DancesWithWerewolves wrote:Yep, RT's Fresh/Splat is not reliable. However that little detail of the actual rating is more accurate. That's how I know movies like Black Panther were not as impressive with critics as it's 97% fresh claimed
Metacritic doesn't seem to collect enough reviews, but at least it's score has more legitimacy.
Yeah, those fresh ratings mean almost nothing. I've seen 100%s with average ratings In the 70s. That said, the critic average for Black Panther is 85.5 which is still really, really good.
It's usually the user scores on these websites you have to account for, as of late seems to mostly be those trying to own the libs. Ex: 44 for The Last Jedi, to a lesser extent 64 for Black Panther.
There must've been a bump from the last time I looked (a little bit before Oscar time), which was a 7.9/10.
I take the user scores with a grain of salt because of that pack mentality. Not that critics aren't guitly of it either, though usually they're the shitty buzzfeed type of critics that have agendas and don't know how to critique for shit.
DancesWithWerewolves wrote:Yep, RT's Fresh/Splat is not reliable. However that little detail of the actual rating is more accurate. That's how I know movies like Black Panther were not as impressive with critics as it's 97% fresh claimed
Metacritic doesn't seem to collect enough reviews, but at least it's score has more legitimacy.
Yeah, those fresh ratings mean almost nothing. I've seen 100%s with average ratings In the 70s. That said, the critic average for Black Panther is 85.5 which is still really, really good.
It's usually the user scores on these websites you have to account for, as of late seems to mostly be those trying to own the libs. Ex: 44 for The Last Jedi, to a lesser extent 64 for Black Panther.
There must've been a bump from the last time I looked (a little bit before Oscar time), which was a 7.9/10.
I take the user scores with a grain of salt because of that pack mentality. Not that critics aren't guitly of it either, though usually they're the shitty buzzfeed type of critics that have agendas and don't know how to critique for shit.
88 on Metacritic drives it up. 88 is waaaaay too high.
Saw this today Don't go in expecting a fun gangster romp in the vein of Goodfellas/Casino, it's a pretty bleak movie. I'd describe it as Unforgiven for the gangster movie. Need time to reflect, but on initial viewing it's definitely in my Scorsese top 5.
Absolute joke that all the studios passed on this and it gets the limited theater release ending tomorrow. It deserves its shine on the big screen.
You can split this into a 2 hour block and a 90 minute block if one viewing is too demanding. Good point to break it up is after a "10 minutes vs. 15 minutes" scene about 2 hours in. You'll know it when you get to it.
Headhunter wrote:Saw this today Don't go in expecting a fun gangster romp in the vein of Goodfellas/Casino, it's a pretty bleak movie. I'd describe it as Unforgiven for the gangster movie. Need time to reflect, but on initial viewing it's definitely in my Scorsese top 5.
Absolute joke that all the studios passed on this and it gets the limited theater release ending tomorrow. It deserves its shine on the big screen.
probably didn't think the turn out would support a wide release. plan to see it myself within the next couple of days.
Since they've bumped up the Netflix arrival time from December 1st, I'll be watching it as soon as Alli gets home from work (she's dying to watch it too).
Headhunter wrote:Saw this today Don't go in expecting a fun gangster romp in the vein of Goodfellas/Casino, it's a pretty bleak movie. I'd describe it as Unforgiven for the gangster movie. Need time to reflect, but on initial viewing it's definitely in my Scorsese top 5.
Absolute joke that all the studios passed on this and it gets the limited theater release ending tomorrow. It deserves its shine on the big screen.
probably didn't think the turn out would support a wide release. plan to see it myself within the next couple of days.
They should spend more time doing the opposite of what they expect to happen, or Netflix will continue to rightfully dunk them into oblivion.
Headhunter wrote:Saw this today Don't go in expecting a fun gangster romp in the vein of Goodfellas/Casino, it's a pretty bleak movie. I'd describe it as Unforgiven for the gangster movie. Need time to reflect, but on initial viewing it's definitely in my Scorsese top 5.
Absolute joke that all the studios passed on this and it gets the limited theater release ending tomorrow. It deserves its shine on the big screen.
probably didn't think the turn out would support a wide release. plan to see it myself within the next couple of days.
They should spend more time doing the opposite of what they expect to happen, or Netflix will continue to rightfully dunk them into oblivion.
if more people supported the smaller films that do make it to wide release in theaters, they would play smaller films more often, and maybe there would be a place for the irishman. but until then, there's room for both netflix and movie theaters.
Headhunter wrote:Saw this today Don't go in expecting a fun gangster romp in the vein of Goodfellas/Casino, it's a pretty bleak movie. I'd describe it as Unforgiven for the gangster movie. Need time to reflect, but on initial viewing it's definitely in my Scorsese top 5.
Absolute joke that all the studios passed on this and it gets the limited theater release ending tomorrow. It deserves its shine on the big screen.
probably didn't think the turn out would support a wide release. plan to see it myself within the next couple of days.
They should spend more time doing the opposite of what they expect to happen, or Netflix will continue to rightfully dunk them into oblivion.
if more people supported the smaller films that do make it to wide release in theaters, they would play smaller films more often, and maybe there would be a place for the irishman. but until then, there's room for both netflix and movie theaters.
You’re right about more people needing to support smaller films. Those people include studio executives, producers and general industry power players. If these people love the art, they have the means to support it. Smaller films are cut off at the knees before the ink is dry, and that’s if they ever see the light of day. Blaming moviegoers when their apathy is a consequence of the industry’s failures, is missing the big picture.
And for the record, this particular movie is bigger than 90% of studio films released this year. Not small by any means.
The studios are dinosaurs begging for the meteor. They did this to themselves. Greed. No vision. No respect for the actual medium. No respect for the intelligence of their own customers. Total unwillingness to adapt.
Headhunter wrote:
You’re right about more people needing to support smaller films. Those people include studio executives, producers and general industry power players. If these people love the art, they have the means to support it. Smaller films are cut off at the knees before the ink is dry, and that’s if they ever see the light of day. Blaming moviegoers when their apathy is a consequence of the industry’s failures, is missing the big picture.
i don't know the machinations of studios. i know that show business is a business. i know that people say that there aren't any original films in theaters. and then the nice guys bombs. and then booksmart bombs. *shrug* i hope that changes. moviegoers can't change the studios, except by supporting films we want to see succeed and making them take notice. we can complain and say it's all their fault, but what does that accomplish?
Headhunter wrote:
You’re right about more people needing to support smaller films. Those people include studio executives, producers and general industry power players. If these people love the art, they have the means to support it. Smaller films are cut off at the knees before the ink is dry, and that’s if they ever see the light of day. Blaming moviegoers when their apathy is a consequence of the industry’s failures, is missing the big picture.
i don't know the machinations of studios. i know that show business is a business. i know that people say that there aren't any original films in theaters. and then the nice guys bombs. and then booksmart bombs. *shrug* i hope that changes. moviegoers can't change the studios, except by supporting films we want to see succeed and making them take notice. we can complain and say it's all their fault, but what does that accomplish?
What is it supposed to accomplish? It’s the truth. Not sure the suits need to be defended.
Headhunter wrote:
You’re right about more people needing to support smaller films. Those people include studio executives, producers and general industry power players. If these people love the art, they have the means to support it. Smaller films are cut off at the knees before the ink is dry, and that’s if they ever see the light of day. Blaming moviegoers when their apathy is a consequence of the industry’s failures, is missing the big picture.
i don't know the machinations of studios. i know that show business is a business. i know that people say that there aren't any original films in theaters. and then the nice guys bombs. and then booksmart bombs. *shrug* i hope that changes. moviegoers can't change the studios, except by supporting films we want to see succeed and making them take notice. we can complain and say it's all their fault, but what does that accomplish?
What is it supposed to accomplish? It’s the truth. Not sure the suits need to be defended.
the suits don't need to be defended. you're right, and i wasn't. the movies we want to see will go away, if we don't support them. if we support them more, we'll get more of them. that's true, regardless of what the suits think of art.
