Critics Consensus: Life of Pi Is Certified Fresh

Summary

Happy Thanksgiving! This week at the movies, we've got a furry castaway (Ang Lee's Life of Pi starring Suraj Sharma); folkloric fighters (Rise of the Guardians, with voice work from Chris Pine and Alec Baldwin); teen guerillas (Red Dawn, starring Chris Hemsworth and Josh Hutcherson); and unhappy singles (Silver Linings Playbook, starring Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence). What do the critics have to say? Back to Article

Comments

Spencer S.

Spencer Saunders

I could care less about the terrible Red Dawn critic reviews. I'm still looking forward to it and it should have some pretty good action set pieces.

Nov 20 - 04:05 PM

James Adams

Adam Pass

ya you tell them man i got your back

Nov 20 - 04:28 PM

Zane B

Chum Chum

Sounds like you've decided the movie is good without even seeing it yet...hmmm

Nov 20 - 06:24 PM

Spencer S.

Spencer Saunders

Um, no. I said I'm LOOKING FORWARD to it. I never stated it was great, I just said some of the action pieces in the trailer looked impressive.

Nov 20 - 08:13 PM

Zane B

Chum Chum

Wow you have low standards for movies. You might as well wipe your ass with 10 bucks

Nov 21 - 06:21 AM

Dave J

Dave J

Wait a second here, there seems to be a double standard here, the Twilight films consist to have some of the worst ratings here, yet tthe users enjoy them than the movie critics do! "Red Dawn" is an action film for guys like any Swartzengger, Van Damme, Seagal and Jackie Chan which the action set pieces are the highlights than the story- cut him some slack since I can sense a little hypocrisy!

Nov 21 - 03:27 PM

Brad and Netflix

Bradly Martin

Iunno Dave..I mean 11%? That means it doesn't even qualify as a Fun Bad Movie. I figured as much since it was shelved for like 2 years. I am still hoping it's at least entertaining to though.

Nov 21 - 03:46 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Well then, this raises to another question, how many films do you like that's recieved 11% or less because this rating exists to most 'action' and 'horror' films- straight to rental or otherwise! And besides that, I remember their was a time when Schwartzenegger and Van Damme films used to get some of the worst ratings, now 'some' of those very same critics that didn't like those films have long been dead so RT can't include really them because they're always current movie critics!

Nov 21 - 04:28 PM

Brad and Netflix

Bradly Martin

Hard Target as bad as that was is at a 50% and I couldn't find any horror movies I actually enjoy lower than 30%. I think you have a point though, I wasn't a huge fan of the expendables or the sequel and that did get pretty crappy reviews too.

Nov 21 - 04:37 PM

Dave J

Dave J

I can't see myself paying any solid money to see neither of them but if "Twilight" and "Red Dawn" were like on two different movie channels at the same time, I think I'd prefer to watch "Red Dawn".

Nov 21 - 04:59 PM

King  S.

King Simba

What hypocrisy? There's not a single fanbase that gets bashed as much on this website as the Twilight fanbase.

And even by action standards 11% is an awful score. I mean just dock another 5% and you're in Last Airbender territory. I can think of a lot of films that earned 40-60% that I liked and even some films in the 20-40% range, but below 15%? Can't think of any at the moment.

Nov 22 - 02:48 PM

Dave J

Dave J

The difference between bashing the "Twilight" films and bashing ppl who want to see "Red Dawn" is that it's not going to hurt nor deter it's boxoffice numbers or it's rating b/c they're more users who do like the Twilight films more than the critics do, obviously grossing more than it's budget as opposed to "Red Dawn"- it'll be lucky to make it's money back! It's obvious that "Red Dawn" is never going to match "Twilight's" boxoffice numbers, so why degrade the few people who plan on seeing it!

And I'm not agreeing with you that 11% is an awful score but you have to remember that the ratings here change because they're new movie critics submitted here all the time. And by determining by what you watch by the RT ratings instead of thinking for yourself is 'robotic' because I know a great deal of Seagal, Van Damme, horror films that would've gotten the exact same rating perhaps even lower- if the movie critics acknowledges their existence, so as a result they go straight-to-rental. It's not really a movie here unless it's acknowledged by movie critics is not the correct way to determine whether or not you'll like it or not even though theirs a chance that some of them may be something you'll like, I mean this also includes "After Dark Horrorfest" and "8 Films to Die For". Even I 'liked' films that have scored lower than 11%- "Rad" got 0 percent and "Half Past Dead" got 2 percent and they're probably hundreds more! And if "Red Dawn" and "Twilight" were both on at the same time, I'd choose to watch "Red Dawn" over "Twilight" any day of the week, mainly b/c one is more realistic than the other just b/c one uses more unconvincing CGI as opposed to the other one which is probably like any other patriotic fictional war film ever made!

Nov 22 - 05:38 PM

King  S.

King Simba

More realistic? It'd be more realistic to show an alien invasion than North Korea invading the US.

On top of that, the premises also ivolves a group of ordinary teens taking on an entire army. I mean at least in Stallone or Arnold movies, the main character was usually a highly trained assasin or cop (or in Terminator's case a futuristic cop), but ordinary teens only one of them with military experience? Even by action movie standards that's pushing believability.

Granted, I'm not bashing the tastes of those who want to see it. I mean even Steven Seagal seems to have his fans (personally I can't stand the guy. Least favorite actor ever). But I don't see how one can call Red Dawn even slightly realistic.

Nov 22 - 11:55 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Well, you obviously forgot about your history, didn't you! When the US invaded Vietnam and Iraq, and don't forget what happened during WWII, how many underage kids were being used nor drafted to fight in those wars- if you were around back then or have studied history- you'd find that they were lots. As a matter of fact, during WWII kids who "weren'"t even old enough to smoke nor drink were still being drafted into the army! Let alone what Hitler did, who had nothing but underage kids left since most of the more older German soldiers were either defeated captured or just dead! As a matter of fact I can name you alot of war films which underage kids are portrayed to fight in wars similar to "Red Dawn" some are even younger than the characters in the movie- part real life or a part of history let's see theirs, "Toy Soldiers", "The Running Man","Downfall"(Hitler's last Days), "Full Metal Jacket" (underage Vietcong kids), "From Here To Eternity" the Robert Montgomery character, "The Longest Day", "Hamburger Hill", "Rome Open City" as well as it's sequel "Paison", "Children Of Men","Battle Of The Bulge", "Battle Of Algiers"- I'm not even including the ones made in Afganistan and Iraq- I can go forever where the list is unendless where underage kids in some form or another are fighting in war, even during the civil war where I recall the movie showed even an 10 year old holding up a gun and being prepared to use it on a yankee!

Nov 23 - 01:46 PM

Dave J

Dave J

And look what's happening a few days ago between Pakistan and Israel- I bet some of them "look" more younger than the characters in "Red Dawn"!

Nov 23 - 01:56 PM

Dave J

Dave J

I just want to say one last thing, Steven Seagal is an actual martial artist who studied "akido" achieving the rank of 7th degree black belt, whose also trained actual UFC MMA fighter Anderson Silva to win one of his matches! And like Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris and Jackie Chan, they may not be the best actors to watch on screen but they're the most entertaining to watch when they're fighting! I don't care too much for Seagal's personal life which is identicle to Schwartzenegger's but all I can say is that Seagal can really kick ass and looks good sometimes when it's on screen!

Nov 23 - 04:21 PM

King  S.

King Simba

You really misunderstood my complaint. My point isn't that it's unrealistic to show teenagers fighting in a war, is that it's unrealistic to show a small group, only one of whom according to the premises had any previous military training taking on an entire army of soldiers and winning (yes the premises doesn't say the last bit, but of course we know they're going to win). I don't see how that's realistic. I mean even in Jackie Chan or Stallone movies they make some explanation why they can take on 20 men at a time, like being an elite secret agent or highly trained martial artist.

Nov 23 - 11:44 PM

King  S.

King Simba

And I would never put Jackie Chan in the same sentence with Steven Seagal. Jackie Chan may not deliver oscar worthy performances, but he's highly creative in his fight scenes, is funny and can make himself appear vunerable. Seagal - he's so indestructable in his movies and the bad guys he faces are so incompentent that I find myself rooting for the bad guy. He doesn't even have those classic cheezy puns that Schwarzenegger is so famous for.

Nov 23 - 11:53 PM

Dave J

Dave J

"without military training taking on an entire army of soldiers and winning (yes the premises doesn't say the last bit, but of course we know they're going to win"

Isn't that one of the reasons why we go to the movies is solely because we can see that it can be done if anything like that were to happen! And they're alot of films showcase a small army of young men taking on an army of older men since they would know hthe area more than the invaders! I mean look, if it wasn't convincing in the first "Red Dawn" as well as other films similar to it than they wouldn't have shown it in the first place. The realistic point of view is that it devoids any use of special effects which is what the "Twilight" films depends alot on!

Nov 26 - 11:53 AM

King  S.

King Simba

Devoid of special effects? Forgive me, but without seeing them I'm pretty sure Red Dawn is going to have a lot more explosions than Twilight (which by the way is a series that really isn't that heavy on special effects. In fact, up until Breaking Dawn their budgets were pretty low compared to the average blockbuster).

"I mean look, if it wasn't convincing in the first "Red Dawn" as well as other films similar to it than they wouldn't have shown it in the first place."

Yeah right. Since when do most action films care about realism?

Nov 26 - 12:34 PM

Dave J

Dave J

"Yeah right. Since when do most action films care about realism? "

Let's get some thing straight here, okay! "Red Dawn" is about a bunch of college kids defending an area who if you'd actually paid real close attention to the actors playing those so-called college kids, they are either older than the characters they're playing or old enough to join any army themselves in real life! Chris Hemsworth who is the first star of "Red Dawn" is more believable to you than if he were to play a super hero named "Thor" right, but Chris is not so believable holding up a gun and firing it, right! And using actual explosions in a film no matter how much is less believable to you in your mind than the vampire CGI stuff shown in the "Twilight" films, even though someone can be fatally get hurt if those fatal explosions is not done correct. It is very obvious that we both have different standards here, whereas you like and believed what they did with the "Twilight" films, and that "Red Dawn" is more in my territory because they don't have to show jumping vampires who never age and be able to get away with killing innocent bystanders, so let's just leave it at that- I have different standards than you! Even "Ann Rice" said that the Twilight movies are a travesty to the vampire genre not that you'd believe her anyway, and she's been writing about them longer than Stephanie Myer has!

Nov 26 - 03:10 PM

King  S.

King Simba

You're really misunderstanding my point here.

First of all, what on earth made you assume that I was a Twi-Hard (or whatever the expression you use for a Twilight fanboy)? Neither Breaking Dawn Part 2 or Red Dawn is on my must see list. Second of all, no I do not think that Twilight is believable. However, neither is Red Dawn. The premises of Noth Korea invading the US is dumb enough, but having a massive army of invaders thwarted by a small group of teens or heck even adults? Yes, I know this has been done countless of times in action films but that doesn't make it anymore believable.

"Chris Hemsworth who is the first star of "Red Dawn" is more believable to you than if he were to play a super hero named "Thor" right, but Chris is not so believable holding up a gun and firing it, right!"

Yeesh, how many times do I have to say this. My point is not that it's unrealistic to show a college kid or teen knowing how to use a gun, it's the fact that they're able to defeat an entire army. And at least Avengers gave a reason as to why Thor was able to defeat so many bad guys (you know, being a superhero with the power of lightning). I doubt Red Dawn will gave any other explanation other than that the bad guys are complete idiots who will fire a million bullets and not scratch the heroes and yet every bullet fired by the heroes will hit its target.

Let me make one thing straight - I am not bashing the tastes of those who like the film. My issue is trying to claim that Red Dawn is realistic which it isn't.

Nov 27 - 07:03 AM

Dave J

Dave J

I just said that you liked the Twilight films b/c they have higher ratings than "Red Dawn",I never made any claims you were one, and you were defending them! You have a habit of just finding unconvincing reasons why Red Dawn is not a good movie even though you ahven't seen either number 1 or number 2 but because it's got a bad rating- that is not a sufficient reason why Red Dawn is not good! I mean did you even see the first Red Dawn because I do believe that film has a plus rating on RT! Your arguments can can also be said about every other Schwartzenegger, Stallone or any other war film ever made but for some reason you find a reason why those a credible as opposed to this one!

"My issue is trying to claim that Red Dawn is realistic which it isn't"

And what I'm saying is that "Red Dawn" is more realistic than "Twilight"!

Nov 27 - 02:00 PM

Spencer S.

Spencer Saunders

Wow, you seem to be a stiff asshole that can't simply enjoy a movie. I'm not looking at Red Dawn as a critically exclaimed movie like Life of Pi or Lincoln. It's just for enjoyment. And after seeing it yesterday, I can say it was cheesy but entertaining.

Nov 22 - 01:10 PM

Stepping Razor

Stepping Razor

You have a very simplistic view of how one regards a movie. Even among cheesy, "bad" movies, there still are ones that are good, mediocre or bad. Just because he doesn't enjoy what you do doesn't mean he can't sit down and enjoy a movie. You and him have different tastes. Why can't you just let that be? Why do you have to resort to petty name-calling?

Nov 22 - 04:25 PM

Hans M.

Hans Morgenstern

acclaimed is word you were looking for. Not exclaimed.

Nov 23 - 04:22 AM

Eric I.

Eric Irvan

Chum Chum, seems to me that YOU are the one with low standards for movies since to you a movie is ONLY as good as the ratings given to it by the critics.

News flash, just because YOU think a movie is bad does NOT actually mean that movie is actually bad to EVERYONE. Just because someone else think it's good does NOT mean they have low standards for movies. It simply means they have a DIFFERENT TASTE for movies. People like you, who attack others simply because they have a different taste in movies, make me sick. So, go be a slave to the critics. Some of us actually want to enjoy watching a good little action oriented flick.

Nov 23 - 03:39 AM

man#2

Luke Cullen

You could care less? That means surely you're listening to some of the reviews then.

Nov 20 - 08:02 PM

Spencer S.

Spencer Saunders

No, it means that I'll go to the movie and take my own opinion over what the critics said. Who knows. I could end up hating it or I could end up really enjoying it like I did the original.

Nov 20 - 08:12 PM

David Wangberg

David Wangberg

Then you mean you couldn't care less.

Nov 20 - 09:23 PM

Janson Jinnistan

Janson Jinnistan

(giggle)

Nov 20 - 10:55 PM

Spencer S.

Spencer Saunders

Point is I found the movie to be enjoyable.

Nov 22 - 01:12 PM

Valmordas

Val Mordas

Enjoy your crappy movie.

Nov 20 - 09:28 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Ypu may be right, "Red Dawn" may be a crappy movie but at least it's going to be more enjoyable than the Twilight films!

Nov 21 - 03:28 PM

Brad and Netflix

Bradly Martin

Life of Pi man Life of Pi! See that instead. Support Ang Lee! Chris Hemsworth and Josh Hutcherson are allready set for life!

Nov 21 - 03:48 PM

Dave J

Dave J

I'm not planning to see neither film but just saying that I'd probably enjoy "Red Dawn" than any of the "Twilight" films since they dwell most of their action sequences on cheezy 'special effects' which doesn't bother Twihards as opposed to others who expect higher standards!

Nov 21 - 04:52 PM

Carolyn Doane

Carolyn Doane

Read the book.

Nov 21 - 05:03 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Why read the "Twilight" books when they're far more interesting books!

Nov 21 - 05:07 PM

Brad and Netflix

Bradly Martin

I think he meant Read Life of Pi

Nov 21 - 05:13 PM

James Adams

Adam Pass

ya you tell them man i got your back

Nov 20 - 04:28 PM

James Adams

Adam Pass

Can't wait to see Life of Pi ,and Rise of the Guardians seems good,and as for Red Dawn i'll check it out anyway, hay they have Josh Peck so i'll give it a glance at

Nov 20 - 04:29 PM

Branden Mata

Branden Mata

Can't wait to see Silver Linings Playbook, I love Lawrence and I have a feeling this is definitely gonna be Cooper's breakout role I have been saying will come. And even though Rise of The Guardians is rated less than I hoped for, I still wanna see it. It just looks to freaking awesome tbh.

Nov 20 - 04:50 PM

Michael Brennen

Michael Brennen

Ya I really want to see Silver Linings. I love the book it's based on, and basically the entire cast is garnering major Oscar buzz.

Nov 20 - 07:47 PM

King Crunk

King Crunk

I think Cooper's real test in terms of his range is going to come in March with The Place Beyond the Pines. It will be his first time as a lead with no real comedic schick to fall back on, acting a dark drama film, and starring alongside Gosling, who has proven that he can make a dramatic role riveting with minimal dialogue and muted emotions.

Nov 20 - 11:33 PM

Brad and Netflix

Bradly Martin

But Cooper's break out role was Limitless. He can't have two break out roles! HE CAN'T HAVE TWO!!!

Nov 21 - 03:48 PM

Movie Monster

Bentley Lyles

Life of Pi and Rise of the Guardians both look awesome! They look like they're worth seeing in 3D.

Nov 20 - 05:44 PM

manueljosemj

Manuel Jose

I have no idea how Ang Lee does it; he makes movies in completely different genres and comes out on top nearly always! He is super super talented...

Nov 20 - 06:01 PM

Jake Cecena

Jake Cecena

I can't wait to see Life of Pi and Silver Linings Playbook this weekend. Rise of the Guardians looks like a decent rental, and Red Dawn looks awful in almost every way. Definitely a skip.

Nov 20 - 06:08 PM

Zane B

Chum Chum

Sounds like you've decided the movie is good without even seeing it yet...hmmm

Nov 20 - 06:24 PM

Spencer S.

Spencer Saunders

Um, no. I said I'm LOOKING FORWARD to it. I never stated it was great, I just said some of the action pieces in the trailer looked impressive.

Nov 20 - 08:13 PM

Zane B

Chum Chum

Wow you have low standards for movies. You might as well wipe your ass with 10 bucks

Nov 21 - 06:21 AM

Dave J

Dave J

Wait a second here, there seems to be a double standard here, the Twilight films consist to have some of the worst ratings here, yet tthe users enjoy them than the movie critics do! "Red Dawn" is an action film for guys like any Swartzengger, Van Damme, Seagal and Jackie Chan which the action set pieces are the highlights than the story- cut him some slack since I can sense a little hypocrisy!

Nov 21 - 03:27 PM

Brad and Netflix

Bradly Martin

Iunno Dave..I mean 11%? That means it doesn't even qualify as a Fun Bad Movie. I figured as much since it was shelved for like 2 years. I am still hoping it's at least entertaining to though.

Nov 21 - 03:46 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Well then, this raises to another question, how many films do you like that's recieved 11% or less because this rating exists to most 'action' and 'horror' films- straight to rental or otherwise! And besides that, I remember their was a time when Schwartzenegger and Van Damme films used to get some of the worst ratings, now 'some' of those very same critics that didn't like those films have long been dead so RT can't include really them because they're always current movie critics!

Nov 21 - 04:28 PM

Brad and Netflix

Bradly Martin

Hard Target as bad as that was is at a 50% and I couldn't find any horror movies I actually enjoy lower than 30%. I think you have a point though, I wasn't a huge fan of the expendables or the sequel and that did get pretty crappy reviews too.

Nov 21 - 04:37 PM

Dave J

Dave J

I can't see myself paying any solid money to see neither of them but if "Twilight" and "Red Dawn" were like on two different movie channels at the same time, I think I'd prefer to watch "Red Dawn".

Nov 21 - 04:59 PM

King  S.

King Simba

What hypocrisy? There's not a single fanbase that gets bashed as much on this website as the Twilight fanbase.

And even by action standards 11% is an awful score. I mean just dock another 5% and you're in Last Airbender territory. I can think of a lot of films that earned 40-60% that I liked and even some films in the 20-40% range, but below 15%? Can't think of any at the moment.

Nov 22 - 02:48 PM

Dave J

Dave J

The difference between bashing the "Twilight" films and bashing ppl who want to see "Red Dawn" is that it's not going to hurt nor deter it's boxoffice numbers or it's rating b/c they're more users who do like the Twilight films more than the critics do, obviously grossing more than it's budget as opposed to "Red Dawn"- it'll be lucky to make it's money back! It's obvious that "Red Dawn" is never going to match "Twilight's" boxoffice numbers, so why degrade the few people who plan on seeing it!

And I'm not agreeing with you that 11% is an awful score but you have to remember that the ratings here change because they're new movie critics submitted here all the time. And by determining by what you watch by the RT ratings instead of thinking for yourself is 'robotic' because I know a great deal of Seagal, Van Damme, horror films that would've gotten the exact same rating perhaps even lower- if the movie critics acknowledges their existence, so as a result they go straight-to-rental. It's not really a movie here unless it's acknowledged by movie critics is not the correct way to determine whether or not you'll like it or not even though theirs a chance that some of them may be something you'll like, I mean this also includes "After Dark Horrorfest" and "8 Films to Die For". Even I 'liked' films that have scored lower than 11%- "Rad" got 0 percent and "Half Past Dead" got 2 percent and they're probably hundreds more! And if "Red Dawn" and "Twilight" were both on at the same time, I'd choose to watch "Red Dawn" over "Twilight" any day of the week, mainly b/c one is more realistic than the other just b/c one uses more unconvincing CGI as opposed to the other one which is probably like any other patriotic fictional war film ever made!

Nov 22 - 05:38 PM

King  S.

King Simba

More realistic? It'd be more realistic to show an alien invasion than North Korea invading the US.

On top of that, the premises also ivolves a group of ordinary teens taking on an entire army. I mean at least in Stallone or Arnold movies, the main character was usually a highly trained assasin or cop (or in Terminator's case a futuristic cop), but ordinary teens only one of them with military experience? Even by action movie standards that's pushing believability.

Granted, I'm not bashing the tastes of those who want to see it. I mean even Steven Seagal seems to have his fans (personally I can't stand the guy. Least favorite actor ever). But I don't see how one can call Red Dawn even slightly realistic.

Nov 22 - 11:55 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Well, you obviously forgot about your history, didn't you! When the US invaded Vietnam and Iraq, and don't forget what happened during WWII, how many underage kids were being used nor drafted to fight in those wars- if you were around back then or have studied history- you'd find that they were lots. As a matter of fact, during WWII kids who "weren'"t even old enough to smoke nor drink were still being drafted into the army! Let alone what Hitler did, who had nothing but underage kids left since most of the more older German soldiers were either defeated captured or just dead! As a matter of fact I can name you alot of war films which underage kids are portrayed to fight in wars similar to "Red Dawn" some are even younger than the characters in the movie- part real life or a part of history let's see theirs, "Toy Soldiers", "The Running Man","Downfall"(Hitler's last Days), "Full Metal Jacket" (underage Vietcong kids), "From Here To Eternity" the Robert Montgomery character, "The Longest Day", "Hamburger Hill", "Rome Open City" as well as it's sequel "Paison", "Children Of Men","Battle Of The Bulge", "Battle Of Algiers"- I'm not even including the ones made in Afganistan and Iraq- I can go forever where the list is unendless where underage kids in some form or another are fighting in war, even during the civil war where I recall the movie showed even an 10 year old holding up a gun and being prepared to use it on a yankee!

Nov 23 - 01:46 PM

Dave J

Dave J

And look what's happening a few days ago between Pakistan and Israel- I bet some of them "look" more younger than the characters in "Red Dawn"!

Nov 23 - 01:56 PM

Dave J

Dave J

I just want to say one last thing, Steven Seagal is an actual martial artist who studied "akido" achieving the rank of 7th degree black belt, whose also trained actual UFC MMA fighter Anderson Silva to win one of his matches! And like Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris and Jackie Chan, they may not be the best actors to watch on screen but they're the most entertaining to watch when they're fighting! I don't care too much for Seagal's personal life which is identicle to Schwartzenegger's but all I can say is that Seagal can really kick ass and looks good sometimes when it's on screen!

Nov 23 - 04:21 PM

King  S.

King Simba

You really misunderstood my complaint. My point isn't that it's unrealistic to show teenagers fighting in a war, is that it's unrealistic to show a small group, only one of whom according to the premises had any previous military training taking on an entire army of soldiers and winning (yes the premises doesn't say the last bit, but of course we know they're going to win). I don't see how that's realistic. I mean even in Jackie Chan or Stallone movies they make some explanation why they can take on 20 men at a time, like being an elite secret agent or highly trained martial artist.

Nov 23 - 11:44 PM

King  S.

King Simba

And I would never put Jackie Chan in the same sentence with Steven Seagal. Jackie Chan may not deliver oscar worthy performances, but he's highly creative in his fight scenes, is funny and can make himself appear vunerable. Seagal - he's so indestructable in his movies and the bad guys he faces are so incompentent that I find myself rooting for the bad guy. He doesn't even have those classic cheezy puns that Schwarzenegger is so famous for.

Nov 23 - 11:53 PM

Dave J

Dave J

"without military training taking on an entire army of soldiers and winning (yes the premises doesn't say the last bit, but of course we know they're going to win"

Isn't that one of the reasons why we go to the movies is solely because we can see that it can be done if anything like that were to happen! And they're alot of films showcase a small army of young men taking on an army of older men since they would know hthe area more than the invaders! I mean look, if it wasn't convincing in the first "Red Dawn" as well as other films similar to it than they wouldn't have shown it in the first place. The realistic point of view is that it devoids any use of special effects which is what the "Twilight" films depends alot on!

Nov 26 - 11:53 AM

King  S.

King Simba

Devoid of special effects? Forgive me, but without seeing them I'm pretty sure Red Dawn is going to have a lot more explosions than Twilight (which by the way is a series that really isn't that heavy on special effects. In fact, up until Breaking Dawn their budgets were pretty low compared to the average blockbuster).

"I mean look, if it wasn't convincing in the first "Red Dawn" as well as other films similar to it than they wouldn't have shown it in the first place."

Yeah right. Since when do most action films care about realism?

Nov 26 - 12:34 PM

Dave J

Dave J

"Yeah right. Since when do most action films care about realism? "

Let's get some thing straight here, okay! "Red Dawn" is about a bunch of college kids defending an area who if you'd actually paid real close attention to the actors playing those so-called college kids, they are either older than the characters they're playing or old enough to join any army themselves in real life! Chris Hemsworth who is the first star of "Red Dawn" is more believable to you than if he were to play a super hero named "Thor" right, but Chris is not so believable holding up a gun and firing it, right! And using actual explosions in a film no matter how much is less believable to you in your mind than the vampire CGI stuff shown in the "Twilight" films, even though someone can be fatally get hurt if those fatal explosions is not done correct. It is very obvious that we both have different standards here, whereas you like and believed what they did with the "Twilight" films, and that "Red Dawn" is more in my territory because they don't have to show jumping vampires who never age and be able to get away with killing innocent bystanders, so let's just leave it at that- I have different standards than you! Even "Ann Rice" said that the Twilight movies are a travesty to the vampire genre not that you'd believe her anyway, and she's been writing about them longer than Stephanie Myer has!

Nov 26 - 03:10 PM

King  S.

King Simba

You're really misunderstanding my point here.

First of all, what on earth made you assume that I was a Twi-Hard (or whatever the expression you use for a Twilight fanboy)? Neither Breaking Dawn Part 2 or Red Dawn is on my must see list. Second of all, no I do not think that Twilight is believable. However, neither is Red Dawn. The premises of Noth Korea invading the US is dumb enough, but having a massive army of invaders thwarted by a small group of teens or heck even adults? Yes, I know this has been done countless of times in action films but that doesn't make it anymore believable.

"Chris Hemsworth who is the first star of "Red Dawn" is more believable to you than if he were to play a super hero named "Thor" right, but Chris is not so believable holding up a gun and firing it, right!"

Yeesh, how many times do I have to say this. My point is not that it's unrealistic to show a college kid or teen knowing how to use a gun, it's the fact that they're able to defeat an entire army. And at least Avengers gave a reason as to why Thor was able to defeat so many bad guys (you know, being a superhero with the power of lightning). I doubt Red Dawn will gave any other explanation other than that the bad guys are complete idiots who will fire a million bullets and not scratch the heroes and yet every bullet fired by the heroes will hit its target.

Let me make one thing straight - I am not bashing the tastes of those who like the film. My issue is trying to claim that Red Dawn is realistic which it isn't.

Nov 27 - 07:03 AM

Dave J

Dave J

I just said that you liked the Twilight films b/c they have higher ratings than "Red Dawn",I never made any claims you were one, and you were defending them! You have a habit of just finding unconvincing reasons why Red Dawn is not a good movie even though you ahven't seen either number 1 or number 2 but because it's got a bad rating- that is not a sufficient reason why Red Dawn is not good! I mean did you even see the first Red Dawn because I do believe that film has a plus rating on RT! Your arguments can can also be said about every other Schwartzenegger, Stallone or any other war film ever made but for some reason you find a reason why those a credible as opposed to this one!

"My issue is trying to claim that Red Dawn is realistic which it isn't"

And what I'm saying is that "Red Dawn" is more realistic than "Twilight"!

Nov 27 - 02:00 PM

Spencer S.

Spencer Saunders

Wow, you seem to be a stiff asshole that can't simply enjoy a movie. I'm not looking at Red Dawn as a critically exclaimed movie like Life of Pi or Lincoln. It's just for enjoyment. And after seeing it yesterday, I can say it was cheesy but entertaining.

Nov 22 - 01:10 PM

Stepping Razor

Stepping Razor

You have a very simplistic view of how one regards a movie. Even among cheesy, "bad" movies, there still are ones that are good, mediocre or bad. Just because he doesn't enjoy what you do doesn't mean he can't sit down and enjoy a movie. You and him have different tastes. Why can't you just let that be? Why do you have to resort to petty name-calling?

Nov 22 - 04:25 PM

Hans M.

Hans Morgenstern

acclaimed is word you were looking for. Not exclaimed.

Nov 23 - 04:22 AM

Eric I.

Eric Irvan

Chum Chum, seems to me that YOU are the one with low standards for movies since to you a movie is ONLY as good as the ratings given to it by the critics.

News flash, just because YOU think a movie is bad does NOT actually mean that movie is actually bad to EVERYONE. Just because someone else think it's good does NOT mean they have low standards for movies. It simply means they have a DIFFERENT TASTE for movies. People like you, who attack others simply because they have a different taste in movies, make me sick. So, go be a slave to the critics. Some of us actually want to enjoy watching a good little action oriented flick.

Nov 23 - 03:39 AM

Michael Brennen

Michael Brennen

Ya I really want to see Silver Linings. I love the book it's based on, and basically the entire cast is garnering major Oscar buzz.

Nov 20 - 07:47 PM

man#2

Luke Cullen

You could care less? That means surely you're listening to some of the reviews then.

Nov 20 - 08:02 PM

Spencer S.

Spencer Saunders

No, it means that I'll go to the movie and take my own opinion over what the critics said. Who knows. I could end up hating it or I could end up really enjoying it like I did the original.

Nov 20 - 08:12 PM

David Wangberg

David Wangberg

Then you mean you couldn't care less.

Nov 20 - 09:23 PM

Janson Jinnistan

Janson Jinnistan

(giggle)

Nov 20 - 10:55 PM

Spencer S.

Spencer Saunders

Point is I found the movie to be enjoyable.

Nov 22 - 01:12 PM

Spencer S.

Spencer Saunders

No, it means that I'll go to the movie and take my own opinion over what the critics said. Who knows. I could end up hating it or I could end up really enjoying it like I did the original.

Nov 20 - 08:12 PM

David Wangberg

David Wangberg

Then you mean you couldn't care less.

Nov 20 - 09:23 PM

Janson Jinnistan

Janson Jinnistan

(giggle)

Nov 20 - 10:55 PM

Spencer S.

Spencer Saunders

Point is I found the movie to be enjoyable.

Nov 22 - 01:12 PM

Spencer S.

Spencer Saunders

Um, no. I said I'm LOOKING FORWARD to it. I never stated it was great, I just said some of the action pieces in the trailer looked impressive.

Nov 20 - 08:13 PM

Zane B

Chum Chum

Wow you have low standards for movies. You might as well wipe your ass with 10 bucks

Nov 21 - 06:21 AM

Dave J

Dave J

Wait a second here, there seems to be a double standard here, the Twilight films consist to have some of the worst ratings here, yet tthe users enjoy them than the movie critics do! "Red Dawn" is an action film for guys like any Swartzengger, Van Damme, Seagal and Jackie Chan which the action set pieces are the highlights than the story- cut him some slack since I can sense a little hypocrisy!

Nov 21 - 03:27 PM

Brad and Netflix

Bradly Martin

Iunno Dave..I mean 11%? That means it doesn't even qualify as a Fun Bad Movie. I figured as much since it was shelved for like 2 years. I am still hoping it's at least entertaining to though.

Nov 21 - 03:46 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Well then, this raises to another question, how many films do you like that's recieved 11% or less because this rating exists to most 'action' and 'horror' films- straight to rental or otherwise! And besides that, I remember their was a time when Schwartzenegger and Van Damme films used to get some of the worst ratings, now 'some' of those very same critics that didn't like those films have long been dead so RT can't include really them because they're always current movie critics!

Nov 21 - 04:28 PM

Brad and Netflix

Bradly Martin

Hard Target as bad as that was is at a 50% and I couldn't find any horror movies I actually enjoy lower than 30%. I think you have a point though, I wasn't a huge fan of the expendables or the sequel and that did get pretty crappy reviews too.

Nov 21 - 04:37 PM

Dave J

Dave J

I can't see myself paying any solid money to see neither of them but if "Twilight" and "Red Dawn" were like on two different movie channels at the same time, I think I'd prefer to watch "Red Dawn".

Nov 21 - 04:59 PM

King  S.

King Simba

What hypocrisy? There's not a single fanbase that gets bashed as much on this website as the Twilight fanbase.

And even by action standards 11% is an awful score. I mean just dock another 5% and you're in Last Airbender territory. I can think of a lot of films that earned 40-60% that I liked and even some films in the 20-40% range, but below 15%? Can't think of any at the moment.

Nov 22 - 02:48 PM

Dave J

Dave J

The difference between bashing the "Twilight" films and bashing ppl who want to see "Red Dawn" is that it's not going to hurt nor deter it's boxoffice numbers or it's rating b/c they're more users who do like the Twilight films more than the critics do, obviously grossing more than it's budget as opposed to "Red Dawn"- it'll be lucky to make it's money back! It's obvious that "Red Dawn" is never going to match "Twilight's" boxoffice numbers, so why degrade the few people who plan on seeing it!

And I'm not agreeing with you that 11% is an awful score but you have to remember that the ratings here change because they're new movie critics submitted here all the time. And by determining by what you watch by the RT ratings instead of thinking for yourself is 'robotic' because I know a great deal of Seagal, Van Damme, horror films that would've gotten the exact same rating perhaps even lower- if the movie critics acknowledges their existence, so as a result they go straight-to-rental. It's not really a movie here unless it's acknowledged by movie critics is not the correct way to determine whether or not you'll like it or not even though theirs a chance that some of them may be something you'll like, I mean this also includes "After Dark Horrorfest" and "8 Films to Die For". Even I 'liked' films that have scored lower than 11%- "Rad" got 0 percent and "Half Past Dead" got 2 percent and they're probably hundreds more! And if "Red Dawn" and "Twilight" were both on at the same time, I'd choose to watch "Red Dawn" over "Twilight" any day of the week, mainly b/c one is more realistic than the other just b/c one uses more unconvincing CGI as opposed to the other one which is probably like any other patriotic fictional war film ever made!

Nov 22 - 05:38 PM

King  S.

King Simba

More realistic? It'd be more realistic to show an alien invasion than North Korea invading the US.

On top of that, the premises also ivolves a group of ordinary teens taking on an entire army. I mean at least in Stallone or Arnold movies, the main character was usually a highly trained assasin or cop (or in Terminator's case a futuristic cop), but ordinary teens only one of them with military experience? Even by action movie standards that's pushing believability.

Granted, I'm not bashing the tastes of those who want to see it. I mean even Steven Seagal seems to have his fans (personally I can't stand the guy. Least favorite actor ever). But I don't see how one can call Red Dawn even slightly realistic.

Nov 22 - 11:55 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Well, you obviously forgot about your history, didn't you! When the US invaded Vietnam and Iraq, and don't forget what happened during WWII, how many underage kids were being used nor drafted to fight in those wars- if you were around back then or have studied history- you'd find that they were lots. As a matter of fact, during WWII kids who "weren'"t even old enough to smoke nor drink were still being drafted into the army! Let alone what Hitler did, who had nothing but underage kids left since most of the more older German soldiers were either defeated captured or just dead! As a matter of fact I can name you alot of war films which underage kids are portrayed to fight in wars similar to "Red Dawn" some are even younger than the characters in the movie- part real life or a part of history let's see theirs, "Toy Soldiers", "The Running Man","Downfall"(Hitler's last Days), "Full Metal Jacket" (underage Vietcong kids), "From Here To Eternity" the Robert Montgomery character, "The Longest Day", "Hamburger Hill", "Rome Open City" as well as it's sequel "Paison", "Children Of Men","Battle Of The Bulge", "Battle Of Algiers"- I'm not even including the ones made in Afganistan and Iraq- I can go forever where the list is unendless where underage kids in some form or another are fighting in war, even during the civil war where I recall the movie showed even an 10 year old holding up a gun and being prepared to use it on a yankee!

Nov 23 - 01:46 PM

Dave J

Dave J

And look what's happening a few days ago between Pakistan and Israel- I bet some of them "look" more younger than the characters in "Red Dawn"!

Nov 23 - 01:56 PM

Dave J

Dave J

I just want to say one last thing, Steven Seagal is an actual martial artist who studied "akido" achieving the rank of 7th degree black belt, whose also trained actual UFC MMA fighter Anderson Silva to win one of his matches! And like Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris and Jackie Chan, they may not be the best actors to watch on screen but they're the most entertaining to watch when they're fighting! I don't care too much for Seagal's personal life which is identicle to Schwartzenegger's but all I can say is that Seagal can really kick ass and looks good sometimes when it's on screen!

Nov 23 - 04:21 PM

King  S.

King Simba

You really misunderstood my complaint. My point isn't that it's unrealistic to show teenagers fighting in a war, is that it's unrealistic to show a small group, only one of whom according to the premises had any previous military training taking on an entire army of soldiers and winning (yes the premises doesn't say the last bit, but of course we know they're going to win). I don't see how that's realistic. I mean even in Jackie Chan or Stallone movies they make some explanation why they can take on 20 men at a time, like being an elite secret agent or highly trained martial artist.

Nov 23 - 11:44 PM

King  S.

King Simba

And I would never put Jackie Chan in the same sentence with Steven Seagal. Jackie Chan may not deliver oscar worthy performances, but he's highly creative in his fight scenes, is funny and can make himself appear vunerable. Seagal - he's so indestructable in his movies and the bad guys he faces are so incompentent that I find myself rooting for the bad guy. He doesn't even have those classic cheezy puns that Schwarzenegger is so famous for.

Nov 23 - 11:53 PM

Dave J

Dave J

"without military training taking on an entire army of soldiers and winning (yes the premises doesn't say the last bit, but of course we know they're going to win"

Isn't that one of the reasons why we go to the movies is solely because we can see that it can be done if anything like that were to happen! And they're alot of films showcase a small army of young men taking on an army of older men since they would know hthe area more than the invaders! I mean look, if it wasn't convincing in the first "Red Dawn" as well as other films similar to it than they wouldn't have shown it in the first place. The realistic point of view is that it devoids any use of special effects which is what the "Twilight" films depends alot on!

Nov 26 - 11:53 AM

King  S.

King Simba

Devoid of special effects? Forgive me, but without seeing them I'm pretty sure Red Dawn is going to have a lot more explosions than Twilight (which by the way is a series that really isn't that heavy on special effects. In fact, up until Breaking Dawn their budgets were pretty low compared to the average blockbuster).

"I mean look, if it wasn't convincing in the first "Red Dawn" as well as other films similar to it than they wouldn't have shown it in the first place."

Yeah right. Since when do most action films care about realism?

Nov 26 - 12:34 PM

Dave J

Dave J

"Yeah right. Since when do most action films care about realism? "

Let's get some thing straight here, okay! "Red Dawn" is about a bunch of college kids defending an area who if you'd actually paid real close attention to the actors playing those so-called college kids, they are either older than the characters they're playing or old enough to join any army themselves in real life! Chris Hemsworth who is the first star of "Red Dawn" is more believable to you than if he were to play a super hero named "Thor" right, but Chris is not so believable holding up a gun and firing it, right! And using actual explosions in a film no matter how much is less believable to you in your mind than the vampire CGI stuff shown in the "Twilight" films, even though someone can be fatally get hurt if those fatal explosions is not done correct. It is very obvious that we both have different standards here, whereas you like and believed what they did with the "Twilight" films, and that "Red Dawn" is more in my territory because they don't have to show jumping vampires who never age and be able to get away with killing innocent bystanders, so let's just leave it at that- I have different standards than you! Even "Ann Rice" said that the Twilight movies are a travesty to the vampire genre not that you'd believe her anyway, and she's been writing about them longer than Stephanie Myer has!

Nov 26 - 03:10 PM

King  S.

King Simba

You're really misunderstanding my point here.

First of all, what on earth made you assume that I was a Twi-Hard (or whatever the expression you use for a Twilight fanboy)? Neither Breaking Dawn Part 2 or Red Dawn is on my must see list. Second of all, no I do not think that Twilight is believable. However, neither is Red Dawn. The premises of Noth Korea invading the US is dumb enough, but having a massive army of invaders thwarted by a small group of teens or heck even adults? Yes, I know this has been done countless of times in action films but that doesn't make it anymore believable.

"Chris Hemsworth who is the first star of "Red Dawn" is more believable to you than if he were to play a super hero named "Thor" right, but Chris is not so believable holding up a gun and firing it, right!"

Yeesh, how many times do I have to say this. My point is not that it's unrealistic to show a college kid or teen knowing how to use a gun, it's the fact that they're able to defeat an entire army. And at least Avengers gave a reason as to why Thor was able to defeat so many bad guys (you know, being a superhero with the power of lightning). I doubt Red Dawn will gave any other explanation other than that the bad guys are complete idiots who will fire a million bullets and not scratch the heroes and yet every bullet fired by the heroes will hit its target.

Let me make one thing straight - I am not bashing the tastes of those who like the film. My issue is trying to claim that Red Dawn is realistic which it isn't.

Nov 27 - 07:03 AM

Dave J

Dave J

I just said that you liked the Twilight films b/c they have higher ratings than "Red Dawn",I never made any claims you were one, and you were defending them! You have a habit of just finding unconvincing reasons why Red Dawn is not a good movie even though you ahven't seen either number 1 or number 2 but because it's got a bad rating- that is not a sufficient reason why Red Dawn is not good! I mean did you even see the first Red Dawn because I do believe that film has a plus rating on RT! Your arguments can can also be said about every other Schwartzenegger, Stallone or any other war film ever made but for some reason you find a reason why those a credible as opposed to this one!

"My issue is trying to claim that Red Dawn is realistic which it isn't"

And what I'm saying is that "Red Dawn" is more realistic than "Twilight"!

Nov 27 - 02:00 PM

Jaxx Raxor

Adam Jones

I already saw both Skyfall and Lincoln, so I'm kinda tapped out for movies this month, but Thanksgiving week seems pretty good. I would say that Rise of the Guardians has the best chance this weekend as its the first animated CGI film in a while and that always brings out the kiddies, especially on a family Holiday like Thanksgiving. Life of Pi unfortunately seems like to be this year's Hugo. Loved by critics but underperforming at the box office. It just doesn't seem to be the type of film that will appeal to a lot of people, nor does it have a massive rabid fan base like franchises like Twilight or Harry Potter.

Red Dawn is trash, and on Silver Linings Playbook, I'm happy its getting good reviews, but way too many romantic comedies that Hollywood has spit out has featured young, white, attractive actors and actresses getting together, and its a bit tiresome to me.

Nov 20 - 08:31 PM

Premo Beat

John Noto

Life of Pi is a very successful book and the film should have no trouble attracting an audience.

Nov 21 - 06:29 AM

AfroSan

Alex Wibowo

Makes me wonder how the next "unflimable" book, The Great Gatsby, will go.

Nov 20 - 08:51 PM

Andrew Brinkerhoff

Andrew Brinkerhoff

"Life of Pi" interests me somewhat, I'll think about giving it a look. I'm a little disappointed by the reviews for "Rise of the Guardians", but I think I'll be seeing it anyways. I have no interest in "Red Dawn", and I'll catch "Silver Linings Playbook" at Redbox.

Nov 20 - 09:11 PM

Jaxx Raxor

Adam Jones

I'm curious, what do you find dissappointing about Rise of the Guardians? Is the RT meter for it too low or too high for your liking?

I'll also likely bee checking out Silver Linings Playbook on Redbox, it seems worth watching but not in the theater for me.

Nov 20 - 09:13 PM

Andrew Brinkerhoff

Andrew Brinkerhoff

I was hoping the rating would be higher, like somewhere in the mid-80s.

Nov 20 - 09:33 PM

Billy B.

Billy Barnett

The rating keeps switching from 76 to 78 repeatedly on here, same thing happened with Madagascar 3.

Nov 21 - 07:49 AM

Janson Jinnistan

Janson Jinnistan

What disappoints me is the parts about Santa Claus, Jack Frost and the Easter Bunny. But, surprise! It has "storytelling problems". Who'd a thunk? "Life of Pi" is much more original story, but 'original' doesn't appeal to a lot of people, I guess.

Nov 20 - 11:02 PM

Jaxx Raxor

Adam Jones

I'm curious, what do you find dissappointing about Rise of the Guardians? Is the RT meter for it too low or too high for your liking?

I'll also likely bee checking out Silver Linings Playbook on Redbox, it seems worth watching but not in the theater for me.

Nov 20 - 09:13 PM

Andrew Brinkerhoff

Andrew Brinkerhoff

I was hoping the rating would be higher, like somewhere in the mid-80s.

Nov 20 - 09:33 PM

Billy B.

Billy Barnett

The rating keeps switching from 76 to 78 repeatedly on here, same thing happened with Madagascar 3.

Nov 21 - 07:49 AM

Janson Jinnistan

Janson Jinnistan

What disappoints me is the parts about Santa Claus, Jack Frost and the Easter Bunny. But, surprise! It has "storytelling problems". Who'd a thunk? "Life of Pi" is much more original story, but 'original' doesn't appeal to a lot of people, I guess.

Nov 20 - 11:02 PM

David Wangberg

David Wangberg

Then you mean you couldn't care less.

Nov 20 - 09:23 PM

Valmordas

Val Mordas

Enjoy your crappy movie.

Nov 20 - 09:28 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Ypu may be right, "Red Dawn" may be a crappy movie but at least it's going to be more enjoyable than the Twilight films!

Nov 21 - 03:28 PM

Brad and Netflix

Bradly Martin

Life of Pi man Life of Pi! See that instead. Support Ang Lee! Chris Hemsworth and Josh Hutcherson are allready set for life!

Nov 21 - 03:48 PM

Dave J

Dave J

I'm not planning to see neither film but just saying that I'd probably enjoy "Red Dawn" than any of the "Twilight" films since they dwell most of their action sequences on cheezy 'special effects' which doesn't bother Twihards as opposed to others who expect higher standards!

Nov 21 - 04:52 PM

Carolyn Doane

Carolyn Doane

Read the book.

Nov 21 - 05:03 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Why read the "Twilight" books when they're far more interesting books!

Nov 21 - 05:07 PM

Brad and Netflix

Bradly Martin

I think he meant Read Life of Pi

Nov 21 - 05:13 PM

Andrew Brinkerhoff

Andrew Brinkerhoff

I was hoping the rating would be higher, like somewhere in the mid-80s.

Nov 20 - 09:33 PM

Billy B.

Billy Barnett

The rating keeps switching from 76 to 78 repeatedly on here, same thing happened with Madagascar 3.

Nov 21 - 07:49 AM

Rebeccachu Elizabeth C.

Rebecca Clark

I know right?!

Nov 20 - 10:12 PM

What's Hot On RT

Total Recall
Total Recall

Cameron Diaz's 10 Best Movies

Five Favorite Films
Five Favorite Films

Brick Mansions star RZA

WonderCon
WonderCon

175 cosplay pictures

24 Frames
24 Frames

Experiments Gone Wrong!

Find us on:                 
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile