Article Ratings & Comments
(1-20 of 54 posts) | Reply
on Aug 14 2008 07:07 PM YOU A55HOLE! THIS HAD 100% FOR YEARS AND YOU HAD TO ***** IT UP! (Reply to this) |
on Aug 14 2008 10:19 PM Your review doesn't make very much sense. When did Sergio De Leone show that he didn't care who got the cache? Oh, was it during the immense character development? Or during the amazing gun battles? Anyways, everyone but you gave this a fresh tomato, meaning your last comment doesn't apply very well. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 14 2008 10:22 PM In reply to this comment (#1981799) I'd also like to add: the Time Magazine website had this under their 'All time 100 movie's.' (Reply to this) |
on Aug 16 2008 05:49 PM WTF?! Did this review REALLY just get posted within the last week? Surely there's a statute of limitations on how long you can sit on a bad review before submitting it. If you can do submit this, why not just ruin ALL the 100% ratings by posting a-hole reviews just to knock them down! (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 03 2008 03:59 PM Based on this review i consider you the biggest idiot i've ever read about. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 03 2008 04:00 PM Based on this review i consider you the biggest idiot i've ever read about. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 03 2008 04:06 PM your such an idiot this is easily the greatest film ever made and doesn't have the 100% it used to have before you ruined it idiot. it deserves 100% (Reply to this) |
on Sep 15 2008 07:00 PM They all pretty much said what I was gonna say. Yeah dude, you're definitely a dumb *****. I wish you could just understand that you (unjustifiably) bashed one of the greatest films of all time. Seriously, not having an amazing experience watching this film is one thing. Criticizing Sergio Leone as well as the film itself... well, that's just a whole new kind of idiot. ***** you, man. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 15 2008 07:01 PM They all pretty much said what I was gonna say. Yeah dude, you're definitely a dumb *****. I wish you could just understand that you (unjustifiably) bashed one of the greatest films of all time. Seriously, not having an amazing experience watching this film is one thing. Criticizing Sergio Leone as well as the film itself... well, that's just a whole new kind of idiot. ***** you, man. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 17 2008 02:36 PM Please ignore this review. This film is still 100%! (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 24 2008 07:31 PM Hey time magazine. You're a dick! You clearly have not watched the movie in a state where you can accurately make an educated decision and the overall quality of this film. Sure, 161 minutes is getting long, but the movie maintains an ever building storyline which in the end results in an amazing climax. I hope you got fired for this!! (Reply to this) |
|
on Oct 04 2008 12:55 AM the buildup to the three way gunfight at end is quite possibly the most masterfully edited scene in the history of motion picture. ntm, tucco is clearly leones (and most peoples) sentimental favorite, and most sypathetic. how can you say Leone, or the audience doesnt care about the outcome? youre an embarrassment to media criticism. (Reply to this) |
|
on Oct 11 2008 01:04 PM That was interesting. Vintage review from 1968. Good stuff. It explained more the time when it was written than movie how we know it now. That was rotten then because it was so different than others. Nowadays it is considered among the bests and I fully agree on that. Great movie - interesting original review. (Reply to this) |
|
on Oct 12 2008 08:59 AM Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I'm afraid yours is completely bonkers. This film is an impeccable classic! (Reply to this) |
on Oct 12 2008 02:12 PM well done for the massive spoiler, ruining it for those who haven't seen the film. The reason we care why clint wins is because throughout those astonishing 161 minutes of brilliance, we see why angel eyes is the bad, tuco is the ugly and clint is the good guy who deserves the gold. Leone put pulled out all the stops for this. It baffles me that you suddenly decide to post this after years of this film on 100% as if it bothers you this film has so much acclaim. It's deemed the definitive western for a reason you know and the review seems...pointless...like your view of the finale of the film itself. (Reply to this) |
on Oct 14 2008 03:29 PM isn't this article from 1968? the dude who wrote this is probably dead. how can anyone say this is bad? maybe ADD riddled kids of today. But then again millions of people can sit through utter **** like King Kong and Lord of the Rings. This movie in every way is cool. The style, the actors and the music. Amazing stuff. This reviewer has a low IQ and probably would enjoy movies like Epic Movie nowadays. (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 04 2008 05:25 PM Wow I've never heard of someone who dislikes this movie. It's a shame that you've taken away it's 100% rating. (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 09 2008 06:02 AM In reply to this comment (#2114578) What is wrong with you? This film had 100% for years, and it deserved it, but now whoever submitted this to the site has ruined this film's perfect rating based on a review written 40 damn years ago! (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 20 2008 10:24 AM Is TIME a credible periodicle anymore? Why do they have a movie critic? Just asking. (Reply to this) |
|
on Dec 09 2008 02:27 PM Casablanca and Gone with the Wind already lost their 100%s. Now this. What's next, The Godfather?! (Reply to this) |
IGN RSS Feeds