Movie was alright. I felt "blah" about it.
6 out of 10.
Some of the acting sucked. Sheik Amar's character sucked: every "funny" line was painful to watch from him.
Pretty much every fight scene was that horribly executed cinematography that zooms in waaaaay the **** too close and is annoying to watch. It's a lazy technique used to make the fights seem faster/better because the choregraphy of the fights is a bit lame compared to, say, Hong Kong Kung Fu flicks. Even some of the fights ended up looking really stupid as the editing overlapped to the "pause" segment. (In a choreographed fight, there are "segments" to a fight. After the actors execute one segment, they pause, stop, and reset for the next "segment".)
Some of the effects did not seem to integrate very well with the live action shots, but it was good at others.
Gemma Arterton was certainly welcome on the screen. 🙂 But she got annoying. To the movies credit, she was supposed to be this high and mighty, spoiled b*tch whiny princess, so I was fine with that and I was probably supposed to be annoyed with her.
Major props to Jake Gyllenhaal for putting on a sizable amount of muscle and getting into excellent shape for this film. That's dedication to your job. I hope that he takes a comic book role, some time in the future. I'd like to see the characters in comic book movies look more like their comic book counterpoints.
Plot was alright. It was absurdly easy to follow which I think detracted from it. There was no suprise. At least they could have made the "traitor" portion harder to guess...or at least dropped suble and intelligent hints (other than one) to indicate who the traitor was. That would at MOST make it worth watching more than once.
Well having played all the games I can honestly say I didn't know what to think when I found out that Jake gyellenhaal would be playing dasdan in the film. Well as always Jake impressed me at his fullest and the film was a fantastic piece of work. I expected it to be once I knew Jerry bruckhiemer was the producer and once again he impressed me.
Originally posted by roughrider
It's shaping up as the second bomb of the summer, following Robin Hood.
Considering Robin Hood is actually a good movie if you can get over "Robin Hood should be this or that way from the past movies".
Originally posted by roughrider
A weak $30 million opening for a holiday weekend; down to $13 million the next. Franchise is toast, like The Golden Compass.
Doesn't matter how well it does overseas; an American financed film bombs in North America, that's it.
it might matter how much does worldwide just take a look at Batman Begins Batman Begins grossed world wide $372,710,015 compared to the sequel which was higher.
Originally posted by Kazenji
Considering Robin Hood is actually a good movie if you can get over "Robin Hood should be this or that way from the past movies".it might matter how much does worldwide just take a look at Batman Begins Batman Begins grossed world wide $372,710,015 compared to the sequel which was higher.
Critical consensus of Robin Hood on Rotten Tomatoes is that it's a miss - every film of the Star Wars PT amassed more positive reviews than it has. Maybe you like it: that's fine. I'm talking about popular opinion, backed up by the box office.
Batman Begins got outstanding reviews, and did nearly $150 million of it's worldwide total in North America. It could have been even bigger, but Warner Bros. was satisfied they had erased the stink of Batman & Robin, and got people to realize this was a new beginning; they were ready to come in droves for The Dark Knight after that.
Compare Prince Of Persia with The Golden Compass. It did quite well overseas, but it grossed a shockingly low $70 million in North America. For a studio that was looking to duplicate what they did with The Lord Of The Rings, this was a first round knockout. That's what's happening right now with POP.
Perception is huge. Remember Godzilla in 1998? Though it managed to eventually turn a profit worldwide, it did less than half of what they expected in North America, and was critically hated. No American franchise after that.
A franchise can try again some day after a disastrous debut, but it can take years, even decades of waiting (Dune, Judge Dredd etc.)
Originally posted by roughrider
Critical consensus of Robin Hood on Rotten Tomatoes is that it's a miss - every film of the Star Wars PT amassed more positive reviews than it has. Maybe you like it: that's fine. I'm talking about popular opinion, backed up by the box office.
Well most of the things i've read from reviewers for Robin Hood is that they were expecting Errol Flynn type movie again...colourful and all that sort of thing.
Originally posted by Kazenji
Well most of the things i've read from reviewers for Robin Hood is that they were expecting Errol Flynn type movie again...colourful and all that sort of thing.
I haven't seen it, but there is some precedent for what they were trying. A good film from the 1970's - Robin & Marian - has Sean Connery playing Robin in middle age, in the holy land with Little John assisting an increasingly deranged King Richard (Richard Harris); they get arrested and finally shipped back to England, where he locks horns again with the Sheriff (Robert Shaw), bemused at how Robin can't seem to stop playing the outlaw game & how they are both too old for this.
Connery was practically the same age as Russell Crowe is now, playing Robin. And he was making fun of himself then, with his creaky limbs.
This thread isn't about Robin Hood.
And if you want to talk about Rotten Tomatoes? Go on there, look up Prince of Persia, and compare the score given by critics to the score from the community. There is a huge - almost 50 point - discrepancy.
Having read a lot of critic reviews of Prince of Persia, most of them seem clear that they either 1) did not pay any attention to the movie whatsoever, 2) went into it determined to dislike it, or 3) both. Ebert's review is an amazing example of #3. Considering that Ebert hates anything video game related, and has stated they are a waste of time and not art and dismisses them and anything related with no knowledge of the medium whatsoever, I'd say anyone that takes his review of this movie seriously is an idiot.
So this is one movie where I'd say it's smart to ignore the critics. Because every person I know who has seen it, has said it was at least good, and most I know have said it was great or amazing.
Originally posted by Peach
This thread isn't about Robin Hood.And if you want to talk about Rotten Tomatoes? Go on there, look up Prince of Persia, and compare the score given by critics to the score from the community. There is a huge - almost 50 point - discrepancy.
Having read a lot of critic reviews of Prince of Persia, most of them seem clear that they either 1) did not pay any attention to the movie whatsoever, 2) went into it determined to dislike it, or 3) both. Ebert's review is an amazing example of #3. Considering that Ebert hates anything video game related, and has stated they are a waste of time and not art and dismisses them and anything related with no knowledge of the medium whatsoever, I'd say anyone that takes his review of this movie seriously is an idiot.
So this is one movie where I'd say it's smart to ignore the critics. Because every person I know who has seen it, has said it was at least good, and most I know have said it was great or amazing.
And apparently, very few of them are going to see it at the theatre, from it's weak performance.
Originally posted by PeachAnd if you want to talk about Rotten Tomatoes? Go on there, look up Prince of Persia, and compare the score given by critics to the score from the community. There is a huge - almost 50 point - discrepancy.
Having read a lot of critic reviews of Prince of Persia, most of them .
And its also the highest rating for a Movie based on a game.
Originally posted by Peach
Having read a lot of critic reviews of Prince of Persia, most of them seem clear that they either 1) did not pay any attention to the movie whatsoever, 2) went into it determined to dislike it, or 3) both. Ebert's review is an amazing example of #3. Considering that Ebert hates anything video game related, and has stated they are a waste of time and not art and dismisses them and anything related with no knowledge of the medium whatsoever, I'd say anyone that takes his review of this movie seriously is an idiot.So this is one movie where I'd say it's smart to ignore the critics. Because every person I know who has seen it, has said it was at least good, and most I know have said it was great or amazing.
I don't like Ebert as a movie reviewer. The only time our opinions match up on films are when they are truly horrendous piles of shit.
That said, POP is certainly worth a watch and is better than the average summer film, for sure. It's just not that great, either.
Originally posted by roughrider
Critical consensus of Robin Hood on Rotten Tomatoes is that it's a miss - every film of the Star Wars PT amassed more positive reviews than it has. Maybe you like it: that's fine. I'm talking about popular opinion, backed up by the box office.(Dune, Judge Dredd etc.)
Nah, Robin Hood is aces. I really don't think many people expected, Robin Hood to be a blockbuster though. It doesn't have the same ingredients of a blockbuster, ie, director, actors and budget. The main complaint i saw with most of the reviews on, Robin hood was directed towards, Russel Crowe and not because he is an odd choice for an English character but because most people either love or hate him. I also saw that many people were complaining because they wanted more action.
It's definitely a good movie though. Russel Crowe is my favorite actor and although he gave a great performance and even though, Ridley Scott made his presence work im still surprised by his casting.
Prince of Persia was balls, just awful.
This is a great movie, IMO. I really enjoyed it; probably the second best movie I've seen so far (behind Kick-Ass). I'd give it an 8/10. The only reason I wouldn't give it a 10/10 (honestly that's how much I enjoyed it), is because it definitely had flaws, most of which Dadudemon has already pointed out: lame fighting choreography and an easy to forsee plot. I'm willing to forgive the plot being predictable because imo the story was excellent[/]. There may not have been a good twist, but, I felt that just about every point in the story [i]clicked, so well! The pacing was good and the underlying motifs for the characters were implemented well without being too preachy. I felt that even though the "twist" was easy to predict, it wasn't really meant to surprise you, and that was something that I kind of appreciated.
Also, this is the only movie I have ever seen where the
Spoiler:actually worked and didn't feel cheesy.
"LOL bring everybody back to life" retcon
All in all I liked the story, the dialogue was good, I liked all the characters, and the scenes were all very well done. Sands of Time, imo, is pretty much the best video game adaptation that's been made so far, and is good enough to stand up as an actual movie movie.
So, good stuff.
I think it's a good thing that the movie isn't making too much cash though, imo. I don't think they could do anything other then ruin it if they made sequels.
EDIT- Oh, one other "flaw". Gemma Arterton was gorgeous in this. In the scenes that included her I was too busy staring at her boobs to focus on what was actually going on.