I don't know from good movies....apparently.

[Jester]

In recent days I've been watching a lot of Siskel & Ebert & Roeper reviews at www.atthemoviestv.com. In listening to their reviews I've learned one thing: I don't know what a good movie is. After watching reviews of most of the Sandler movies (I expected most of them to get 2 thumbs down, but a few I felt were more touching and might get at least one up turned thumb...nada.) and Robin Williams reviews as well as assorted movies I've liked or hated I'm surprised at some of the thumbs down movies. Both Patch Adams and Bicentennial Man, two strong Williams films got thumbs down. Heck, Siskel gave The Silence of thew Lambs a thumbs down. And in the most surprising move of all Ebert gave positive praise (albeit he gave it an over all thumbs down, but still he praised the film) to Gigli a movie almost everyone says was crap. Ebert and Roeper loved Lost in Translation saying it had subtle humor, I thought it had very little, with the plot about Murray and Johansson's relationship a little creepy, considering the age difference. Am I crazy for not really caring if a movie is a technical achievement but rather whither or not I was entertained by it? Isn't that what movies are all about?

*Kevin "Jester" McGill realizes that even Siskel, Ebert, and Roeper have praised movies that others hate and hated movies others loved. He also realizes that they have given praise to films that weren't technically dazzling and just entertained them like the 2 thumbs up for Short Circuit 2 and the thumbs up from Richard Roper to Not Another Teen Movie because "God help [him] it made [him] laugh."

[Cure]

The key is to know the difference between an entertaining movie and a well made one. Some movies are so poorly done that they're entertaining. Are they terrible? Yeah. Are they entertaining? Yep.

Just because certain movies don't resonate with someone or don't entertain them, you can't really deny their well made, either. Like 2001: A Space Odyssey. That movie was dreadfully boring (I think), but I can give it credit where it's due.

[Jester]

Exactly. That's why I love some of the most terrible crap ever printed on celluloid. I own all 5 of Ed Wood's films (Glen or Glenda, Jail Bait, Bride of the Monster, Plan 9 from Outer Space, and Night of the Ghouls) all of which are horribly made but entertaining despite (and often because) of that.

[Ra]

I never listen to reviewers. Every time I go and read a review for anything, their thoughts are different from mine. I saw "Pirates 3" in the cinema and, despite the cries of desperation of my full bladder in the final watery battle scene, I loved it. But the reviews I saw were giving the movie three or four stars. It all comes down to personal taste, really. I didn't find Star Wars II very entertaining, yet there will be some mad fan nut who will go on a shooting spree screaming it was the best thing that ever happened in his life. Just ignore those nuts. You know what you think is a good movie, and nothing can change that.

[Storm Wolf]

I agree with, Ra! I've read reviews for many movies that I thought were great that not many other people did. Many people thought the first Star Wars (Episode 1) was terrible. I liked it the best out of all the movies....granted I never even liked any of the other Star Wars movies and found them (unfortunately) boring.

I think it has much to do with taste. Don't go by those dingleberries, Jester! they'll just make you miss out on good movies. If it entertains you....consider that it has done it's job....poorly made or not.

Hell....look at Mystery Science Theater....Never have poorly made movies been so fun to watch!

[RAM BAM]

I think reviewers keep us bewildered so that they are unto themselves.
Further to what I mean is they will deliberately go against the grain to make themselves appear they are of a higher thought process, one which us everyday folk are not privvy to. Most of those smarmy, self-righteous bastards need a punch up the bracket!

[Warhorse]

You want a good laugh at the critics, watch their review on The Ring. Roeper's was decent, but Eberts was just showing how stupid he is. He's crying and whining at how he didn't know who was stalking Rachel, who was calling her, why were they after her for revenge. He was actually thinking that it was actual people going after her, and seemed to not realize it was a ghost. Stupid.

I can understand people not liking certain movies. But at least have a good reason to not like it, either it not be your type, it didn't click, it was boring, maybe you thought the swearing was excessive. But don't come crying how a plot was not there when it clearly is, you just weren't paying attention, and then try and disguise your stupidity, or lack of imagination as that the movie you were watching was poorly done.

Also of note, watched the reviews on Gladiator and Die Hard. Ever notice how Ebert gets all upset and pissy when his co-star likes a movie he gave a thumbs down. It's really funny, it's like he has a vendetta against certain movies, and when someone else gives it a thumbs up, he looks like he's going to jump off his chair and bitch slap them.

[Mr._Mutant_Man]

Am I crazy for not really caring if a movie is a technical achievement but rather whither or not I was entertained by it? Isn't that what movies are all about?


No, you're not crazy. Don't let The Man tell you what to think!

[Spitfire]

Ebert doesn't usually fail me but sometimes he tends to give a bad movie some praise or a movie I enjoyed a good slamming.

I don't base what I see or my opinions off reviews anymore, I simply go watch it and decide for myself. If it sucks at least I have a lesson in how not to make a film.

[Drtooth]

Ebert doesn't usually fail me but sometimes he tends to give a bad movie some praise or a movie I enjoyed a good slamming.

To me, he lost all his integrity when he gave a good review to Fast and the Furious, AND its sequal.

[jeff the cheff]

To me, he lost all his integrity when he gave a good review to Fast and the Furious, AND its sequal.

I liked the sequel to Fast and The Furious. I just read the review Ebert gave the movie, and while you can very easily disagree with his opinion on the movie, he did give his reasons for liking it, and they were good reasons.

As long as a reviewer gives good reasons for their opinion, I could care less what they say. If they didn't like a movie I loved or vice versa, it doesn't bother me. There are some instances, like Warhorse mentioned in The Ring, where they didn't understand the movie so couldn't give it a proper review. So in conclusion, **** em'.