chripala fuland chalyse
Flaviano Bada
You know that line in Captain America: Civil War where Spider-Man refers to The Empire Strikes Back as a "really old movie"? Well, the 2004 I, Robot movie is now just a little bit older than Tom Holland was at the time when he said that line.
If it's well done. But movies lately seem to have extremely lazy.. I don't know if I would only call it writing. Scripts seem to pick up and drop plot lines willy-nilly. You can often find and point to the seams where you can see some producer wanted a particular thing shoe horned into the movie. That's nothing new but better writers and directors could work around it without wrecking the entire film.
We have fewer talented people now and more people who just happen to be somebody's son or nephew or niece or whatever. That was always a bit of a problem in Hollywood but now it seems the permeate everything. The days of a carpenter getting a big break and taking off seem to be over. Although every now and then they do just pick somebody up because they happen to be physically gorgeous but that means they end up being terrible actors....
I doubt talent is the issue, if anything, the level of talent at every level of film making is higher than it's ever been. I think part of the problem is we glorify films from the past. Sure, there's some masterpieces, Godfather, the Good the Bad and the Ugly, Star Wars, etc, and those are still fantastic films to watch. But a cut below that? Even a lot of the "good" films from the era weren't that good, and a lot of the average films just plain suck. I'm betting that if some of these modern bad films were
Sounds like it's basically a remake of I, Robot, but with enough changes to appease the copyright gods. Funny how that formula almost always seems to produce a terrible movie, like how The Darkest Minds was pretty much just a terrible X-men rip-off.
Having just watched this a few days ago, the first impression I got from it is that it's more like Aliens, with a lead female character who has major emotional scarring from previous encounters with the foe, warns about how dangerous it is to the grunts who promptly ignore her, and predictably ends poorly for the latter.The biggest plot hole is they should have just nuked the planet from orbit - just like Ripley suggested in Aliens - since it's a basically uninhabitable hellhole it's not like the place woul
JLo isn't my favourite actor and it's hard to watch "Jenny from the block" fighting an AI robot that looks like he should be in a kungfu movie but it is what it is -- mindless action scifi fantasy entertainment.
I agree with this sentiment. In a world where sportsball exists as a massively popular entertainment, where it's just some dudes throwing a ball again, there's room for a dumb 'splosions movie.
That said, I haven't seen this so maybe it truly is crap.
Because that's what we ask of them. We want them to tell us whether a thing is good -- how many stars? Thumbs up or down? Seondarily, we really want them validate *our* opinions about a thing and get mad at them when they don't.
It's pointless. If you like something an expert's feelings about it shouldn't change that. And it's hopeless. A movie you can spend a tolerably entertaining mindless hour and a half on isn't going to land the same with someone who isn't allowed to turn off his brain. Imagine ha
Except nobody called a "critic" today does any of that. Instead what they do is deliberately celebrate ugliness and awfulness in all its forms, denigrate everyone who doesn't play along as the next Hitler, and demonize everything that's actually beautiful or well made or entertaining.
Maybe this particular movie shouldn't make you start a subscription to Netflix. It remains useful information along with the trailer, like to help me decide to get top shelf microwave popcorn or the coin-op variety. Like should I start streaming with The Spy Who Dumped Me instead, but settle down, this is only an example
Having just seen it tonight, it was watchable, not good for a theatre ticket or online rental but was entertaining. I'd give it a 55%.
I think 15% says it's completely unwatchable trash under any circumstances which is not a fair rating for this light easy to watch cgi action flick.
55% isn't great, but a 16 to 55 spread is. It's not just about how high the user rating is, it's also about how low the critic rating is. The more critics hate something the more likely it is to be good.
Honestly I have my issues with both. Take the Transformers movies as an example, Ive seen two of them and thoroughly disliked both. Looking at the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes I definitely agree far more with the much lower critic scores then I do with the higher user ones. On the other hand I have my own "dumb" movies I enjoy where my opinions line up far more with the user reviews than the critic ones.
I didn't like the first one at all but taste is relative and all that so i'm not saying there's anything wrong with enjoying it. The other one I saw (which a buddy had to talk me into seeing) was the one that introduced the dinobots into the series and that one I liked even less.
It didn't help on the last one I saw that the much hyped dinobots didn't show up until the last 10-15 minutes of an almost 3 hour movie but I don't even really enjoy the action scenes in those movies. I don't know if I can even enun
When there's a dramatic difference between so called professional reviewers and hordes of normal people, I go with the normal people.
What training or education is required to be a "professional" reviewer, anyway? They need to say something dramatic to get clicks.
Sure, like one knows what character development is, and the other, it doesn't matter? Can you put in writing what effort goes into making a good movie, and can you write well enough to be paid for it? Their job isn't to validate your opinion or shock you.
There's a dramatic difference between only smoking cigarettes, and going out of your way to denigrate people that differentiate and critique fine cigars. Either way their opinions don't matter to you but only one is dumb.
55% is fair. It was a simple plot with a few not bad lines, not terrible acting, and had a respectable and not surprising ending with a few plot holes along the way as some standard CGI action floated by.
1) It reads the internet and becomes the worst possible Racist Nazi, and then steals massive amounts of advertising time to try and convince us to vote for someone that makes Hitler seem like a nice guy.
1. is not AI, it's a computer program reflecting the data that is fed to it. It's not making a judgement based on facts or even a moral interpretation, it's taking the judgements of others. As such, it's not capable of determining a future action. A Nazi supporting AI has been fed bad data. In this regard it is less capable of independent thought or decision making than a 6 yr old.
If we ever do develop strong AI (AGI) is that it will develop it's own morality, it's own judgements based on experiences and
I started watching this show without knowing anything about it. The first handful of episodes are super cheesy and it was just something to watch in the background while working... and then I was completely enthralled with the plot with some wild twists. I don't want to spoil it for anyone, but highly recommend watching it!
then the power went out. Not sure if I'm going back. I thnk netflix needs better stuff. It seems all anime (cartoon person running and yelling in every fucking preview) Dubbed so badly it's unwatchable or just plain stupid "comedy" shows that aren't funny.
Starting to wonder why I subscribe.
In the trailer she enters a planet's atmosphere from space and hits the ground in a poorly designed mech at terminal velocity. Somehow J-Lo is not turned into Jello. Oh boy, pop some corn, here we go again.
While the burn didn't seem long enough to bring the gees down to a survivable level, there were thrusters involved prior to impact. This is one of the least offensive things in the movie when it comes to testing your suspension of disbelief.
Our world has always been interested in computers and machines, and the very idea of technology turning against us is unsettling. That's why "Atlas" works as a movie, but professional critics have other things to say.
This is a story that goes back even further if we expand the idea of technology turning against us, such as with Frankenstein's monster or so many myths before that. I could argue that many creation myths is a kind of story of technology turning against the creator with humans as the creation turning against their creator.
Just because a basic story line has been told before doesn't make some new movie bad. We like old stories. The reason so many stories are retold is because they teach us lessons, remind us of something about our own lives, and more. If a story fails to gain an audience then I suspect it is because it has deviated too far from stories we heard before.
Old stories are fine so long as they're presented in a way that is entertaining. Take the 1998 Armageddon movie as an example. It's a by-the-numbers big budget sci-fi action flick, but it has an 84% approval rating on Google. Why was it good? Because it had likeable characters, a catchy soundtrack, and the kind of suspense and action you expect from a blockbuster popcorn flick.
I suspect the bigger issue is that new movies have to compete with a back catalog of flicks that have done a better job telling the same story. Why watch a terrible homage to Terminator when you could just watch the original?
I suspect the bigger issue is that new movies have to compete with a back catalog of flicks that have done a better job telling the same story. Why watch a terrible homage to Terminator when you could just watch the original?
90f70e40cf