The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

patjam77 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Last Airbender has a less than 10% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Can't be a good sign.

It's a kids movie. I took my nice and nephew who are 11 and 14 respectively and they LOVED it. but for adults the script is bare bones and the characters un interesting save for a few.

Exactly, that's why I said what I said. And that's why I'm going to compare the nuances of the movie to the cartoon.

patjam77 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Last Airbender has a less than 10% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Can't be a good sign.

It's a kids movie. I took my nice and nephew who are 11 and 14 respectively and they LOVED it. but for adults the script is bare bones and the characters un interesting save for a few.

Good kids movies typically get good ratings on RT . . .

brad7686 wrote:Yea, M. Night has really hit a wall. Haven't seen this, but Lady in the Water is the worst movie I have ever seen.

It's really amazing that he keeps getting projects. At what point does having his name attached to your film negatively affect how many viewers you are likely to get?

Irn-Bru wrote:

patjam77 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Last Airbender has a less than 10% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Can't be a good sign.

It's a kids movie. I took my nice and nephew who are 11 and 14 respectively and they LOVED it. but for adults the script is bare bones and the characters un interesting save for a few.

Good kids movies typically get good ratings on RT . . .

Marketing it as a kids' movie is a poor excuse for bad acting and awful dialogue. Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings were both big-budget fantasy movies that got this right.

Hooligan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

patjam77 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Last Airbender has a less than 10% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Can't be a good sign.

It's a kids movie. I took my nice and nephew who are 11 and 14 respectively and they LOVED it. but for adults the script is bare bones and the characters un interesting save for a few.

Good kids movies typically get good ratings on RT . . .

Marketing it as a kids' movie is a poor excuse for bad acting and awful dialogue. Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings were both big-budget fantasy movies that got this right.

Those weren't kids movies, btw, ESPECIALLY Lord of the Rings. Fantasy movies don't necessarily equate kids movies.

VetSkinsFan wrote:I'm eagerly awaiting Shutter Island. As much as I disliked his chick flick phase, DiCaprio is a great actor. If you're not familiar with his earlier works, you should check out This Boy's Life (with Di Nero) or Basketball Diaries.

I enjoyed that movie. Plot is a little predictable but good acting.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Marketing it as a kids' movie is a poor excuse for bad acting and awful dialogue. Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings were both big-budget fantasy movies that got this right.

Those weren't kids movies, btw, ESPECIALLY Lord of the Rings. Fantasy movies don't necessarily equate kids movies.

Harry Potter is a kids movie. That was their target audience, demonstrated by (among other things) how hard they tried to get PG ratings for all of the films. But even if we throw that out, Hooligan's point still stands, and there are plenty of other quality kids movies that prove this point. Calling something a "kids movie" doesn't grant it immunity from being a bad film.

I'm also pretty sure that the thousands of professional movie reviewers cited by RT understood that they were watching a kids movie, and yet they near-universally blasted it to smithereens. Maybe they didn't get the memo that poorly written dialogue, awful acting, bad directing, etc., aren't actually criticisms of a kids movie.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Hooligan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

patjam77 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Last Airbender has a less than 10% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Can't be a good sign.

It's a kids movie. I took my nice and nephew who are 11 and 14 respectively and they LOVED it. but for adults the script is bare bones and the characters un interesting save for a few.

Good kids movies typically get good ratings on RT . . .

Marketing it as a kids' movie is a poor excuse for bad acting and awful dialogue. Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings were both big-budget fantasy movies that got this right.

Those weren't kids movies, btw, ESPECIALLY Lord of the Rings. Fantasy movies don't necessarily equate kids movies.

While I agree fantasy movie doesn't equal kids movie and I agree tLoR was deffinately not a kids movie, I have to disagree with Harry Potter. Harry Potter is definately a kids movie and it most definately sucked!

I haven't been able to watch any of the HP movies with out falling to sleep on them and I'm a SciFi / Fantasy fan! Why does Harry have to be such a wuss? None of the witches on that show have any real power.

Maybe that is because I re-reading the Robert Jordan "Wheel of Time" seriers, but Rand al'Thor would kick Harry's but w/o thinking. Heck he could wipe out all of Hogsworth with out even breaking a sweat.

Hot Tub Time Machine...I'm laughing just thinking about it...Hiliarious!! A++

Not for kids!!

Irn-Bru wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Marketing it as a kids' movie is a poor excuse for bad acting and awful dialogue. Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings were both big-budget fantasy movies that got this right.

Those weren't kids movies, btw, ESPECIALLY Lord of the Rings. Fantasy movies don't necessarily equate kids movies.

Harry Potter is a kids movie. That was their target audience, demonstrated by (among other things) how hard they tried to get PG ratings for all of the films. But even if we throw that out, Hooligan's point still stands, and there are plenty of other quality kids movies that prove this point. Calling something a "kids movie" doesn't grant it immunity from being a bad film.

I'm also pretty sure that the thousands of professional movie reviewers cited by RT understood that they were watching a kids movie, and yet they near-universally blasted it to smithereens. Maybe they didn't get the memo that poorly written dialogue, awful acting, bad directing, etc., aren't actually criticisms of a kids movie.

Harry Potter was a family movie IMO, but I don't feel like arguing shades of gray. I'll concede like most others do b/c this is a fun place, not a place that I should have to defend my opinion in exhausting detail.

And personally, I couldn't care less if you paid me about what Rotten Tomatoes or Siskel & Ebert say about movies. I go on my own opinion. If it looks interesting, then I'll go with it. If not, I'll wait to catch it flipping thru cable.

VetSkinsFan wrote:And personally, I couldn't care less if you paid me about what Rotten Tomatoes or Siskel & Ebert say about movies. I go on my own opinion. If it looks interesting, then I'll go with it. If not, I'll wait to catch it flipping thru cable.

RT is simply a collection of what hundreds (or thousands) of professional reviewers say about a movie. I don't use it as a rule of thumb or blindly follow the ratings it assigns, but it's not a bad place to start if you're trying to figure out whether a movie is going to be worth watching or not. And as it happens I like Roger Ebert's blog too (when he's talking about movies, anyway).

However, that doesn't mean I don't have my own opinion about movies or think through them for myself. I don't think there's a strict dichotomy between looking to critics and making up one's own mind.

Saw Inception Sunday and I have to say it was pretty awesome.
I'll have to watch it a second time though to catch all the mind-bending info!!

I saw The Crazies... it wasn't too bad, but I wouldn't rave about it. My 2yo loves it; he wants to watch it every nite b/c he loves his 'monsters'

VetSkinsFan wrote:I saw The Crazies... it wasn't too bad, but I wouldn't rave about it. My 2yo loves it; he wants to watch it every nite b/c he loves his 'monsters'

I like The Crazies. Not a bad flick. Timothy Olyphant is DA MAN!

patjam77 wrote:Saw Inception Sunday and I have to say it was pretty awesome.

I've heard a lot of good things about that movie. Probably going to see it within the next two weeks or so.

patjam77 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I saw The Crazies... it wasn't too bad, but I wouldn't rave about it. My 2yo loves it; he wants to watch it every nite b/c he loves his 'monsters'

I like The Crazies. Not a bad flick. Timothy Olyphant is DA MAN!

Yeah I thought the Crazies was pretty awesome. Timothy Olyphant definately is "DA MAN" though; he's great in Deadwood.

Cancelling Deadwood was a crime. One of the best shows on TV ever.

Watched Shutter Island last nite. Pretty good. Not on my all time favorite list, but it was worth the 2hrs 18mins it was.

VetSkinsFan wrote:Watched Shutter Island last nite. Pretty good. Not on my all time favorite list, but it was worth the 2hrs 18mins it was.

I just couldn't get into it. I thought it would either be violent, scary, or both. It was neither. It was thought provoking, but in a way that didn't interest me.

brad7686 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Watched Shutter Island last nite. Pretty good. Not on my all time favorite list, but it was worth the 2hrs 18mins it was.

I just couldn't get into it. I thought it would either be violent, scary, or both. It was neither. It was thought provoking, but in a way that didn't interest me.

Guys was it like "In The Mouth of Madness?"

langleyparkjoe wrote:

brad7686 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Watched Shutter Island last nite. Pretty good. Not on my all time favorite list, but it was worth the 2hrs 18mins it was.

I just couldn't get into it. I thought it would either be violent, scary, or both. It was neither. It was thought provoking, but in a way that didn't interest me.

Guys was it like "In The Mouth of Madness?"

Never heard of that movie, so I cannot say.

My wife has designated me as the one who takes my son to all his movies, so Despicable Me was the latest. It was cute, and had a few moments, but nothing special.

Deadskins wrote:My wife has designated me as the one who takes my son to all his movies, so Despicable Me was the latest. It was cute, and had a few moments, but nothing special.

yea I saw it too.. honestly the baby girl was the best part of the movie. I agree wit you about it too

VetSkinsFan wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:

brad7686 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Watched Shutter Island last nite. Pretty good. Not on my all time favorite list, but it was worth the 2hrs 18mins it was.

I just couldn't get into it. I thought it would either be violent, scary, or both. It was neither. It was thought provoking, but in a way that didn't interest me.

Guys was it like "In The Mouth of Madness?"

Never heard of that movie, so I cannot say.

I personally thought it was great, if you like thriller/horror type movies, John Carpenter did a good job with this one.

I watched Taken and The Machinist this past weekend.

The Machinist was pretty weird. I like a good twist (Fight Club, Sixth Sense), but this one was too much for me. And Christian Bale looked disgusting in it... but he plays an incredible whackjob.

Taken was good for what it was, but it wasn't doing anything new. His deliberate actions were on point, but some of it was a little stretched. Still gave it 4 out of 5, though.