I think the effects of the original still hold up..besides just a few up close shots of that dog thing that kind of eats Rick Moranis. I am basing this off the commentary featuring ivan reitman and harold ramis on the ghostbusters dvd I have. That was the only thing they really didn't like.
Also yes I bought it for like 2 bucks at the dollar store while high.
Originally posted by Surtur
I think the effects of the original still hold up..besides just a few up close shots of that dog thing that kind of eats Rick Moranis.
I agree that most of the effect hold up pretty well, but the shots of the dog jumping through walls and running across the street look awful. I just watched it again the other day, and that was really the only part that stood out. But even still, it's not worth remaking this because the dry comedic timing and chemistry between the characters cannot be reproduced. That was a very happy accident. And I of couse love the irreverent biblical prophecy stuff because it sort of takes it seriously and pokes fun at it at the same time. This new one just looks like nothing but cheap potty humor. *smh*
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I agree that most of the effect hold up pretty well, but the shots of the dog jumping through walls and running across the street look awful. I just watched it again the other day, and that was really the only part that stood out. But even still, it's not worth remaking this because the dry comedic timing and chemistry between the characters cannot be reproduced. That was a very happy accident. And I of couse love the irreverent biblical prophecy stuff because it sort of takes it seriously and pokes fun at it at the same time. This new one just looks like nothing but cheap potty humor. *smh*
Yeah you aren't alone, even the people who made it were cringing at the dog moments.
Originally posted by Surtur
I think for this movie though the bar is set real low on what would be "good". In their mind I think even just mixed reviews is a triumph.
The deal wasn't if guys like Firefly thought it was good as lets face it, they'd lie just to keep from losing the bet. right now the GA score at rt is at 49%
At best this is a mediocre movie.
Originally posted by Silent Master
The deal wasn't if guys like Firefly thought it was good as lets face it, they'd lie just to keep from losing the bet. right now the GA score at rt is at 49%At best this is a mediocre movie.
Figured as much some folks would ignore the critics score, probably scream that they were paid 🙄
I'm confused..what score is being ignored?
EDIT: Oh I understand now, you are talking about critics vs audience.
Anyways, I wouldn't necessarily say you are getting paid to write a good review if you like it.
Just out of curiosity, how many reviews from critics are there vs how many general audience members decide to comment? Since if the GA one had vastly more people commenting on the quality of the movie..that is the score I would look to.
I would also hope we wouldn't hold up a movie as a success if the GA disliked it but the critics liked it. That makes no actual sense.
I mean I don't know how rotten tomatoes works but it says it is 73% for critics based on 218 ratings from them.
For the general audience it's at 49% and it says user ratings is at nearly 80,000. Surely..is that saying they are comparing what 80,000 people thought vs what a few hundred critics thought? Am I getting this correctly?
Originally posted by Surtur
Just out of curiosity, how many reviews from critics are there vs how many general audience members decide to comment? Since if the GA one had vastly more people commenting on the quality of the movie..that is the score I would look to.
Not sure on the numbers as it includes both Critics & GA on that site
I would also hope we wouldn't hold up a movie as a success if the GA disliked it but the critics liked it. That makes no actual sense.
Certainly seems to be the case for Silent Master.
How is that the case since he mentioned the GA score, which is what I also feel is more important.
I'm just saying the more people who rate something the more you get a sense of the overall feeling. Taking the average score from 200 ratings is fine, but if you have a wildly different score from nearly 80,000 ratings...I think the people have spoken.
Originally posted by Surtur
How is that the case since he mentioned the GA score, which is what I also feel is more important.I'm just saying the more people who rate something the more you get a sense of the overall feeling. Taking the average score from 200 ratings is fine, but if you have a wildly different score from nearly 80,000 ratings...I think the people have spoken.
Hey...if you do end up seeing the movie and whatever way it may be and end up disliking the movie, I'm not going to attack you for it
but i'd figured as much ignoring the critics score.