Originally Posted By mawnck >>People in general have become so spoiled that it's harder to impress them with anything at all.<< Two things: (1) This would be a wonderful thing if it were true. (2) It's not. <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/" target="_blank">http://www.boxofficemojo.com/w...d/chart/</a> <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/top10s.html" target="_blank">http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/top10s.html</a> <a href="http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100" target="_blank">http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100</a> <a href="http://books.usatoday.com/list/index" target="_blank">http://books.usatoday.com/list/index</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc >>(1) This would be a wonderful thing if it were true. (2) It's not. <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/w...d/chart/" target="_blank">http://www.boxofficemojo.com/w...d/chart/</a> <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/top10s.html" target="_blank">http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/top10s.html</a> <a href="http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100" target="_blank">http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100</a> <a href="http://books.usatoday.com/list/index<<" target="_blank">http://books.usatoday.com/list...<<</a> My soul hurts. Lincoln did well. That's something. Right?
Originally Posted By doombuggy "so many are so jaded and prone to be negative" Yes they are, even tho I said I think Mila Kunis is bad casting I'm not going to let it stop me or ruin it. I didn't even bother reading the second review cause he starts off saying it's a prequel to the MGM classic.
Originally Posted By tonyanton I've seen "Wicked" several times (in previews and most recently late last year) on Broadway and the shoes are always silver.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<Lincoln did well. That's something. Right?>> As did Argo and Django Unchained.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 TV, Person of Interest is better than most CBS procedurals, Modern Family is still good. Though it would be nice if shows like Breaking Bad or Parks and Rec got those ratings. Music, I have no idea what the Harlem Shake is and never want to know. But as you get the 11-30 of the chart you get to groups like Mumford and Sons, Lumineers, Imagine Dragons. All good music.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Actually, your argument is more supportive of my claim than you realize, mawnck, duckling. The same general public that is so difficult to impress with something good is equally overly impressed with things that aren't so good.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>The same general public that is so difficult to impress with something good is equally overly impressed with things that aren't so good.<< Well, but it's not because they're spoiled. It's because they've got the same lousy taste they always had. (This week it's Harlem Shake and Macklemore, before it was the Stars on 45, Disco Duck, Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini, Slap Her Down Again Paw, Goodbye Mama I'm Off to Yokohama, When You Hear Jackson Moan on his Saxophone ....)
Originally Posted By leobloom Always interesting to see when RT scores are "fresh" before the reviews of "Top Critics" (i.e. the real critics) start rolling in. Oz is something like 60% fresh right now, but 0% with the two "Top Critics" scores.
Originally Posted By oc_dean But if there was a peoplemover in the Emerald City, would you have still liked it? ;~)
Originally Posted By oc_dean I got tickets to see it this Saturday. In an auditorium with fully reclining, very cushy seats.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo The rush to declare it horrible based on two reviews? Now, it may actually be horrible, but being so anxious to declare it so reveals something of an agenda, no?
Originally Posted By dagobert I was really looking forward to this movie and now after all the bad reviews I hope that I will not be too much disappointed. But the reviews for John Carter weren't good either and I really liked that one. So there's hoping that the same will happen with Oz.
Originally Posted By mawnck Meanwhile in the UK ..... <a href="http://gawker.com/5988490/mila-kunis-helps-a-nervous-bbc-radio-interviewer-get-over-his-first+time-jitters-by-being-awesome" target="_blank">http://gawker.com/5988490/mila...-awesome</a> Best part starts around 4:45, when Mila spews out all her pre-rehearsed answers just to get them out of the way. Mila Kunis is NEVER bad casting.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "The rush to declare it horrible based on two reviews?" << One of which was mostly positive... -Jeff
Originally Posted By leemac <<The rush to declare it horrible based on two reviews? Now, it may actually be horrible, but being so anxious to declare it so reveals something of an agenda, no?>> This isn't some Hicksville rag - this is the two industry bibles. Todd McCarthy at THR flat out hated it and Justin Chang at Variety found little to like (I'm not sure how you could interpret either to be even remotely positive). I've seen it and it isn't particularly good. Flashy but all empty calories. I'm at a loss as to how a Pulitzer prize-winning playright in David Lindsay-Abaire could produce such a vacuous script. I've no hidden agenda at all - I hate the Studios' current strategy which is producing a lot of poor movies - Marvel aside. I want Oz to tank simply to demonstrate that spending over $300m on focus group nonsense is a folly. If Oz had turned out great then I'd have happily applauded it. It isn't even close to being as bad as John Carter but it isn't particularly good either.
Originally Posted By leemac <<But the reviews for John Carter weren't good either and I really liked that one>> Wow - really? I had absolutely no idea what was going on in that mess at all. I could have driven a bus through the plot holes. I didn't believe it was possible to create some a car wreck with $250m before. Then Battleship came along which plumbed even new depths.
Originally Posted By dagobert >>>It isn't even close to being as bad as John Carter but it isn't particularly good either.<<< That means I will like it, since I already enjoyed John Carter.
