Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
at least I'll try.
At time of printing, it's at 89% from 36 reviews. :D
i never really watch new films until i end up catching them on dvd a year or so later (for the most part)
it just seems to be a never ending cycle of people running around jizzing over the release of what will be the greatest movie ever and then everyone panning it. it happened with prometheus
a hammering, and it was one of the worst reviews I've read.
still don't care about it
actually, what's your job?
according to his moral viewpoint. He rarely displays any insight whatsoever.
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-dark-knight-rises it currently has a higher meta score then 'The Dark Knight'
i meant actual written reviews, in the real world, not just what a few bedroom dwellers online thought without really seeing it.
the three actual print reviews i've read (not including the Daily Fail) didn't seem to rate it.
Still...it can be fun reading numbers online, can't it? 78, 63, 99, 85!!!!
called Shit Film Liker.
Brooker basically throws darts at a map to decide who to slate though.
And he was infamous for being a terribly over-enthusiastic VG journalist back in the day. "Brooker starts at 90%"
I worry about people who read Empire or Total Film though. For real.
It's not more zealous than people who read football news etc is it? I'm not a massive film buff but if I wanted to know what was out and good, I'd prob pick up Empire.
Or i guess sure TOTAL GEEKS MORE LIKE AMIRITE? etc
it feels a bit like Observer Music Monthly used to, with it's minimum 3 star reviews of absolutely everything. They seem to rate films on a 'if you like going to the multiplex and watching films then this is alright' basis. I dunno, I trust newspaper reviews a bit more because they don't have that inherent assumption that you're going to go to the cinema lots and just want to watch something that isn't completely and utterly shit. Kind of: explosions? tick, actors saying words? tick, big orchestral soundtrack? tick, sexy lady? tick, comfy seats? tick etc etc.
Mild argument retracted.
He was known for being relentlessly negative about everything.
- Total Film
- Time Magazine
- Hollywood Reporter
- Rolling Stone
- Wall Street Journal
- The Guardian
are all pretty "actual print reviews". :D
like, the Empire one was five stars but the actual review was a bit :/
is going to get 5 stars from a lot of places regardless though
you see some very favourable marking which doesn't always match up with the reviews, the fact that a lot of reviews seem to be using Avengers as a comparison to show how good it is has been pretty stupid and lazy too
so people are going to notice quibbles far more as they're hoping for some kind of perfection - the fact they're pointing it out doesn't necessarily mean it's not a brilliant film.
I think my conclusion is that the reviews are going to tell us absolutely nothing.
for handing out too many stars at the top of their reviews to please the geek armies and the film companies, while subtly critisising the film in the body of the text, and then months later downgrading the films when the retrospectives and DVDs come out? I doubt Phantom Menace is a 5 star movie these days.
And last time around with The Dark Knight there were some ugly scenes online with critics being given death threats by passionate bat-fans for even suggesting that The Dark Knight may not be absoluetely flawless and completely the most greatest movie, or work of art, ever made
Citation needed etc. And I don't mean forums of people who disagree with a rating just as over-zealously as forums of people who love Batman, for instance.
-Phantom Menace; on Empire allegedly it was 4 stars in first review, 3 on dvd/blu-ray, and 2 on the new 3d version.
-Dark knight rises death threats
similar scenes happened with Inception as well (anecdotal). rabid Nolan fans - cultural fascists? - discuss?
and moderating reviews in the context of time is ace - how have well have films aged etc?
The link is v interesting. Nolan's camp ARE fucking mental, but I don't know if there's much to suggest that Empire are swayed by that. Plus, people who base their opinions on star ratings are pretty thick, right? :D
unless you know who reviewed them each time, could easily be 3 separate reviewers with differing opinions.
I'm not necessarily sticking up for their reviews at all, but it's fairly common for opinions to change over time and it makes sense to reappraise a movie on each subsequent release rather than stick resolutely to a score likely given by a different reviewer 10 years ago. A 3d version of a particularly visual film getting a lower score would also make sense if it makes a visually impressive film actually less visually impresive.
Haven't read their Dark Knight Rises review, because I'd rather see the film first.
if there's something to the suggestion that the text clearly states that a film does not deserve "5 stars" - the ultimate pointlessness of star ratings aside here - and they give it full marks anyway, that would be dodgy.
if someone honestly was impressed by a film and their review text and the rating made sense with it each other, that's fine of course. If they changed their mind later, that's acceptable too.
I've certainly heard of cases where marks have been changed after submission to suit the agendas of publications or websites.
in your head.
that the review will often go in largely as written but the score added separately to fit in with the expected publication's score ranges
Might be the most pathetic thing ever.
Although none of this is surprising, they're hardly death threats.
You rock! Especially when that guy was on the roof.
PS. Do you know Mad Max?
Has anyone heard that Frank Ocean album? Apparently he's gay!
He's mugged you off mate, mugged you right off.
not sure i could've made the headline more self-explanatory, pal.
All three reviewers sounded thoroughly underwhelmed.
The sole purpose of that paper is to make the Guardian look financially viable in comparative terms.
Also, see here - http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4358478#r6880401
You should read the actual articles, though.
at the weekend. He's stupid, but he's a scrapper.
The TimeOut review i read definitely gave it 3/5.
We don't talk about that.
Might not bother
Audley is still at it....
just like the other two were
it will be too and pompous, there'll be a load of heavy handed 'themes', but basically it will be broadly entertaining enough to make us all forget that it's essentially a movie for adolescent manchildren
A statement that applies equally well to pretty much any movie in the IMDB top 250, to be fair.
Well, that's at least something.
the cleverest stupid director around, or the stupidest clever one
would go with the former myself, although I'm not sure James Cameron isn't actually somehow cleverer
43, 57, 96, 12.
That's why you are acting like it's going to be shite.
It's too long etc etc etc etc etc
has seen it. "Its too complicated, Bane isn't much cop, Batman isnt IN it much and it goes on a bit" is the general jist.
stuff like this so i guess it'd be a given he might diss it.
he hated Inception and the 2 other Bats.
much as i love John Waters, my fave Rex Reed quote is from his review of Female Trouble; "Where do these people come from? Where do they go when the sun goes down? Isn't there a law or something?"
This is even a rehash of several rehashes. I can't wait until we move on to the next big movie phase, then get bored of that all over again.