Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's because the stage bar was set so high. I've read a lot of good books that went to film, there wasn't a single one whose film came anywhere the book. Often the film is laughly bad.
Try to imagine, seeing Oklahoma on Broadway, and then expecting to enjoy the movie the next day.
To be sure film can be a great art form, but not if the film-maker is limited by a book, or play. Critics are reiht if they pan them.
That's because the stage bar was set so high. I've read a lot of good books that went to film, there wasn't a single one whose film came anywhere the book. Often the film is laughly bad.
Try to imagine, seeing Oklahoma on Broadway, and then expecting to enjoy the movie the next day.
To be sure film can be a great art form, but not if the film-maker is limited by a book, or play. Critics are reiht if they pan them.
I've always felt that books, plays, and films are wholly different mediums, and that to tell the same story in each medium has to be done differently. It's sort of like three different people telling the same story. Each story-teller will be unique in how he relates the story.
I've always felt that books, plays, and films are wholly different mediums, and that to tell the same story in each medium has to be done differently. It's sort of like three different people telling the same story. Each story-teller will be unique in how he relates the story.
Well stated! I've enjoyed all of Michael Lewis' books, and I've enjoyed all the movie adaptations that I've seen - Big Short, Moneyball, Blind Side.
I prefer a "composite" like Rotten Tomatoes where I can see an overall score from critics as well as actually read the individual reviews. There are few movies with scores below 40-50 that I've liked.
Of course now, the "cost" of "going" to see a movie is far less so you can most always watch a bit of it and decide for yourself with minimal cost or inconvenience.
Information is so accessible these days that I don't understand why anyone would rely on just one critic's point of view. That's why RT is so successful. They aggregate so many opinions, let you filter through the reviews and make your own decision.
Siskel and Ebert bashed the first Rambo movie. Then, years later when reviewing Rambo 3, they both praised the movie series for it's action and adventure. I never listen to the critics.
I read reviews, but don't automatically let them bias my opinion going to see the movie. But with Rotten Tomatoes, it's easier to get a realistic look. For example, the new "Matrix" movie is getting mediocre reviews from both critics and audiences, so I will not be seeing it anytime soon.
On the other hand, the recent "Suicide Squad" got good reviews all the way around. A friend talked me into seeing it and I absolutely hated it. I thought it was an awful movie, not good in any sense whatsoever.
Not at all.. wasnt it critics who put Its a Wonderful Life on the shelves for a few years .. how wrong were they.
Turns out, that's actually a myth. It was pretty well received by critics, for the most part, and nominated for 5 Oscars. Many critics just loved it, but a lot of them felt it was overly sentimental, and audiences agreed with the latter contingent.
The problem with the film was not the critics - it was the public that didn't like it, because it was too schmaltzy. People ridiculed it as "Capra-corn." It was still the 26th-highest grossing film of the year (neck and neck with "Miracle On 34th Street"), but it cost a fortune to make, and fell way short of expectations. As a box-office disappointment, it was stuck away in a closet somewhere and remembered mostly as a minor piece of the Capra legacy.
The thing is, though, that in the 1970s, the studio forgot to renew the copyright protection for the film. This meant that it was dumped into the public domain, and any station who wanted to run it could grab it and play it for a minor fee. PBS stations were always short on money, so they pounced all over this free Christmas movie to put up against the big networks' holiday programming, and by the 80s people were just expecting to get bludgeoned with multiple showings of IAWL every holiday season. The schmaltz that was too corny in 1947 was exactly the sentimental nostalgia that baby boomers were crying out for in the 70s and 80s, and it was suddenly seen as a work of genius.
So in comparison to its new status as a brilliant, timeless classic, the respectable but still lukewarm reception it got when it first came out makes it seem as though it was completely ignored at the time. I think the reality is that it's a great movie that just wasn't a good fit for its period.
=======================================
As for the question in the OP.... I don't understand it. What am I supposed to need to trust them to do?
Do I trust them to have an opinion on the movie they saw? Yes, absolutely, I do trust them to have an opinion.
Do I trust them to actually do my thinking for me, and tell me what my opinion is going to be? Or even likely to be? No, of course not. Why would I ever trust someone else to tell me what my opinion of something is going to be? I think for myself and form my own opinions.
I trust them to give me a pretty accurate idea of what the film is about, a general sense of how the story is told, and enough details and personal observations and impressions to tell me what i need to know in order to decide whether I want to see it myself. And that's it. I trust them to do that, and that's all I need to trust them to do.
I don't think i have ever come out of a movie feeling like I was let down by a critic. Unless they flat out lie about substantive facts, every thing they say is an opinion, and I can't imagine ever feeling betrayed because someone else's opinion was not the same as my own. Because I can't imagine why I would ever expect someone else's opinion to be the same as my own. Their opinion is just supposed to serve as a starting point for the public, not a decisionmaker.
Rotten Tomatoes is completely compromised, totally sold out. So your best bet is just word of mouth among your friends or family or individuals on Youtube.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
