I was wondering as well. If enough of these reviews are from top reviewers, the film might be moving into certified fresh status.
'Variety' reviews Star Trek XI
- Thread starter jefferiestubes8
- Start date
I was wondering as well. If enough of these reviews are from top reviewers, the film might be moving into certified fresh status.
You know, all this Iron Man comparison talk is an old hat already. In the past few days, the film of reviewers' choice to compare Star Trek to has most often been...
... Raiders of the Lost Ark! Yes. Now if that holds up, oh my, am I going to have fun at the movies in two weeks! What a classic. Great entertainment. Oh, and a nominee for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, btw
... Raiders of the Lost Ark! Yes. Now if that holds up, oh my, am I going to have fun at the movies in two weeks! What a classic. Great entertainment. Oh, and a nominee for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, btw
Tin Man was good.
Well, who said Starship Polaris isn't eloquent.
Realize, to get asses into seats in 2009, a movie has to have action. Period. A cerebral STAR TREK at this point would be the FINAL STAR TREK movie. Let the movies go wham-bang action. Then let the next series worry about all the serious stuff. Two hours is not long enough to cover everything every fanboy wants to cover.
This movie needs to get TREK back to being popular, however it does it, or there will be no more TREK.
This movie needs to get TREK back to being popular, however it does it, or there will be no more TREK.
Yep, and I'm cool with that. I hold the movies to a different standard than the various series. You can do thought provoking mood pieces on TV. When I plunk down ten bucks for a May blockbuster, I want to see some shit explode.
Let's face it, none (well, almost none) of the movies were particularly deep. I don't expect this one to be either.
uh no..not all
in some ways i looking forward to eberts review more then others.
he is a mainstream critic who also happens to be a sf fan.
and a lot of the public who like to go to sf movies look to his reviews .
i really think he review affected superman returns more then the other good reviews helped.
my original point was that just because a movie is critically acclaimed doesnt mean it will do good box office. superman returns was well liked by the critics yet didnt even earn its production costs back domestically.sure if it had cost less to make the 200 million box office would have been a success. but thats a mote point since it didnt cost less to make than batman and did similar business, hence it "failed" at the box office.that was my original point.truth be told i think even had it cost less to produce than batman and did similar box office it still would not have been considered a hit. superman is supposed to be warner brothers premier character and was expected to do phenominal box office much like spiderman or ironman.
uh no..not all
in some ways i looking forward to eberts review more then others.
he is a mainstream critic who also happens to be a sf fan.
and a lot of the public who like to go to sf movies look to his reviews .
i really think he review affected superman returns more then the other good reviews helped.
i didnt say every critic liked it only that the "majority" of the reviews were good.as someone else stated in an earlier post it was 77% positive on rt.so someone other than roger ebert liked it. btw , i dont think people stayed away from it because of eberts review. i think your putting way too much stock in his opinion.these other respected critics would disagree with ebert! http://www.indielondon.co.uk/Film-Review/superman-returns-early-reviews-say-it-soars
I don't know if people actually would have expected Superman to outperform Batman since even with adjusting for inflation Batman (in the 80's) out performed Superman (from the 70's).
My point was critical acclaim with blockbusters getting people in their seats, not technically if the studio broke even at the box office.
200 million is generally now (the god old days when it was 100 million) the minimum standard for what (in audience) is considered a blockbuster.
My point was critical acclaim with blockbusters getting people in their seats, not technically if the studio broke even at the box office.
200 million is generally now (the god old days when it was 100 million) the minimum standard for what (in audience) is considered a blockbuster.
And the good thing is you can love Sean Connery too... unless he's bitch-slapping you...
And the good thing is you can love Sean Connery too... unless he's bitch-slapping you...
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Yep, this is the good part - I get to look forward to seeing "The Cage" remastered and watching the old version on my DVDs and seeing the new Star Trek movie because I don't have to dislike one to like the other...
'Tis truly the Next Generation...
Not so big on any of the Bonds between Connery and Craig. The producers simply depended on the formula that was pretty much locked in by the time "Thunderball" was released to carry the films regardless of who they cast - just make the stunts and villains bigger and more ridiculous every time.
And who the fuck cares about them?
Similar threads
