karryon99v2
Sophomore
@karryon99v2
Posts: 188
Likes: 87
|
Post by karryon99v2 on Nov 6, 2017 21:35:56 GMT
Any of you guys not interested or anticipating seeing this movie?I've seen the original 1974 one (which received some Oscar nominations and one win)...
|
|
|
Post by leesilm on Nov 6, 2017 22:15:16 GMT
Planning to see it, with or without anyone else coming along.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 7, 2017 0:18:40 GMT
Yeah I'm planning on seeing it. Nice to see an Agatha Christie story made into a theatrical big budget movie again instead of some tv miniseries. Though the 2015 AND THEN THERE WERE NONE was pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Nov 7, 2017 0:28:33 GMT
I'd like to see it. Looks like it might be fun. I've never seen any of the prior versions.
|
|
|
Post by ShrunkenHeadonKnightBus on Nov 7, 2017 0:34:56 GMT
It's Kenneth Branagh directing in 65 mm. I'm sold.
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Nov 7, 2017 5:26:56 GMT
I'm not very interested but my sister wants to see it so I might be a good brother and go with her.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2017 21:10:12 GMT
It's getting fairly mediocre reviews leaning toward positive. It's sitting at a 60% on RT I think.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Nov 7, 2017 21:22:45 GMT
Yes, I want to see it!
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 7, 2017 22:02:56 GMT
It's getting fairly mediocre reviews leaning toward positive. It's sitting at a 60% on RT I think. 64% at the moment now. As I figured, some critics seem turned off by the old-fashioned style. Well yeah it's in the '30s, not now.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Nov 7, 2017 22:17:13 GMT
Michelle Pfeiffer looks good in this!
She's going to be 60 next year and she's still gorgeous.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 7, 2017 22:18:51 GMT
I'm going to see the picture and hope that it's good, but I will say that--because of it, though it's not its fault--I have now read the worst movie review I've ever read in my life, this one by IndieWire's David Ehrlich. The review is written by a man who clearly doesn't understand the genre--which shouldn't be much all that much of a problem except that Mr. Ehrlich attempts to explain the intricacies of cinematic whodunits when he doesn't know the first thing about them. His pretentiousness would be amusing if it weren't so vacuous. Then he uses such colloquialisms as "half-assed" in the review--dear God, why are we so lucky to have your delightful choice of adjectives, Ehrlich? Why don't you throw some other swear words, not for any real purpose but just to show us how hip and modern you are?--and then advocates for disrespecting the source material. (How'd you phrase it, Ehrlich? It's "...a creaky old whodunnit in this day and age..."? Heck, why do we even need whodunits anymore? We're just so enlightened, intelligent, and modern, after all, and whodunits are old, and everyone knows anything old is stupid--just like that other old guy whose work Branagh adapted, Shakespeare. Modern people don't need that. He should focus more on new, hip, wow stuff, like Thor--oh, yeah, man, that's what's in nowadays! Spandex and incessant explosions forever! Whew!) Sorry for all the sarcasm, folks. I know it has nothing to do with the movie per se, but I really grew annoyed at this review.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Nov 7, 2017 22:25:26 GMT
I'm going to see the picture and hope that it's good, but I will say that--because of it, though it's not its fault--I have now read the worst movie review I've ever read in my life, this one by IndieWire's David Ehrlich. The review is written by a man who clearly doesn't understand the genre--which shouldn't be much all that much of a problem except that Mr. Ehrlich attempts to explain the intricacies of cinematic whodunits when he doesn't know the first thing about them. His pretentiousness would be amusing if it weren't so vacuous. Then he uses such colloquialisms as "half-assed" in the review--dear God, why are we so lucky to have your delightful choice of adjectives, Ehrlich? Why don't you throw some other swear words, not for any real purpose but just to show us how hip and modern you are?--and then advocates for disrespecting the source material. (How'd you phrase it, Ehrlich? It's "...a creaky old whodunnit in this day and age..."? Heck, why do we even need whodunits anymore? We're just so enlightened, intelligent, and modern, after all, and whodunits are old, and everyone knows anything old is stupid--just like that other old guy whose work Branagh adapted, Shakespeare. Modern people don't need that. He should focus more on new, hip, wow stuff, like Thor--oh, yeah, man, that's what's in nowadays! Spandex and incessant explosions forever! Whew!) Sorry for all the sarcasm, folks. I know it has nothing to do with the movie per se, but I really grew annoyed at this review. I don't blame you!! Sometimes I think critics believe they are witty and oh-so-clever when they trash movies they don't like (as if this is their purpose in life). It's why I don't take most of them all that seriously unless a movie is 95% or something on Rotten Tomatoes (and then I start to think maybe I should take a look if they all like it so much).
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Nov 7, 2017 22:27:30 GMT
I'm going to see the picture and hope that it's good, but I will say that--because of it, though it's not its fault--I have now read the worst movie review I've ever read in my life, this one by IndieWire's David Ehrlich. The review is written by a man who clearly doesn't understand the genre--which shouldn't be much all that much of a problem except that Mr. Ehrlich attempts to explain the intricacies of cinematic whodunits when he doesn't know the first thing about them. His pretentiousness would be amusing if it weren't so vacuous. Then he uses such colloquialisms as "half-assed" in the review--dear God, why are we so lucky to have your delightful choice of adjectives, Ehrlich? Why don't you throw some other swear words, not for any real purpose but just to show us how hip and modern you are?--and then advocates for disrespecting the source material. (How'd you phrase it, Ehrlich? It's "...a creaky old whodunnit in this day and age..."? Heck, why do we even need whodunits anymore? We're just so enlightened, intelligent, and modern, after all, and whodunits are old, and everyone knows anything old is stupid--just like that other old guy whose work Branagh adapted, Shakespeare. Modern people don't need that. He should focus more on new, hip, wow stuff, like Thor--oh, yeah, man, that's what's in nowadays! Spandex and incessant explosions forever! Whew!) Sorry for all the sarcasm, folks. I know it has nothing to do with the movie per se, but I really grew annoyed at this review. This is why I completely stopped reading and listening to reviews a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by leesilm on Nov 8, 2017 7:19:33 GMT
I'm going to see the picture and hope that it's good, but I will say that--because of it, though it's not its fault--I have now read the worst movie review I've ever read in my life, this one by IndieWire's David Ehrlich. The review is written by a man who clearly doesn't understand the genre--which shouldn't be much all that much of a problem except that Mr. Ehrlich attempts to explain the intricacies of cinematic whodunits when he doesn't know the first thing about them. His pretentiousness would be amusing if it weren't so vacuous. Then he uses such colloquialisms as "half-assed" in the review--dear God, why are we so lucky to have your delightful choice of adjectives, Ehrlich? Why don't you throw some other swear words, not for any real purpose but just to show us how hip and modern you are?--and then advocates for disrespecting the source material. (How'd you phrase it, Ehrlich? It's "...a creaky old whodunnit in this day and age..."? Heck, why do we even need whodunits anymore? We're just so enlightened, intelligent, and modern, after all, and whodunits are old, and everyone knows anything old is stupid--just like that other old guy whose work Branagh adapted, Shakespeare. Modern people don't need that. He should focus more on new, hip, wow stuff, like Thor--oh, yeah, man, that's what's in nowadays! Spandex and incessant explosions forever! Whew!) Sorry for all the sarcasm, folks. I know it has nothing to do with the movie per se, but I really grew annoyed at this review. I don't blame you!! Sometimes I think critics believe they are witty and oh-so-clever when they trash movies they don't like (as if this is their purpose in life). It's why I don't take most of them all that seriously unless a movie is 95% or something on Rotten Tomatoes (and then I start to think maybe I should take a look if they all like it so much). I once read are view where the reviewer admitted he hated SciFi flicks with a burning passion, and they had sent him to a SciFi movie to review it- so you knew he was not giving it 5 stars/A grade/2 thumbs up, by any means. Instead this reviewer spent the next 7 paragraphs going through every trope, over-used character type, etc. etc. he deemed them to have once-more beaten to death in the movie where brain cells went to die. I remember wondering (A)Why his bosses sent him if they knew he was such a snob about it, (B)Why he didn't trade with someone (as I recall, he loved period pieces and the next review was by a reviewer who usually covered the scifi/action flicks) so he could see something more up his alley, or (C)Why not just say, "Despite not really being my cup of tea, I went in with an open mind, discovering that while this film may not reinvent the SciFi wheel, it does a good job of taking audiences down a familiar path..." type review. Honestly, sometimes reviews sound like they watched a re-run of FRASIER and wanted to sound like he and the food critic at their snootiest, most hoity-toity, and snobbish worst. I actually got to the point where the worse the review, the more I want to see the movie.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Nov 8, 2017 9:46:35 GMT
I don't blame you!! Sometimes I think critics believe they are witty and oh-so-clever when they trash movies they don't like (as if this is their purpose in life). It's why I don't take most of them all that seriously unless a movie is 95% or something on Rotten Tomatoes (and then I start to think maybe I should take a look if they all like it so much). I once read are view where the reviewer admitted he hated SciFi flicks with a burning passion, and they had sent him to a SciFi movie to review it- so you knew he was not giving it 5 stars/A grade/2 thumbs up, by any means. Instead this reviewer spent the next 7 paragraphs going through every trope, over-used character type, etc. etc. he deemed them to have once-more beaten to death in the movie where brain cells went to die. I remember wondering (A)Why his bosses sent him if they knew he was such a snob about it, (B)Why he didn't trade with someone (as I recall, he loved period pieces and the next review was by a reviewer who usually covered the scifi/action flicks) so he could see something more up his alley, or (C)Why not just say, "Despite not really being my cup of tea, I went in with an open mind, discovering that while this film may not reinvent the SciFi wheel, it does a good job of taking audiences down a familiar path..." type review. Honestly, sometimes reviews sound like they watched a re-run of FRASIER and wanted to sound like he and the food critic at their snootiest, most hoity-toity, and snobbish worst. I actually got to the point where the worse the review, the more I want to see the movie.Exactly!! These critics can sound so snobbish! I've been to the point, too, where I see the movie because of bad reviews because I think the critic is such a jerk that I'll probably love the movie. It's worked, too!! I have enjoyed movies some of them despised!
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Nov 8, 2017 14:52:35 GMT
Yes the critics fall into several categories. All of them bad. In addition to the movie snobs, there are the ones that have biases and agendas (sometimes political, sometimes personal). Then there are the ones that didn't even pay attention to the movie. I could list many instances where they said things that were just factually wrong in regards to what happened in a film. Finally, there are the ones who are prone to hyperbole. For them everything is either the greatest or the worst thing ever.
Like I said, I gave up on them years ago and I have been quite happy with my movie choices ever since.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Nov 8, 2017 15:09:00 GMT
Yes the critics fall into several categories. All of them bad. In addition to the movie snobs, there are the ones that have biases and agendas (sometimes political, sometimes personal). Then there are the ones that didn't even pay attention to the movie. I could list many instances where they said things that were just factually wrong in regards to what happened in a film. Finally, there are the ones who are prone to hyperbole. For them everything is either the greatest or the worst thing ever. Like I said, I gave up on them years ago and I have been quite happy with my movie choices ever since.Really good idea! I've ignored them a number of times. Something I also do is to realize that even if the critics and the movie-going public hate a movie, I might like it. It happens from time to time. Like the movie "Whiteout" made from a comic book. Kate Beckinsale is usually appealing, in my view, and I like Tom Skerritt. I also like Antarctica (the scenery, the challenges, etc). It had a 7% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Yikes! I rented it anyway back when it came out on iTunes - and I rented it again last week. Yeah, it's a terrible movie in a lot of ways, but I kinda like it. Kate Beckinsale plays a Deputy U.S. Marshall who has been damaged (emotionally) on the job so she's working in a place where the worst thing going on is usually a misdemeanor. She's ready to quit after two years in Antarctica - but then there's a murder. It seemed unusual to me - and maybe to everyone else - that a Deputy U.S. Marshall would say "Oh my God" at the sight of blood, but she was damaged. She was doing her job in this situation after not having recovered from her past. Would the U.S. Marshall department keep someone on the job like this if she was obviously having emotional difficulties? Well, if she worked in Antarctica where nothing happens, I guess so. Maybe no one else seeing the movie was drawn in to her like I was, but I saw the movie this way. She was in a tough spot and she kept going. Sometimes it's fun to have a "guilty pleasure" movie that no one else likes.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Nov 8, 2017 15:17:49 GMT
SciFiveYou are not alone. I have "Whiteout" on DVD. It's a good example of how critics really can't decide for you what you should like.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Nov 8, 2017 15:18:49 GMT
SciFive You are not alone. I have "Whiteout" on DVD. It's a good example of how critics really can't decide for you what you should like. Thanks!!
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 8, 2017 18:40:07 GMT
Well... I'm a little more forgiving of critics than you are, taylorfirst1 , but then I've done film criticism myself and am a great fan of the critics of the '60s and '70s; Pauline Kael, Manny Farber, and my long-time favorite Andrew Sarris come to mind. They did a great deal for revitalizing film in America and (intentionally or not) bringing in the director-centered cinema of the '70s. Also William K. Everson, a wonderful writer who saved many films from destruction and brought them to popular knowledge with his genre-centered books: Classics of the Horror Film, A Pictorial History of the Western Film, The Films of Laurel and Hardy, The Detective in Film, et al. I couldn't care less whether or not I agree with a critic on a film (and I like lots of films that critics hated), only that the critic argued his case well, convincingly, and knowledgeably. The problem I see is that many critics aren't truly critics any more--they're "reviewers," a more egalitarian term, in that they don't have a deep knowledge of film that can address a picture's deepest virtues and vices and put it in some kind of a cultural context. Rather, many modern "critics" give you a plot synopsis and a declaration of whether or not they liked it. (I have long stated that, if one wants to revitalize criticism, critics ought to be banned from including plot synopses.) If that's what "critics" are doing, then it's no surprise that film criticism has lost its luster. Siskel and Ebert may, in fairness, be responsible for the transition from criticism to reviewing, though Ebert had a great number of insights in his print work, and I'd consider him a true critic, in the traditional sense. The only fella I know writing what I'd consider genuine film criticism is the contrarian Armond White; I agree with little of White's work, but it always makes me think and want to respond, and that is a good job. With this review, Ehrlich was not only snobbish but nasty, and his nastiness didn't even take the form of a rational argument but rather his empty assertion that he knows whereof he speaks when he clearly does not. Again: a man who does not know anything not only about whodunits, but about film in general. I'd be interested in seeing if he has seen anything pre-1970 except for film school. (I'm touchy about these things, I suppose: I knew a guy who taught film who had never seen anything pre-1970 for pleasure. My God!)
|
|