I have two words: Heavily Medicated.Holy crap! Ebert gave it three stars!!!
Okay. Star Trek gets 2 1/2 stars, Land of the Lost gets 3 stars.
He's gone insane... and that's the only thing I can think of for someone of Roger Ebert's stature and long time experience. He's simply gone off the wall and embraced the least creative aspects of our culture in exchange for a few controversy soundbites. I would prefer to think that than the possibility of him taking some perks under the table to promote certain films. On it's best day, Land of the Lost looks like another Semi Pro or Old School. Not even. Just no. This is silly.
J.
Does Land of the Lost look made of 100% Suck or is it just me?
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
For years now I've found many of Ebert's reviews highly questionable. Sometimes he manages to be right on the money, but other times he's way, way off... this review seems to fall in the latter category. I have a feeling he's going to be in the minority with his opinion, but we shall see.
Yeah I don't get much out of his reviews either. Most of them just focus on one or two aspects of the movie-- usually some trivial little thing that catches his eye-- and make you wonder if he even noticed anything else happening in the movie.
Plus I gotta say, as entertaining as he often was on his TV show... he's NOT a particularly good writer. Most of his reviews come across as painfully generic, and look like the kind of things a Jeff Lyons would crank out. I gotta imagine other critics roll their eyes when they read his stuff. lol
A
Amaris
Guest
I have two words: Heavily Medicated.Holy crap! Ebert gave it three stars!!!
Okay. Star Trek gets 2 1/2 stars, Land of the Lost gets 3 stars.
He's gone insane... and that's the only thing I can think of for someone of Roger Ebert's stature and long time experience. He's simply gone off the wall and embraced the least creative aspects of our culture in exchange for a few controversy soundbites. I would prefer to think that than the possibility of him taking some perks under the table to promote certain films. On it's best day, Land of the Lost looks like another Semi Pro or Old School. Not even. Just no. This is silly.
J.
Possibly.
J.
I've always felt Ebert looks down on sci fi so his 2.5 stars for Star Trek didn't surprise me. I have to say though, ever time I've seen Ebert the past decade, all it did for me was remind me that I miss Gene Siskel.
Anyway, this doesn't seem to be even close to the LotL I grew up with and I'm so over T-Rexes, so unless the word of mouth is incredible, I'll skip it.
It is currently sitting at 23% (based on 61 reviews) and 13% from "Top Critics" (16 reviews).
Is Will Ferrell really hard up for money or something?
or is it:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/36...-answers-internet-questions-from-will-ferrell
or is it:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/36...-answers-internet-questions-from-will-ferrell
I am going to defend Roger Ebert. More often than not his reviews are spot on. Even in cases where his review is the opposite of everyone elses I usually find myself agreeing with him. A recent example is the movie "Knowing". He was one of the few critics that liked the film. I saw it and thought it was pretty good.
Ebert gives his own personal opinion of a film. These other critics are just going with whatever the general consensus happens to be.
Now that doesn't mean i'm going to see Land of the Lost, but if I did see it I'm sure his review would make perfect sense whether I liked the film or not.
Ebert gives his own personal opinion of a film. These other critics are just going with whatever the general consensus happens to be.
Now that doesn't mean i'm going to see Land of the Lost, but if I did see it I'm sure his review would make perfect sense whether I liked the film or not.
How is it that Jurassic Park, which came out fifteen years ago has better dinosaur effects/CGI?
They used a lot of animatronics...and had a script that made people care about the quality of their work.
Dumb.
Funny in parts. But DUMB!
Oh what could have been. The film has enough of the things that made the original good that it's annoying to watch it because it reminds you of how this premise and elements could have made a GREAT serious film.
But...they ruined it. And I am/was shocked that Sid and Marty Krofft had anything to do with it.
A bright spot was Leonard Nimoy as Zarn...
Oh, and don't take your kids. This movie is not for kids -- as the PG-13 rating might indicate. Some PG-13 films lean closer to PG, but this one (in my opinion) definitely had material not suited for kids.
Funny in parts. But DUMB!
Oh what could have been. The film has enough of the things that made the original good that it's annoying to watch it because it reminds you of how this premise and elements could have made a GREAT serious film.
But...they ruined it. And I am/was shocked that Sid and Marty Krofft had anything to do with it.
A bright spot was Leonard Nimoy as Zarn...
Oh, and don't take your kids. This movie is not for kids -- as the PG-13 rating might indicate. Some PG-13 films lean closer to PG, but this one (in my opinion) definitely had material not suited for kids.
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
A friend related an interesting factoid to me the other day.
Twelve out of a hundred critics gave Star Trek (2009) a negative review.
The only critic so far to give Land of the Lost a positive review, was one of those twelve critics.
Twelve out of a hundred critics gave Star Trek (2009) a negative review.
The only critic so far to give Land of the Lost a positive review, was one of those twelve critics.
Completely agree, this movie should have been rated R IMO, it was pretty horrible. Those thinking this movie is for kids, like the original TV show will be dissapointed, this is very much an adult movie.
They still used CGI in some scenes (most notably the scene at the end where the T-Rex fights the Raptor in the concorse and the galliminus stampede. That looks infinitely better than the scenes of the T-Rex in LotL chasing Ferrell.
Coupled with the really fake looking sets and CGI (or overly "perfected" in post real sky) and it just looks horrible.
Caring about characters or not doesn't change the fact that the CGI looked good in JP and the CGI in LotL looks crap. And the former was made a decade and a half ago.
You're talking about a film with about 20 smaller CGI shots vs. one with thousands of CGI shots with larger scales. CGI detail takes time, and the work gets much more complicated when you have to create humanoids and other huge CGI complications.
