to come out this decade as well he's very creative and inventive but i think nolan has the better films under his belt.

I can't really think of any fresh new directors off of the top of my head besides Jason Reitman.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

and of course it'd be thrashed around here as "being pretentious," but whatever, I dig his work

And -- on the verge of Pineapple Express, no less -- how could you forget David Gordon Green? I'm not *that* big a fan of his work, though...

I'd also add Sofia Coppola, but it's the Todd Field thing with her, imo, people either dig her work or don't
________________________________________________________________________
*by request*

(note to the usual tUoOS debaters, this will most likely be my final appearance in this post, so there's no use trying to start an argument... thnx)

and I haven't even seen his movies.

On "Shootout" he said "I don't believe in happy endings. To me, happy endings are stories that haven't finished yet." I was just kind of blown away, especially since the dude was sitting next to Kate Winslet at the time. How can you not be happy sitting next to her?

And while I loved Pineapple Express, Green hasn't really emerged IMO. His latest films have been underwhelming IMO and he isn't seeing someone like Chris Nolan.

I'll just take the easy way out on Coppola and point out Virgin Suicides was 1999 so she didn't emerge in the 2000's.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

Any of the actions sequences in Children of Men destroy anything Nolan has done visually.

Any of the "emotional" scenes in Y Tu Mama... obliterate anything Nolan has done in that regard.

Nolan is great but to think of him as some AMAZING director is premature at best. He needs to show a range beyond dark/foreboding.

Hell, the Three Amigos could make a strong case

And yes, that includes Babel, haters
________________________________________________________________________
*by request*

(note to the usual tUoOS debaters, this will most likely be my final appearance in this post, so there's no use trying to start an argument... thnx)

fka Invisiblist

www.jamespeach.org

children of men is ridiculously dope

Y Tu Mama i haven't seen yet, but i'll peep it

with that said, until another director successfully achieved directing small time films, remakes, and big summer blockbusters like nolan have for this decade thus far...i cannot see anyone beating him in that regard

plus, the writing game of the nolan brothers is sick...

Cuaron's range:

Small indie road movie: Y Tu Mama Tambien

Kids' Movie: Little Princess

Literary Adaption: Great Expectations

Summer Blockbuster: Harry Potter

Dystopian Sci Fi Thriller: Children of Men

props deserved