Watch ROTF: The Rifftrax version:
Travoltron
http://isohunt.com/download/138219565/Fallenx.torrent
Zobovor
> Watch the movie get the MST3K treatment it deserves!
Call me ignorant, but what program does one use to open the file from
that web site once it's been downloaded?
Zob
TigerMegatron
weigh the posaitives.
downloading a torrent file/s is the ultimate way for a potential
hacker/s to steal info+leave viruses on your computer.
there's tons of internet threads warning users not to trust torrent
files. with detailed info why.
there's also tons of qualified people on the news/cable warning users
of torrent files & the detailed reason why.
Chad Rushing
>
> Call me ignorant, but what program does one use to open the file from
> that web site once it's been downloaded?
Are you talking about the .torrent file? You have to open it up with
BitTorrent (free at bittorrent.com) which will then download the media
file(s) in pieces from a zillion other people until you have the
complete AVI, WMV, MPG, or what have you. If you are talking about
something else, then completely ignore all that!
- Chad
Gustavo Wombat
Um... no.
Media files are pretty safe, so long as your OS is up to date, and so
long as you don't click OK on a dialog that pops up saying "You need
to install the SecretTrojan/DIVN codec to view this file." And never
download an executable from an unknown source.
It is, however, a good way to open yourself up for a lawsuit, should
you be caught. Very low probability of being caught, and very high
penalties if you do.
Gustavo!
SteveD
<TigerM...@aol.com> wrote:
>downloading a torrent file/s is the ultimate way for a potential
>hacker/s to steal info+leave viruses on your computer.
Except for being, y'know, utterly not. In even the remotest possible way.
I'm not even sure I could comprehend the depth of misinformation which
could have even led to such a bizarre conclusion.
Travoltron
> It is, however, a good way to open yourself up for a lawsuit, should
> you be caught. Very low probability of being caught, and very high
> penalties if you do.
I recommend anyone using BitTorrent also use PeerGuardian 2 for protection:
http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/
Here's the legal way to get the audio-only Rifftrax for $3.99:
http://www.rifftrax.com/rifftrax/transformers-revenge-fallen
ahsan.sa...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:14:42 -0800 (PST), TigerMegatron
>
> >downloading a torrent file/s is the ultimate way for a potential
> >hacker/s to steal info+leave viruses on your computer.
>
> Except for being, y'know, utterly not. In even the remotest possible way.
>
> I'm not even sure I could comprehend the depth of misinformation which
> could have even led to such a bizarre conclusion.
Downloaded the wrong torrent, maybe? It has happened to me, once or
twice. Good thing I've got a mania about keeping my systems up-to-
date... and running a paranoid firewall... and keeping an anti-virus
that'll catch viruses and rootkits... and scanning the system every
other day... and optimizing my registry... and clearing out entries I
don't recognize...
TigerMegatron
I don't trust bit torrent files due to all the internet studies &
television studies I've personally done the reasearch on.
Gustavo Wombat
Were you wearing a white lab coat? Because it's not research unless
your wearing a white lab coat.
Onslaught Six
I have personally downloaded probably a terabyte of data over torrents
over the course of several years, and I have 'never' had a problem.
You're just too busy sucking the sack to see the realities.
(See what I did there? ROTF reference! Haha. Ballsack.)
Thunder Strikes Twice!
> Were you wearing a white lab coat? Because it's not research unless
> your wearing a white lab coat.
This is a scientific fact. :)
t.k.
SteveD
Dammit, now I need a new keyboard.
Gr�e
> Watch the movie get the MST3K treatment it deserves!
No thanks. I've never seen the point in listening to people heckle a movie
I'm trying to watch. That kind of shit will get a person thrown out of a
theater, and my house. Besides, making money from crapping all over
someone's honest attempt at doing something creative and new just seems
tacky, childish, immature, and in poor taste. I mean, if it were horribly
bad, like "Plan 9 From Outer Space", or "Manos: The Hands of Fate" level
bad, I can see it. I'd even accept a Rifftrack for "Catwoman" or almost any
film by Ewe Boll. But come on, Transformers 2, though not necessarily a
favorite among Transformers persnickety, perennially bitchy fan base,
wasn't as bad as any of those movies. Its not in the same league as like,
"Masters of the Universe" or anything.
Pass.
Travoltron
> No thanks. I've never seen the point in listening to people heckle a movie
> I'm trying to watch. That kind of shit will get a person thrown out of a
> theater, and my house. Besides, making money from crapping all over
> someone's honest attempt at doing something creative and new just seems
> tacky, childish, immature, and in poor taste. I mean, if it were horribly
> bad, like "Plan 9 From Outer Space", or "Manos: The Hands of Fate" level
> bad, I can see it. I'd even accept a Rifftrack for "Catwoman" or almost any
> film by Ewe Boll. But come on, Transformers 2, though not necessarily a
> favorite among Transformers persnickety, perennially bitchy fan base,
> wasn't as bad as any of those movies. Its not in the same league as like,
> "Masters of the Universe" or anything.
>
> Pass.
Via Rotten Tomatoes (not from the allegedly bitchy fanbase):
ROTF 19% Fresh
MOTU 13% Fresh
Catwoman 10% Fresh
Only 6 points above MOTU; that's not saying much.
Travoltron
> I'm trying to watch. That kind of shit will get a person thrown out of a
> theater, and my house. Besides, making money from crapping all over
> someone's honest attempt at doing something creative and new just seems
> tacky, childish, immature, and in poor taste. I mean, if it were horribly
> bad, like "Plan 9 From Outer Space", or "Manos: The Hands of Fate" level
> bad, I can see it. I'd even accept a Rifftrack for "Catwoman" or almost any
> film by Ewe Boll. But come on, Transformers 2, though not necessarily a
> favorite among Transformers persnickety, perennially bitchy fan base,
> wasn't as bad as any of those movies. Its not in the same league as like,
> "Masters of the Universe" or anything.
>
> Pass.
Oh I forgot to say that although I don't agree with you about ROTF's
quality, I do agree that Rifftrax is by doing tracks for movies that
don't deserve them. Why are there Rifftrax for The Empire Strikes Back,
Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Jaws and not Highlander II?
Gr�e
> Only 6 points above MOTU; that's not saying much.
Rotten Tomatoes collates movie reviews from movie critics. OF COURSE
snobby film criticsc, most of whom couldn't make anything decent on
their own, hate ROTF. Its not Shakespere. Those same asshats will also
tell you Burger king is trash and caviar, and seaweed wrapped sushi is
the best food on the planet. Stop being a slave to other people's
opinions, and make up your own mind about things.
Want to know what the top four movies are on Rotten Tomatoes?
1. 100% Man On Wire 141
2. 100% Toy Story 2 130
3. 100% Taxi to the Dark Side 81
4. 100% Bus 174 72
I'll best most people have only seen one of them, and its probably Toy
Story 2.
Thunder Strikes Twice!
> Stop being a slave to other people's
> opinions, and make up your own mind about things.
So, we should all agree with your opinion instead? I did see the movie
and thought it was crap. Perhaps Travoltron feels the same way...
opinions are just that. We're all entitled to them.
I do agree somewhat about the Rifftrax though. Often people talking over
a movie, even to make fun of it, are annoying. This is why I'm ho-hum on
the whole MSTF thing at the Botcons. I just don't find it that funny.
t.k.
Gr�e
$Sw5....@newsfe16.iad:
> So, we should all agree with your opinion instead? I did see the movie
> and thought it was crap. Perhaps Travoltron feels the same way...
> opinions are just that. We're all entitled to them.
No, I don't insist that people agree with my opinions, but I don't want
people to make the argument that a movie is crap based on a critics
review. I mean, come on, popular movies rarely ever get Oscar or Golden
Globe consideration...and critics slag off anything that is pop-culture
as mindless trash. To base your opinion off of another's opinion is
what's really mindless. If you've decided you don't like a movie before
you see the movie based off the reviews of someone who may or may not
have seen the movie either, or who may or may not have been paid to
write a biased review, is even worse than that. It's sheer stupidity. If
you make one opinion based on your own viewing of the movie, then change
that opinion afterward due to the opinion of the masses, then you really
have no mind of your own, you are a puppet of the media AND society.
Want to argue with me about the merits or lack thereof of ROTF? Then
state what YOU didn't like, not what a critic told you not to like. Form
your OWN opinion. That's the one we're all ENTITLED to, so lets use it,
hmm?
> I do agree somewhat about the Rifftrax though. Often people talking
> over a movie, even to make fun of it, are annoying. This is why I'm
> ho-hum on the whole MSTF thing at the Botcons. I just don't find it
> that funny.
Me neither. Its seems snide, and petty.
Thunder Strikes Twice!
> Want to argue with me about the merits or lack thereof of ROTF? Then
> state what YOU didn't like, not what a critic told you not to like. Form
> your OWN opinion. That's the one we're all ENTITLED to, so lets use it,
> hmm?
I won't argue with that, but presumably Travoltron has seen it and has
his own opinion. I dunno. I saw it myself and it was everything I feared
it would be. Terrible dialogue, odd camera choices, not the greatest
plot ever...in many scenes I wasn't sure who was doing what (the TFs, I
mean). It's almost like Bay is trying to make a live action cartoon.
Anyway, I didn't like it. That's my two cents...
t.k.
ahsan.sa...@gmail.com
> No, I don't insist that people agree with my opinions, but I don't want
> people to make the argument that a movie is crap based on a critics
> review. I mean, come on, popular movies rarely ever get Oscar or Golden
> Globe consideration...and critics slag off anything that is pop-culture
> as mindless trash.
Not always, mind you. Often though.
Not sure I trust Oscar nominations either. Oscar bait nowadays seems
to be tragic stuff with lots of characters crying, sepia tones and
stuff that is supposed to be character development, but is more
usually hogging the camera.
Gr�e
> I won't argue with that, but presumably Travoltron has seen it and has
> his own opinion. I dunno. I saw it myself and it was everything I
> feared it would be. Terrible dialogue, odd camera choices, not the
> greatest plot ever...in many scenes I wasn't sure who was doing what
> (the TFs, I mean). It's almost like Bay is trying to make a live
> action cartoon. Anyway, I didn't like it. That's my two cents...
FWIW, I thought it was better than the first, but only just so. That
said, it was was just kinda there. Not great, but watchable for at least
one pass-thru, but not durable enough to withstand repeated watchings.
I'm really something of a Gee-Wunner when it comes to TF. As a kid, I
didn't care too much about Beast Wars because it came out at a time, for
me at least, when my interest in toys and cartoons was giving way to
girls and video games. I was in the 6th grade in 1986, and even at that
time, I didn't go to the theater to see the TF movie, and I didn't
really watch any of the Season 3 cartoon that came after it, either.
Girls and games, from that point on, that's what I was into. I really
didn't watch the movie or season 3 episodes until years later, when they
started coming out on Rhino video, and even then, I was really just
watching them with my little sister, who was always taking teh rubber
wheels off of all these little robot guys I had on the shelves in my
room, just to show her what they were all about.
I got back into TF with RiD, the re-introduction was a gestault formed
from one part firetruck, one part car carrier. I always loved gestaults,
so as an adult man in my late 20s, I bought them, because I was feeling
nostalgic.
As I get older, I get this thing for wanting to somewhat recall,
remember, and in some way, relive my past. I'll buy a Metallica CD, even
though I gave up on them long ago, I'll buy a bunch of Star Wars
figures, even though I sold all of the ones I had as a kid in, you
guessed it, 1986. I'll buy a Motley Crue CD, even though I hadn't bought
one since Dr. Feelgood. I've set up an out for all of these things, to
combat inevitable impending disappointment that follows, as nothing is
ever going to live up to how I felt about it back then, at the hieght of
my interest; and that is to either think of how I would have felt about
it *back then*, a kind of looking back, "Would I have liked this back in
1985?" kind of thing, and the other is just to kind of pretend the
originals don't exist, and that this CD, movie, comic book, or cartoon
is my *first* exposure to the material. That way, I avoid the
comparisons between the 2007 Transformers movie and the G1 cartoon,
between Death Magnetic and Master of Puppets, between Saints of Los
Angeles and Dr. Feelgood...and I can just enjoy the movie/comic/CD for
what it is, on its own merits and not its faults for not being as "good
as it used to be".
That being said, I don't tear the 2007 TF movie apart with its
deviations from TF lore from the cartoon or the Marvel comic, because I
don't compare it to them at all; I treat it as its own new retelling of
the story, and with that, I don't give myself a headache over "how it
should have been", or any other variation of "They're raping my
childhood!". On those grounds, its OK, acceptable, and good enough for
at least one viewing. On the grounds of treating it as if it were my
first exposure to the material (and let's face it, for many people
viewing Bayformers and its sequel, it may have been), its stands up
pretty good, too. The proff is in the pudding, ROTF was the highest
grossign movie in the year it came out, so people who caught the first
on cable or DVD came along for the ride to see the second. My adult mind
doesn't really care for it more than my one obligitory viewing I give
it, but my kids (12, 7, and 5) love it, and guess what, it is kinda
their first introduction to TFs. MY friends who went to see it, loved it
(one just turned 30, with no real interest in TF beforehand, the other,
and an anime fan, just turned 23), and it was their first introduction
to TF, as well.
Coincidence?
SteveD
>FWIW, I thought it was better than the first, but only just so. That
>said, it was was just kinda there. Not great, but watchable for at least
>one pass-thru, but not durable enough to withstand repeated watchings.
Agreed. Very workable premise, bloody horrible execution.
-SteveD
Zobovor
> I avoid the comparisons between the 2007 Transformers movie and the G1
> cartoon...and I can just enjoy the movie/comic/CD for what it is, on its own
> merits and not its faults for not being as "good as it used to be".
I think it would be easier to me to avoid comparing the two if the
movie really were a completely new story. As it stands, though, it's
a retelling of an older story and it borrows heavily from the original
cartoon. The cast of Autobots from the first movie were all prominent
characters in the cartoon—not a bunch of nobodies we'd never met
before. Optimus Prime's voice was identical, of course, and the
voices for Jazz and Starscream and Soundwave were meant to echo the
sounds of the original characters. The relationship between Sam and
Bumblebee mirrors the relationship in the cartoon between Spike and
Bumblebee. The list goes on and on. The origins of the movie are
steeped deeply in the cartoon mythos and it's very difficult for me to
completely separate the two.
I also think I would like the movies a lot more if I weren't already a
Transformers fan. I know what makes a good Transformers story and
what makes for compelling Transformers characters—and, for that
matter, what makes a good Transformers toy. The movie franchise
really doesn't offer very much in this regard. The movies are
visually impressive and arresting, and feature some of the most
realistic, true-to-life computer animation I've ever seen in film. (I
never once found myself feeling like the characters weren't "really"
there like I did with Star Wars: Episode I). As theatrical films, the
movies were fun and worth the price of a ticket. As Transformers
stories, though, there's room for so much improvement, since there are
so many excellent Transformers stories out there, and the movies don't
even come close to topping any of them.
The movies are fun for me, and while there are things I dislike about
them, my reasons aren't just because the movies aren't identical to
G1. After all, there are a lot of things I like about the movies,
like Mojo and Barricade and Demolishor, that have no G1 equivalent.
The fact that Transformers has an existing fandom doesn't seem to have
been taken into consideration, though, or at least not very much. If
it didn't, it would just be another random giant robot movie, like
Robot Jox.
Zob
ahsan.sa...@gmail.com
> On Nov 10, 7:13 am, "Grüe" <a...@a.com> wrote:
>
> > I avoid the comparisons between the 2007 Transformers movie and the G1
> > cartoon...and I can just enjoy the movie/comic/CD for what it is, on its own
> > merits and not its faults for not being as "good as it used to be".
>
> I think it would be easier to me to avoid comparing the two if the
> movie really were a completely new story. As it stands, though, it's
> it didn't, it would just be another random giant robot movie, like
> Robot Jox.
Seconding this.
"Transformers" and "RoTF" are good summer blockbusters. I'm sure
they've made a good amount of money and maybe even made a buncha
producers and so on really happy in Hollywood. And it is a good
experience to watch in a theatre or on a really, really good
multimedia set-up. It has good explosions and special effects and the
good guys win in the end (with a couple of casualties).
While there are very things about the movies themselves that I
genuinely like (Ed: God I hate the dictionary in Chrome... how the
hell is "movies" an invalid word?), I love the by-products of having a
big Hollywood movie with the brand-name of Transformers.
To name a few:
- recognition of the brand. This is a big one. If I could quote TFWiki
on this, the main objective of Hasbro is "to sell toys". So, the more
people who know about Transformers, the more snot-nosed kids hear
about Transformers and whine about wanting them for Christmas/
birthdays/getting good grades, the more they'll sell, and the more
they'll come out with newer ideas for toys, shows and so on. Heck,
just look at all the character moulds for the Movieverse that never
showed up in the movies themselves. That is a good thing.
- the toys themselves. I am among the people who've been bitching
about the faces of the characters in the movieverse (hur hur...
"scrunchformers"... hur hur), and how the look is too "busy", and
they're overly complicated... but damn, the toys look good. And
they've only gotten better from "TF" to "RoTF". Great articulation,
fairly close to the animated models, licensed vehicle modes... they've
got it all.
- spin-offs. I know that I didn't like the comics too much, but that
was more because I don't like the character shapes and can't tell them
apart. But the stories themselves are good, and at least try to expand
on the one-dimensional portrayals of the movies.
- new fans. Not always a good thing, but I like seeing new people
getting an interest in my fandom. It's no bad thing if somebody,
finding the movie interesting, starts digging on-line and finds their
way here, or to the wiki or BWTF, and finds that there's a whole other
world out there.
- the fandom itself. And c'mon. The best part of the fandom is getting
to bitch about how they've "ruined everything FOREVER" with people who
agree with you and other people who'll compare you to Hitler when
disagreeing with you. Or y'know, Unicron. Or Headmaster Unicron with
Hitler has his head module.
But those things don't make a good "movie", let alone a good
"Transformers movie". It's not a movie I'd rent, let alone buy on a
DVD so I can watch it on my tiny little home computer or DVD player.
The special effects are okay in the cinema, but you do need something
more than that for movie night at home. You want a story, you want
characters you can be sympathetic to (or at least hate enough to see
what happens to them), and you want better than "disposable bad guys".
"Iron Man" managed that, or at least it seems that way to me. Robert
Downey Jr. was enough like Tony Stark from the comics that he was
instantly recognizable to folks who'd read the comics, and he was
convincing enough to charm folks who hadn't read the comics (like my
missus). Jeff Bridges was almost a stereotypical bad guy, but he was
fun. The special effects were good, but they weren't the focus of the
movie, which is where things always go wrong. I think I've seen it six
times now, twice in the cinema and four times at home (I think twice
on television, and twice on my office laptop in a small screen hidden
just under my mail client).
Y'all remember "Jurassic Park"? I think I saw it five times in the
cinema. First time in England, then four more times in Pakistan with
various cousins who hadn't seen it but couldn't stand to go with each
other. I loved it so much, I rented it on laserdisc to watch at home.
It certainly lost a little something on the small screen. You could
see every seam where the dinos had been edited in. They looked kitschy
and fake, and the rest of the movie just wasn't interesting enough for
me to forgive the obvious CGI.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that special effects are
supposed to enhance the story of the movie, they aren't supposed to be
the entirety of the movie, the way they are in both of our movies.
Thunder Strikes Twice!
> I guess the point I'm trying to make is that special effects are
> supposed to enhance the story of the movie, they aren't supposed to be
> the entirety of the movie, the way they are in both of our movies.
Agreed. I'm not expecting an Oscar caliber movie from Transformers
either, but just a good story *about* Transformers. These are suitable
blockbuster type movies but ultimately meaningless and forgettable.
t.k.
Gustavo Wombat
> Travoltron <travot...@defender.uni> wrote innews:hd8b04$4ti$1...@aioe.org:
>
> > Only 6 points above MOTU; that's not saying much.
>
> Rotten Tomatoes collates movie reviews from movie critics. OF COURSE
> snobby film criticsc, most of whom couldn't make anything decent on
> their own, hate ROTF.
It's easy to say that the critics are elitist, and can't understand
what real people enjoy. It's a cheap, lazy, anti-intellectual
argument.
> Its not Shakespere. Those same asshats will also
> tell you Burger king is trash and caviar, and seaweed wrapped sushi is
> the best food on the planet.
Did you know that Burger King hamburgers are artificially flavored to
taste like hamburgers? It's true. Does that make them better or worse,
or are they simply a bizarre post-modern interpretation of what could
have been a fairly natural food? In the end, does it matter that they
are artificially flavored to taste like burgers, if they are actually
burgers?
Also, sushi is delicious.
> Stop being a slave to other people's
> opinions, and make up your own mind about things.
I don't think that anyone who has commented on ROTF hasn't seen it,
and formed their own opinions of.
I think some of those people -- those who believe it to be a good
movie -- are just plain, objectively wrong.
It's one thing to like ROTF despite it's flaws, but to actually think
that it is a good movie, well that's just wrong. To dismiss it as
simply a popcorn movie and claim that it is a good popcorn movie is to
trivialize the actually good popcorn movies. The popcorn movie might
not be a genre that hits high art very often, but it should at least
hit the level of competence.
> Want to know what the top four movies are on Rotten Tomatoes?
>
> 1. 100% Man On Wire 141
> 2. 100% Toy Story 2 130
> 3. 100% Taxi to the Dark Side 81
> 4. 100% Bus 174 72
>
> I'll best most people have only seen one of them, and its probably Toy
> Story 2.
Given that there's at least a hundred movies that got a 100% rating on
Rotten Tomatoes, stopping at #4 is pretty arbitrary, and frankly
disingenuous. Here's the top hundred. I recognize the vast majority,
and have seen at least half -- and I doubt that I would recognize that
number in 100 randomly selected movies. Also, "Evil Dead" gets a 100%
rating, so it's not just hoity toity art movies.
Rank T-meter Title No. of Reviews
1. 100% Man On Wire 141
2. 100% Toy Story 2 130
3. 100% Taxi to the Dark Side 81
4. 100% Bus 174 72
5. 100% A Hard Day's Night 71
6. 100% The Wizard of Oz 69
7. 100% Deliver Us From Evil 68
8. 100% Toy Story 65
9. 100% The Godfather 64
10. 100% Rear Window 58
11. 100% The Taste of Others 57
12. 100% Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love
the Bomb 56
13. 100% North by Northwest 56
14. 100% The Third Man 56
15. 100% Citizen Kane 53
16. 100% The Sweet Hereafter 53
17. 100% All About Eve 51
18. 100% Seven Samurai 49
19. 100% Afghan Star 49
20. 100% The 400 Blows 48
21. 100% Modern Times 47
22. 100% On the Waterfront 47
23. 100% Chinatown 46
24. 100% King Kong 46
25. 100% The Philadelphia Story 45
26. 100% Laura 44
27. 100% Repulsion 44
28. 100% Aliens 43
29. 100% Cool Hand Luke 43
30. 100% Singin' in the Rain 43
31. 100% The Evil Dead 42
32. 100% Sweet Smell of Success 41
33. 100% The Adventures of Robin Hood 40
34. 100% The Maltese Falcon 40
35. 100% The Terminator 40
36. 100% All the President's Men 39
37. 100% The Bride of Frankenstein 39
38. 100% The Conformist 39
39. 100% Life of Reilly 39
40. 100% Rashomon 38
41. 100% Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter Jr. 38
42. 100% Frankenstein 37
43. 100% M 37
44. 100% Mary Poppins 37
45. 100% Pinocchio 37
46. 100% Say Anything 37
47. 100% The Treasure of the Sierra Madre 37
48. 100% The Crying Game 37
49. 100% City Lights 36
50. 100% The Grapes of Wrath 36
51. 100% Invasion of the Body Snatchers 36
52. 100% Jaws 36
53. 100% The Road Warrior 36
54. 100% Top Hat 36
55. 100% Anatomy of a Murder 36
56. 100% 12 Angry Men 35
57. 100% Rebecca 35
58. 100% The Wages of Fear 35
59. 100% Husbands and Wives 34
60. 100% Pray the Devil Back to Hell 34
61. 100% You, the Living 34
62. 100% Fanny and Alexander 33
63. 100% Playtime 33
64. 100% The Last Picture Show 33
65. 100% The Vanishing 33
66. 100% Bob Roberts 33
67. 100% Still Walking 33
68. 100% The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari 32
69. 100% Rio Bravo 32
70. 100% The Taking of Pelham One Two Three 32
71. 100% Henry V 32
72. 100% Blue 32
73. 100% Before Sunrise 32
74. 100% The Young Girls of Rochefort 32
75. 100% The Birth of a Nation 31
76. 100% Shadow of a Doubt 31
77. 100% I Am Cuba 31
78. 100% Hukkle 31
79. 100% Live-In Maid 31
80. 100% The Order of Myths 31
81. 100% Cat on a Hot Tin Roof 30
82. 100% Ikiru 30
83. 100% My Left Foot 30
84. 100% The Odd Couple 30
85. 100% The Killer 30
86. 100% Quai des Orfèvres 30
87. 100% Yana's Friends 30
88. 100% The Gold Rush 29
89. 100% The Invisible Man 29
90. 100% Pepe Le Moko 29
91. 100% Battleship Potemkin 29
92. 100% Sullivan's Travels 29
93. 100% The Killers 29
94. 100% 29
95. 100% Marty 28
96. 100% My Life as a Dog 28
97. 100% White Heat 28
98. 100% The Decalogue Box Set 28
99. 100% Au Hasard Balthazar 28
100. 100% The African Queen
ROTF is nowhere near as good as Evil Dead
Gustavo!
Zobovor
> Given that there's at least a hundred movies that got a 100% rating on
> Rotten Tomatoes, stopping at #4 is pretty arbitrary, and frankly
> disingenuous. Here's the top hundred. I recognize the vast majority,
> and have seen at least half -- and I doubt that I would recognize that
> number in 100 randomly selected movies.
I'd just like to mention here that the list on Rotten Tomatoes is
heavily skewed, since it's ranked first by the number of reviews a
movie has accrued, and second by how many "fresh" vs. "rotten" ratings
it's gotten. Star Wars, for example, has been reviewed 62 times,
which should have put it ahead of 90 of the movies on that list—except
that four people gave it a "rotten" rating so that drops it off the
list completely.
The 2007 Transformers movie has been reviewed 209 times, more than any
of the movies on the Top 100 list. Ninety-one of the people who
reviewed it gave it a "rotten" rating, but if they hadn't bothered to
voice their opinion at all, then the remaining 118 positive reviews
would have earned the movie a ranking as the third best movie on the
site.
I would think that a more objective rating system would be less
focused on how many times somebody has submitted a review and more
focused on how each individual critic rated the film, but that's just
me.
Zob
SteveD
>Ninety-one of the people who
>reviewed it gave it a "rotten" rating, but if they hadn't bothered to
>voice their opinion at all, then the remaining 118 positive reviews
>would have earned the movie a ranking as the third best movie
...so if it wasn't so bad, it would have been good?
Travoltron
> Want to argue with me about the merits or lack thereof of ROTF? Then
> state what YOU didn't like, not what a critic told you not to like. Form
> your OWN opinion. That's the one we're all ENTITLED to, so lets use it,
> hmm?
You were the one that implied it was only bitchy TF fans that hated it.
I showed you that there were plenty of "mainstream" folk that hated it
as well.
The critics were much kinder to the first one and these same people
hated the second.
I could give you my opinion if you really want it, but they're pretty
much the same as the other fans' complaints.
Travoltron
Agree.
Also there's a big difference between simple film critics and the
Academy Awards.
Zobovor
> ...so if it wasn't so bad, it would have been good?
You're funny.
Let's put it another way: Rotten Tomatoes says that The Terminator is
one of the 100 best movies of all time because 40 people gave it a
"fresh" rating. That's really not a lot of people, not compared to
the 209 people who reviewed Transformers or the 227 people who
reviewed Revenge of the Fallen. Now, I happen to enjoy the Terminator
movies but I feel like the first one is by far the weakest of the
films, with laughably unconvincing special effects and wooden acting.
It was a pretty good movie in 1984, but by today's standards I don't
believe it's one of the best 100 movies ever made, by any stretch of
the imagination. It's also not really worth it to me to take the time
to register with the site and write up a review, though, so the movie
will likely keep its ranking for the forseeable future.
Really, though, this is hardly an objective rating system. It's one
of the best 100 movies in existence just because 40 people liked it?
Seriously? What about the 58 people who also liked Star Wars? Why do
their votes get cancelled out? Moreover, Toy Story 2 isn't
intrinsically better than Citizen Kane or The Wizard of Oz—it just
gets a higher ranking because more contributors have written a review
about it.
Zob
SteveD
>Really, though, this is hardly an objective rating system. It's one
>of the best 100 movies in existence just because 40 people liked it?
>Seriously? What about the 58 people who also liked Star Wars? Why do
>their votes get cancelled out?
Without making a judgement call on the pros and cons of the site's
calculation method, I would guess that it was picked because of the ease
not only of calculating percentages, but the similar ease of explaining
the calculation system.
"94% of critics, including 88% of top-level critics, and 95% of the RT
community /that we know of/ liked _Star Wars_."
"100% of critics, including 100% of top-level critics, and 95% of the RT
community /that we know of/ liked _The Terminator_. So, for the moment,
until we get more information, we're ranking it above _Star Wars_."
I'll give them points for stating the number of reviews next to each entry
in the top-ranking list, at least. It shows that they're being open about
some movies having more reviews than others. (And they don't list movies
with under 20 reviews.) But it's a lot easier for them to say "_The
African Queen_ ranks lower than _The Adventures of Robin Hood_ because it
had fewer reviews" than it is to implement a more complex assessment of
whether a given movie has any inherent social or cultural worth, good or
bad production values, or personal appeal to any particular person
browsing the website.
RT seems to be perfectly happy to be, at heart, a very quick-n-dirty movie
assessment site. It doesn't really pretend to be anything else.
-SteveD
Gr�e
4a63-a271-6...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> It's easy to say that the critics are elitist, and can't understand
> what real people enjoy. It's a cheap, lazy, anti-intellectual
> argument.
There are a lot of people out there, critics included, who will write and
say that they do not like or enjoy anything that the plebeians like, as a
way to make themselves seem more high-class. The same anonymity and
ambiguity that affords so much freedom on the internet also affords a lot
of disingenuity. There are people who have no lives who will come into a
TF board and forum and go through all the trouble of getting a dummy e-
mail account just to register, so they can post "Transformers suxxors!
Move out of your mom's house and quit playin' with baby toys, you virgin
losers!!!!!LOL". Why? To get a rise out of someone, to get attention, and
to make them feel better about themselves.
Critics are no different. They just get paid to do it. They are making
personally-preferenced observations on someone else's work; work, that
they themselves could not accomplish on their best day, and are usually
highly unqualified to make judgment calls on.
Give me a critic who's been to film school; I might take his critique
seriously. Give me a guy who writes scathing reviews because his
publisher tells him to because it sells papers, and I'm not likely to
listen to his opinions at all. Can you tell the difference on the written
page? Not unless you do some research. Do most people go to that trouble?
No. Quick question though: Who do you think most people will have heard
of, the film school grad, or the Simon Cowell clone?
> Did you know that Burger King hamburgers are artificially flavored to
> taste like hamburgers? It's true. Does that make them better or worse,
> or are they simply a bizarre post-modern interpretation of what could
> have been a fairly natural food? In the end, does it matter that they
> are artificially flavored to taste like burgers, if they are actually
> burgers?
Not to me. They're yummy.
> Also, sushi is delicious.
Would you like a side of diphyllobothrium with your anisakis and mercury
dip? Yum yum!
> I don't think that anyone who has commented on ROTF hasn't seen it,
> and formed their own opinions of.
True, but how many people went into it jaded by their experience from the
first film? How many read online reviews first, and went in already
biased, and prepared to hate it?
How many went into it open minded, and gave it a chance? How many judged
it on its own merits?
> I think some of those people -- those who believe it to be a good
> movie -- are just plain, objectively wrong.
With opinions there are no "Rights" and no "Wrongs". Opinions are
objectively formed by a person's own likes, dislikes, and personal
tastes. That's a closed-minded statement you're making there. And you're
calling me "cheap, lazy, anti-intellectual"? I'm sure somebody, somewhere
liked Transformers 2, and would call it a good movie. Who are you to tell
them they are "wrong"?
> It's one thing to like ROTF despite its flaws, but to actually think
> that it is a good movie, well that's just wrong.
Please post your filmmaking resume or film school credentials. To say
that an opinion is "wrong", you have to be a certified expert in the
subject matter. I'd like to verify that if I may. If you cannot, or don't
have them, I'd appreciate a retraction. See also: Medical Opinion or
Legal Opinion.
> Given that there's at least a hundred movies that got a 100% rating on
> Rotten Tomatoes, stopping at #4 is pretty arbitrary, and frankly
> disingenuous. Here's the top hundred. I recognize the vast majority,
> and have seen at least half -- and I doubt that I would recognize that
> number in 100 randomly selected movies.
I stopped at #4 because its an even number, and if the everyman has only
seen 1 movie out of the top 4, well that's far more telling than say,
recognizing "two out of the top five", which omits the fact that it might
be number 5, and 2, which still would indicate that the top rated and
third and fourth highest rated are relatively unknown. But there is the
statement "two out of the top five", which sounds better than average. So
I narrowed it down to an even number, that being 4. Out of those 4, most
people will most likely only have seen 1. Of course, the larger you
broaden out the sample, the more the everyman will be able to recognize.
"Hey, I like 400 of the top 10,000,000 movies! Look at me, I've got good
taste!" isn't very impressive.
> Also, "Evil Dead" gets a 100% rating, so it's not just hoity toity art
> movies.
Time is a funny thing in that hindsight is always 20/20. Seeing the cult
classic status the movie has achieved, a critic would be immediately
disregarded as unhip if he said he hadn't seen the movie or that he had
seen it and thought it was garbage. The same can be said for "The
Terminator" being on the list. Seeing as how there was no internet around
at the time of release of either of these films during their theatrical
run, none of the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes can actually be from that
time period. If you actually read movie critic reviews from that time
period, they all probably slagged off both films.
And it just keeps going around and around. Who knows, in 25 years,
Transformers and Transformers 2 might have earned some status and
credibility as well.