On Sun, 13 May 2012 00:46:12 -0400, ZZH...@yahoo.com wrote:
>On Sat, 12 May 2012 19:08:17 -0400, EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>It's not something I cared about seeing anyway but it's hard to just dismiss
>>all the professional critics saying the same thing whether they liked it or
>>not. Are we supposed to believe you over them?
>The folloowing is a list of critics who I rely on for opinions on
>movies:
>[leff blank because they are all full of shi*]
>[I don't trust any of them.]
I don't trust critics opinions either but usually read a variety of them to
find a synopsis of the movie. I wasn't saying you're less truthful or
anything. Just you have a different perception. Words like "campy and
"comedy" and "parody" get repeated a lot among the professional critics.
> Not for the first time, Johnny Depp is all dressed up — this time as an
> elegant 19th-century vampire unleashed in 1972 — with nowhere
> particularly coherent to go in Tim Burton’s campy riff on the old TV soap
> opera “Dark Shadows.’’
> Though nearly as confusing as their wildly popular take on “Alice in
> Wonderland,’’ Depp and Burton’s eighth collaboration is more fun, perhaps
> more to the point, and it looks far better. It’s not in
> headache-inducingly bad 3-D like its predecessor, so you can fully
> appreciate the magical special effects, gorgeous costumes and amazing set
> design — as well as such period artifacts as lava lamps, macramé and
> troll dolls.
> These touches are more satisfying than a convoluted script by
> genre-bender Seth Grahame-Smith (the upcoming “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire
> Hunter’’) that often falls short in its attempt to combine a
> fish-out-of-water comedy with a Gothic romantic thriller.
Reviews on the Run gave it a rousing "Not as bad as I expected."
I just heard the Filmspotting boys, Adam Kempenaar and Josh Larsen.
Kempenaar is a big Tim Burton fan. Larsen said he would have skipped the
film, but saw it at a screening with Kempenaar.
Both disliked the film.
Interestingly, they didn't condemn the film for the humor emphasized
in trailers, which gives the audience the distinct impression that Burton
and Depp are winking at the source material and Depp is mugging throughout
the film.
Instead, the major condemnation is for Burton's usual lack of story structure.
Kempenaar even apologizes for the way Burton tells stories, as he has a
unifying theme throughout the picture despite the lack of story.
This film lacked a unifying theme. Instead, it has a choice of a number of
possible stories and doesn't attempt to tell any of them.
They recommend that Burton and Depp collaborate no more.
Filmspotting is an oddball program. Its Web site is filmspotting.net. It's
primary media is a podcast. It's produced in association with WBEZ radio
of Chicago, but not at its studios. It's not even based in Chicago. It's
aired on some public radio stations, apparently syndicated to them directly,
as it's not distributed through the four public radio networks/program
distribution sources.
> On Sat, 12 May 2012 19:08:17 -0400, EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>It's not something I cared about seeing anyway but it's hard to just
>>dismiss all the professional critics saying the same thing whether
>>they liked it or not. Are we supposed to believe you over them?
> The folloowing is a list of critics who I rely on for opinions on
> movies:
> [leff blank because they are all full of shi*]
> [I don't trust any of them.]
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 00:46:12 -0400, ZZH...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>On Sat, 12 May 2012 19:08:17 -0400, EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>It's not something I cared about seeing anyway but it's hard to just
>>>dismiss all the professional critics saying the same thing whether
>>>they liked it or not. Are we supposed to believe you over them?
>>The folloowing is a list of critics who I rely on for opinions on
>>movies:
>>[leff blank because they are all full of shi*]
>>[I don't trust any of them.]
> I don't trust critics opinions either but usually read a variety of
> them to find a synopsis of the movie. I wasn't saying you're less
> truthful or anything. Just you have a different perception. Words
> like "campy and "comedy" and "parody" get repeated a lot among the
> professional critics.
So you want to know what happens in the movie before you see it?
Critics have professional criteria to judge a movie. Most people don't like critics because they don't agree with their opinion and of course the common people's opinion is right and the professional who gets paid to do the job is automatically wrong. The "It was a good movie because I liked it" argument is one of the most idiotic statements of all time.
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 00:46:12 -0400, ZZH...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 19:08:17 -0400, EGK<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>> It's not something I cared about seeing anyway but it's hard to just
>>>> dismiss all the professional critics saying the same thing whether
>>>> they liked it or not. Are we supposed to believe you over them?
>>> The folloowing is a list of critics who I rely on for opinions on
>>> movies:
>>> [leff blank because they are all full of shi*]
>>> [I don't trust any of them.]
>> I don't trust critics opinions either but usually read a variety of
>> them to find a synopsis of the movie. I wasn't saying you're less
>> truthful or anything. Just you have a different perception. Words
>> like "campy and "comedy" and "parody" get repeated a lot among the
>> professional critics.
> So you want to know what happens in the movie before you see it?
> Critics have professional criteria to judge a movie. Most people don't
> like critics because they don't agree with their opinion and of course the
> common people's opinion is right and the professional who gets paid to do
> the job is automatically wrong. The "It was a good movie because I liked
> it" argument is one of the most idiotic statements of all time.
There are 2 important number on RottenTomatoes: the critical consensus and the audience consensus. Only 43% of the critics on RT liked the DS movie. That's okay, since a lot of movies that I enjoy get crappy ratings. "John Carter," which I quite liked, only scored 52% with the critics, but 68% of the audience liked it. DS now stands at 42% with the critics, but it's telling that only 58% of the audience likes it. So only a little over half of the audience thought it was any good. Those aren't good numbers. For comparison, "The Avengers," which I loved, is at 93% with critics and a whopping 96% of the audience liked it. I'm still considering seeing it today, but definitely not decided.
ZZH...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2012 11:52:36 -0700, anim8rFSK<anim8r...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>> In article<jr2tq7hpb3k6vh1srmmbf6cdgida276...@4ax.com>,
>> Mike S.<M...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 May 2012 19:27:42 -0400, ZZH...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> As someone who saw the movie today I have to take issue with the term
>>>> "Campy." There are a few ligth hearted moments, not really enough
>>>> to qualify as campy. This film is not campy, it is not a comedy.
>>>> All in all it's an excellent film, very well done.
>>> Goddamn some of you need to learn how to snip posts.
>>> Where Dark Shadows is concerned, campy I'm ok with. Comedy I am not.
>>> So are you telling me that trailer's tone was inaccurate?
>> Yes. The trailer makes it look BETTER than it is.
>> Apparently the first part is set in the 1700s and fairly serious, but
>> once they get to 1972, it's all unfunny laughs.
> Wrong. The first five minutes takes plae in the 1700s from the family
> leaving Liverpool in the 1760s. They have the part where Barnabas
> gets chained in the cofin. Most of the movie is very serious, with
> a few light hearted moments sprinkled in. Not enough to call
> it a comedy or campy.
> The trailer completley misrepresents the film.
> 7/8 of the film is very serious, 1/8 of it has some humorous
> moments.
Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article<41qtq7tj3jg8ggoe8un0bqc3ejndmp8...@4ax.com>,
> <7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 13:00:53 -0700, poisoned rose
>> <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
>>> Oh, one more thing: How come so many of the vampire's victims just stay
>>> dead?
>> I don't think they ever did it in Dark Shadows but in other vampire
>> stories the human has to be "brought accross" to become a vampire.
>> it has to be done slowly, too much blood taken and it results in a
>> dead human.
>> Forever Knight had some nice episodes along this line. I don't think
>> ever Dark Shadows did.
>> Was Forever Knight the fiirst to use the concept of having a human
>> "brought" accross?
> It's fairly common in vampire books.
In "Dracula," (some of the movies, if not the novel, I don't remember for sure), didn't his victim have to drink his blood to become a vampire? That's a pretty common theme in vampire fiction.
> >> On Sun, 13 May 2012 00:46:12 -0400, ZZH...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 19:08:17 -0400, EGK<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >>>> It's not something I cared about seeing anyway but it's hard to just
> >>>> dismiss all the professional critics saying the same thing whether
> >>>> they liked it or not. Are we supposed to believe you over them?
> >>> The folloowing is a list of critics who I rely on for opinions on
> >>> movies:
> >>> [leff blank because they are all full of shi*]
> >>> [I don't trust any of them.]
> >> I don't trust critics opinions either but usually read a variety of
> >> them to find a synopsis of the movie. I wasn't saying you're less
> >> truthful or anything. Just you have a different perception. Words
> >> like "campy and "comedy" and "parody" get repeated a lot among the
> >> professional critics.
> > So you want to know what happens in the movie before you see it?
> > Critics have professional criteria to judge a movie. Most people don't
> > like critics because they don't agree with their opinion and of course the
> > common people's opinion is right and the professional who gets paid to do
> > the job is automatically wrong. The "It was a good movie because I liked
> > it" argument is one of the most idiotic statements of all time.
> There are 2 important number on RottenTomatoes: the critical consensus > and the audience consensus. Only 43% of the critics on RT liked the DS > movie. That's okay, since a lot of movies that I enjoy get crappy > ratings. "John Carter," which I quite liked, only scored 52% with the > critics, but 68% of the audience liked it. DS now stands at 42% with the > critics, but it's telling that only 58% of the audience likes it. So > only a little over half of the audience thought it was any good. Those > aren't good numbers. For comparison, "The Avengers," which I loved, is > at 93% with critics and a whopping 96% of the audience liked it. I'm > still considering seeing it today, but definitely not decided.
In article <jonkbp$73...@news.albasani.net>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> I just heard the Filmspotting boys, Adam Kempenaar and Josh Larsen.
> Kempenaar is a big Tim Burton fan. Larsen said he would have skipped the
> film, but saw it at a screening with Kempenaar.
> Both disliked the film.
> Interestingly, they didn't condemn the film for the humor emphasized
> in trailers, which gives the audience the distinct impression that Burton
> and Depp are winking at the source material and Depp is mugging throughout
> the film.
> Instead, the major condemnation is for Burton's usual lack of story structure.
Which is amazing given that he's just remaking something that's already been done 3 times.
> Kempenaar even apologizes for the way Burton tells stories, as he has a
> unifying theme throughout the picture despite the lack of story.
> This film lacked a unifying theme. Instead, it has a choice of a number of
> possible stories and doesn't attempt to tell any of them.
> They recommend that Burton and Depp collaborate no more.
Wouldn't Burton getting out of the business make more sense? Does he do good work without Depp?
> Filmspotting is an oddball program. Its Web site is filmspotting.net. It's
> primary media is a podcast. It's produced in association with WBEZ radio
> of Chicago, but not at its studios. It's not even based in Chicago. It's
> aired on some public radio stations, apparently syndicated to them directly,
> as it's not distributed through the four public radio networks/program
> distribution sources.
-- So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 00:46:12 -0400, ZZH...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 19:08:17 -0400, EGK<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>> It's not something I cared about seeing anyway but it's hard to just
>>>> dismiss all the professional critics saying the same thing whether
>>>> they liked it or not. Are we supposed to believe you over them?
>>> The folloowing is a list of critics who I rely on for opinions on
>>> movies:
>>> [leff blank because they are all full of shi*]
>>> [I don't trust any of them.]
>> I don't trust critics opinions either but usually read a variety of
>> them to find a synopsis of the movie. I wasn't saying you're less
>> truthful or anything. Just you have a different perception. Words
>> like "campy and "comedy" and "parody" get repeated a lot among the
>> professional critics.
> So you want to know what happens in the movie before you see it?
> Critics have professional criteria to judge a movie. Most people don't
> like critics because they don't agree with their opinion and of course the
> common people's opinion is right and the professional who gets paid to do
> the job is automatically wrong. The "It was a good movie because I liked
> it" argument is one of the most idiotic statements of all time.
Why would I care whether a movie is good when it isn't interesting?
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 00:46:12 -0400, ZZH...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>On Sat, 12 May 2012 19:08:17 -0400, EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>It's not something I cared about seeing anyway but it's hard to just
>>>>dismiss all the professional critics saying the same thing whether
>>>>they liked it or not. Are we supposed to believe you over them?
>>>The folloowing is a list of critics who I rely on for opinions on
>>>movies:
>>>[leff blank because they are all full of shi*]
>>>[I don't trust any of them.]
>> I don't trust critics opinions either but usually read a variety of
>> them to find a synopsis of the movie. I wasn't saying you're less
>> truthful or anything. Just you have a different perception. Words
>> like "campy and "comedy" and "parody" get repeated a lot among the
>> professional critics.
>So you want to know what happens in the movie before you see it?
>Critics have professional criteria to judge a movie. Most people don't >like critics because they don't agree with their opinion and of course the >common people's opinion is right and the professional who gets paid to do >the job is automatically wrong. The "It was a good movie because I liked >it" argument is one of the most idiotic statements of all time.
I don't want spoilers but I do want to know a little bit what a movie is
about to see if it's something i'm interested in. Then if I watch it I can
make up my own mind whether I liked it or not.
Clint Eastwood was one of the few stars who I would ever go to a movie just
because he was in it. It's fashionable nowadays for critics to praise him
but during his prime he was mostly savaged by critics. It never stopped me
from going to and liking his movies.
On Sun, 13 May 2012 06:47:17 GMT, Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Critics have professional criteria to judge a movie.
Wrong. Too many cri8tics go into a movie and will slam it if
isn't Gone with the Wind.
Also they will slam a movie if they got stuck in traffic that day, got into an arguement with his wife, or had his lunch screwed up.
>Most people don't >like critics because they don't agree with their opinion and of course the >common people's opinion is right and the professional who gets paid to do >the job is automatically wrong.
A number of times critics will slam a movie, the average movie goer
will love it, and the movie will; gross $139,000 domestically the
first weekend..
Too many criitics go into a movie convinced that they will hate the
movie before they even step out of the car in the parking lot.
Also as a fan of Dark Shadows/Forever Knight/Buffy/Angel/etc.
too many critics hate vampire moves and will automaticlally slam it.
On Sun, 13 May 2012 06:29:13 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>Instead, the major condemnation is for Burton's usual lack of story structure.
Did they see the same movie I did? The film absolutely has a story structure.
Did these critics even watch the movie?
I read so many of these reviews and have to wonder did they only watch the first five minutes? Did they sleep through it?
Did they stumble into the wrong theater? Were they busy
texting on their phone?
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 06:29:13 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Instead, the major condemnation is for Burton's usual lack of story
>>structure. > Did they see the same movie I did? The film absolutely has a story > structure.
> Did these critics even watch the movie?
> I read so many of these reviews and have to wonder did they > only watch the first five minutes? Did they sleep through it?
> Did they stumble into the wrong theater? Were they busy
> texting on their phone?
> > > On Sat, 12 May 2012 13:00:53 -0700, poisoned rose
> > > <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
> > > >Oh, one more thing: How come so many of the vampire's victims just stay
> > > >dead?
> > > I don't think they ever did it in Dark Shadows but in other vampire
> > > stories the human has to be "brought accross" to become a vampire.
> > > it has to be done slowly, too much blood taken and it results in a
> > > dead human.
> > > Forever Knight had some nice episodes along this line. I don't think
> > > ever Dark Shadows did.
> > > Was Forever Knight the fiirst to use the concept of having a human
> > > "brought" accross?
> > Lucy Westenra in Dracula?
> How soon they reinvent...
Speaking of reinventions and human beings being "brought" across, I
watched The Hunger last night for the first time in quite awhile. The
movie opens with Bauhaus performing "Bela Lugosi's Dead" which is so
goth that if you look up goth in the dictionary you'll see a picture
of Bauhaus performing "Bela Lugosi's Dead" but still they get listed
in the credits as a a "disco group". I was blown away by the film
style at the time--my god, this is the 2001 of horror movies! I might
have even thought (since at the time the real 2001 of horror movies
The Shining hadn't had time to improve with age). But watching it now
you can see that all Tony Scott is doing is filming the movie like a
commercial which I don't remember anyone else doing at the time, the
early eighties. iirc, Ebert was pretty turned on by the Deneuve
Sarandon girl girl action.
> > > > On Sat, 12 May 2012 13:00:53 -0700, poisoned rose
> > > > <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
> > > > >Oh, one more thing: How come so many of the vampire's victims just stay
> > > > >dead?
> > > > I don't think they ever did it in Dark Shadows but in other vampire
> > > > stories the human has to be "brought accross" to become a vampire.
> > > > it has to be done slowly, too much blood taken and it results in a
> > > > dead human.
> > > > Forever Knight had some nice episodes along this line. I don't think
> > > > ever Dark Shadows did.
> > > > Was Forever Knight the fiirst to use the concept of having a human
> > > > "brought" accross?
> > > Lucy Westenra in Dracula?
> > How soon they reinvent...
> > Btw, I had my clock set for 'Black Cat' on ChillerTV tonight, but it
> > got bumped for a goddamned 'Dark Shadows' marathon... not that I'm
> > bitter...
> And not even the original DS, but the '91-ish resurrection with Ben
> Cross.
> Tom
I kinda want to see that again though. I've been looking around for a
bootleg version of the 2004 remake pilot but while it seems to have
had some public screenings it doesn't look to be available anywhere.
In article <8ueuq75ahfr3u3eegdfjm3u57co37gd...@4ax.com>,
<ZZH...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2012 19:08:17 -0400, EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >It's not something I cared about seeing anyway but it's hard to just dismiss
> >all the professional critics saying the same thing whether they liked it or
> >not. Are we supposed to believe you over them?
> The folloowing is a list of critics who I rely on for opinions on
> movies:
> [leff blank because they are all full of shi*]
> [I don't trust any of them.]
The advantage of a professional critic over someone like you is that by
reading their work over a number of years, I can get a good idea of
what they like and don't like. I can compare what they said about a
movie to my opinion, and use that to interpret new reviews.
You, on the other hand, are a stranger who could like all kinds of
movies I hate. There's no reason to listen to you.
-- Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
On Sun, 13 May 2012 04:08:30 -0400, Kishin <n...@yobizz.ness> wrote:
>Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article<41qtq7tj3jg8ggoe8un0bqc3ejndmp8...@4ax.com>,
>> <7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 13:00:53 -0700, poisoned rose
>>> <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
>>>> Oh, one more thing: How come so many of the vampire's victims just stay
>>>> dead?
>>> I don't think they ever did it in Dark Shadows but in other vampire
>>> stories the human has to be "brought accross" to become a vampire.
>>> it has to be done slowly, too much blood taken and it results in a
>>> dead human.
>>> Forever Knight had some nice episodes along this line. I don't think
>>> ever Dark Shadows did.
>>> Was Forever Knight the fiirst to use the concept of having a human
>>> "brought" accross?
>> It's fairly common in vampire books.
>In "Dracula," (some of the movies, if not the novel, I don't remember >for sure), didn't his victim have to drink his blood to become a >vampire? That's a pretty common theme in vampire fiction.
Different stories have different lore. One clarification about the
novel _Dracula_: it never actually specifies that turning a victim
into another vampire rather than just a drained corpse is accomplished
through having them drink some of his blood before they die, though
that it is the common perception that has carried over into other
stories. The only scene in the novel in which he does this is to the
still-living Mina Harker, not to turn her into a vampire but to
establish a psychic link with her so that he can track his hunters'
movements through her. His fatal mistake is in not realizing that they
can also use her to track him.
> > > > On Sat, 12 May 2012 13:00:53 -0700, poisoned rose
> > > > <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
> > > > >Oh, one more thing: How come so many of the vampire's victims just stay
> > > > >dead?
> > > > I don't think they ever did it in Dark Shadows but in other vampire
> > > > stories the human has to be "brought accross" to become a vampire.
> > > > it has to be done slowly, too much blood taken and it results in a
> > > > dead human.
> > > > Forever Knight had some nice episodes along this line. I don't think
> > > > ever Dark Shadows did.
> > > > Was Forever Knight the fiirst to use the concept of having a human
> > > > "brought" accross?
> > > Lucy Westenra in Dracula?
> > How soon they reinvent...
> Speaking of reinventions and human beings being "brought" across, I
> watched The Hunger last night for the first time in quite awhile. The
> movie opens with Bauhaus performing "Bela Lugosi's Dead" which is so
> goth that if you look up goth in the dictionary you'll see a picture
> of Bauhaus performing "Bela Lugosi's Dead" but still they get listed
> in the credits as a a "disco group". I was blown away by the film
> style at the time--my god, this is the 2001 of horror movies! I might
> have even thought (since at the time the real 2001 of horror movies
> The Shining hadn't had time to improve with age). But watching it now
> you can see that all Tony Scott is doing is filming the movie like a
> commercial which I don't remember anyone else doing at the time, the
> early eighties. iirc, Ebert was pretty turned on by the Deneuve
> Sarandon girl girl action.
Your horror tastes are more sophisticated than mine. I put THE HUNGER
in the same caste as, say, the previous decade's DAUGHTERS OF DARKNESS
-- vampires without teeth. Even if it's Catherine Deneuve, I need a
little Linda Blair scare... (Btw, Ebert, a free spirit, dated Oprah.)
> > > > > On Sat, 12 May 2012 13:00:53 -0700, poisoned rose
> > > > > <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
> > > > > >Oh, one more thing: How come so many of the vampire's victims just stay
> > > > > >dead?
> > > > > I don't think they ever did it in Dark Shadows but in other vampire
> > > > > stories the human has to be "brought accross" to become a vampire.
> > > > > it has to be done slowly, too much blood taken and it results in a
> > > > > dead human.
> > > > > Forever Knight had some nice episodes along this line. I don't think
> > > > > ever Dark Shadows did.
> > > > > Was Forever Knight the fiirst to use the concept of having a human
> > > > > "brought" accross?
> > > > Lucy Westenra in Dracula?
> > > How soon they reinvent...
> > Speaking of reinventions and human beings being "brought" across, I
> > watched The Hunger last night for the first time in quite awhile. The
> > movie opens with Bauhaus performing "Bela Lugosi's Dead" which is so
> > goth that if you look up goth in the dictionary you'll see a picture
> > of Bauhaus performing "Bela Lugosi's Dead" but still they get listed
> > in the credits as a a "disco group". I was blown away by the film
> > style at the time--my god, this is the 2001 of horror movies! I might
> > have even thought (since at the time the real 2001 of horror movies
> > The Shining hadn't had time to improve with age). But watching it now
> > you can see that all Tony Scott is doing is filming the movie like a
> > commercial which I don't remember anyone else doing at the time, the
> > early eighties. iirc, Ebert was pretty turned on by the Deneuve
> > Sarandon girl girl action.
> Your horror tastes are more sophisticated than mine. I put THE HUNGER
> in the same caste as, say, the previous decade's DAUGHTERS OF DARKNESS
> -- vampires without teeth. Even if it's Catherine Deneuve, I need a
> little Linda Blair scare... (Btw, Ebert, a free spirit, dated Oprah.)
Yeah, The Hunger's dated badly, mainly because what looked like
visionary film style from brother Tony then just looks like commercial/
MTV superficiality now. But compared to the glut of romantic vampires
that followed, it has a nastiness and a ruthlessness that the Twilight
series seriously lacks. There are echoes of The Hunger in Let the
Right One In/Let Me In.
ZZH...@yahoo.com wrote:
>Did these critics even watch the movie?
>I read so many of these reviews and have to wonder did they >only watch the first five minutes? Did they sleep through it?
>Did they stumble into the wrong theater? Were they busy
>texting on their phone?
I provided you with their Web site. It tells you how to contact them.
Moviegoeers do it all the time. Feel free to tell them why they're
wrong. No point in telling me. I don't intend to see the movie.
> In article<2u7rq75qcuc4cc29fflh3vdslbstgn3...@4ax.com>,
> <ZZH...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 May 2012 5:20:21 -0400, Ubiquitous<web...@polaris.net>
>> wrote:
>>> By LOU LUMENICK
>>> Last Updated: 2:00 PM, May 11, 2012
>>> Posted: 11:16 PM, May 10, 2012
>>> Not for the first time, Johnny Depp is all dressed up — this time as an
>>> elegant 19th-century vampire unleashed in 1972 — with nowhere
>>> particularly coherent to go in Tim Burton’s campy riff on the old TV soap
>>> opera “Dark Shadows.’’
>> As someone who saw the movie today I have to take issue with the term
>> "Campy." There are a few ligth hearted moments, not really enough
>> to qualify as campy. This film is not campy, it is not a comedy.
>> All in all it's an excellent film, very well done.
>> .
> Wait, what!? It's *not* a comedy? The trailer I saw certainly pitched it
> as a comedy, and that's the only reason I was considering seeing it..
It *is* a comedy. Unfortunately they put the best jokes in the commercials. I never saw the original and don't remember the remake so I took it as is without comparing it to anything else. I was pleasantly surprised by how watchable it turned out to be. Not great but it held my interest.
On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:58:31 -0400, Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com>
wrote:
>The advantage of a professional critic over someone like you is that by
>reading their work over a number of years, I can get a good idea of
>what they like and don't like. I can compare what they said about a
>movie to my opinion, and use that to interpret new reviews.
Yeah and I can read the reviews of many a reviewer and
draw the conclusion they hate science ficction and fantasy
movies espeically if it's Star Wars, Twilight, or IWAV.
Since the movies i go to see are science fiction and fantasy that elimanates most reviews that I can trust.
>You, on the other hand, are a stranger who could like all kinds of
>movies I hate. There's no reason to listen to you.
But then I don't publish my reviews in the local newsper or put those
reviews on TV.
