Post by Nora on Jan 20, 2019 17:25:47 GMT
Jan 18, 2019 3:49:02 GMT Nora said:
no way it will ever go under 7 with audience on imdb. its highly enjoyable. the critics are way off on this one. you cant compare it to Venom on any level, I mean quality wise. its like a different galaxy. Venom was truly bad, badly shot, badly edited, with some questionable acting. this is well done with absolutely amazing acting. the script has weaker spots, yes, but to me its more about "are you willing to accept the directors game or not". i accepted it and it wasn't hard for me to do so. Jan 19, 2019 0:27:57 GMT Nora said:
despite his critical ratings going down, people still keep coming to his movies and make it a commercial success.2) Ever since THE HAPPENING, M. Night's name has been downplayed in the marketing. There was a report that people giggled when they saw the trailer for DEVIL and his name appeared on screen. His name wasn't mentioned at all in the marketing for AFTER EARTH.
I dont understand what you mean by your sentence about Gotti, how did it prove anything? To me mentioning Gotti was a perfect example of the point I was trying to make. Critical score doesn't always match, sometimes they just get on the hate wagon too easily. Gotti got 0 from more than 50 critics on RT. That would have made it an absolutely unwatchable movie. It was not. Was it great? No. Was it very good? No. But I believe it was decent or just slightly below average. (way below expectations, sure). I didn't walk out, and was really invested in the plot, my biggest gripe with the movie was the editing.

