Originally Posted By mawnck With 17 reviews, we're still at 51 on Metacritic. I think the verdict is in ... It's mediocre. I plan to see it, **only** because I'm something of an Oz-o-phile.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>It's interesting that European critics aren't that bad. Empire UK gives four out of five stars.<< Now we're getting somewhere. At least for the foreseeable future, movies will increasingly rely on action and digital effects on a large scale because the international market is offering obscene profits. China alone is set to surpass the U.S. in the next few years in terms of box office gross. Which is why the title of my next screenplay is HAPPY LUCKY FORTUNE COWBOY!!!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Luckily I am not a lemming and reviews do nothing to change my mind to see or not see a film....<< I'm the same. That's why I blew over $20 for my wife and I to see "A Good Day to Die Hard." After that experience, I'm really rethinking my anti-lemming policy.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I'm the same. That's why I blew over $20 for my wife and I to see "A Good Day to Die Hard." After that experience, I'm really rethinking my anti-lemming policy.<< LOL
Originally Posted By doombuggy Bewitched, Land of the Lost, Battle ship, John Carter. Just the trailers and knowing the plot kept me away from these bombs. Reviews do nothing for me that's just one persons take on it. Letting someone else's opinion keep you from seeing or doing some thing is being a mind less lemming. All this talk of lemmings <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJB71OF8Xq8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...71OF8Xq8</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Letting someone else's opinion keep you from seeing or doing some thing is being a mind less lemming.<< I think what we have here is a misunderstanding of what lemmings do. If the lemmings that were towards the front of the pack saw the first group tumble into the sea, turned, and gave falling into the sea a lousy review, then the other lemmings might stop for a minute and rethink their current course. Movie reviewers are those lemmings at the front of the pack, plummeting head first into a frigid sea of really lousy movies so we don't have to. We ignore them at our peril.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Movie reviewers are those lemmings at the front of the pack, plummeting head first into a frigid sea of really lousy movies so we don't have to. We ignore them at our peril.<< Unfortunately most critics have their heads stuck so far up their behind that their opinion is null and void IMO.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Reviews do nothing for me that's just one persons take on it.<< Yes, but if after reading several reviews you tend to find reviewers who more or less share your taste in movies. You also can discover who is a knowledgable, thoughtful reviewer that actually understands the difference between a well constructed movie or story or acting performance and ones that are garbage. It's all part of the mix of input that one can use to decide whether it's worth throwing down $11 to see a movie, or wait to rent it later, or skip it entirely.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Unfortunately most critics have their heads stuck so far up their behind that their opinion is null and void IMO.<< Some do, sure. But there are plenty of really good movie reviewers who take their job seriously and do their best to lay out why they feel a film works or doesn't. They can really write and they give examples without spoiling too much of the movie ahead of time. I don't think it's fair to lump them all in together. I think it sucks to pay for what you think will be a good movie and be really disappointed. You like the actors from other roles. You like the director, or the plot seems unique, or whatever attracts you. Then about 15 minutes in you realize you've been had, that the people on screen and/or the people behind the camera were just getting a payday on some big concept, and everyone is phoning it in. (You expect that with sequels somewhat, but it still sucks). You know that everyone involved with it knew the movie was a stinker, yet too much money had been spent by that point and so they put it out there and hope no one notices until after opening weekend. A good critic can help people not get trapped by that trick.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I don't think it's fair to lump them all in together. I think it sucks to pay for what you think will be a good movie and be really disappointed.<< So this. I'm a picky movie goer. Some people call me a snob. Fine. But my free time is valuable and rare. I rely on Metacritic (not a fan of Rotten Tomatoes) to give me an idea of what I might like. The lemming analogy is off-base because it implies people follow critics blindly. Obviously it's a combination of things. If an over-the-top, CGI fueled action movie gets lousy reviews, I know I won't like it and will steer clear. But if a movie like, say, Hitchcock, comes along and gets average reviews, I might still go see it (and did) because its more the kind of film I'd enjoy. I can look at Oz and already guess what kind of film it will be. I'm already skeptical. Now, if critics really like it, I'm open to giving it a shot. But if they come along and confirm what I already suspect, then I can spend my time and money on something else. And critics can let me down. I thought The Avengers sucked.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Unfortunately most critics have their heads stuck so far up their behind that their opinion is null and void IMO.<< Well, depends on which critics you're talking about. Some of the basement dwellers that Rotten Tomatoes considers "critics" certainly fall into this category. But ... To me this attitude falls into the whole Americans-irrationally-resenting-people-who-know-more-about-stuff-than-they-do. I really don't get this ... Why WOULDN'T you want someone who sees 150 movies a year tell you where a particular one fits on the quality scale? Why WOULDN'T you want the plane to be flown by a pilot, the heart surgery to be done by a heart surgeon, or the climate change conclusions to be drawn by climatologists? Sorry to go all WE on you, but I just don't onnerstand! Of course, as the founder and CEO of the Mawnckscars, I may be a little biased ...
Originally Posted By ecdc >>To me this attitude falls into the whole Americans-irrationally-resenting-people-who-know-more-about-stuff-than-they-do.<< It's the ongoing war on expertise. Since film is accessible to everyone, apparently everyone's opinion should be equally valid. Thus we end up with high brow criticisms like "artsy fartsy."
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 The only critic I pay attention to is Richard Roeper, while I don't agree with every review he probably skews closest to what my sensibilities are as a moviegoer.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I will probably like Oz. I've been know to like very mediocre films just becasue they were visually beautiful. "What Dreams May Come" comes to mind...
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I will probably like Oz. I've been know to like very mediocre films just becasue they were visually beautiful. "What Dreams May Come" comes to mind...<< That was an awesome movie despite being critically panned, I really hated the plot to Avatar, but the movie was so beautiful I couldn't stop watching it in 3D...
Originally Posted By Manfried John Carter deserved to be a flop. Unfortunately, so does Oz. No amount of marketing was ever going to save John Carter. It might make Oz get closer to even, but that's about it.
Originally Posted By xrayvision I just saw the movie in 3D- large screen format and thought it was enjoyable. I really liked the opening credit sequence. The witches were fun. China Doll was cute and Zach Braff was cool in both roles. And, I liked Danny Elfman's musical score for the film.
Originally Posted By xrayvision Someone in this thread mentioned that OZ looked similar to Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. OZ is not as good as Alice in Wonderland IMO. But, the movie was enjoyable and kept me entertained throughout the entire film. And, some of the 3D effects were really cool.
