Please log in to participate in this forum.
This comment has been removed.
Just as bad a film...The Master is film of the year.
Dec 15 - 05:02 AM
Nathan Nazgűl Lord
Coming from the guy who tries to convince everyone his opinion is superior to everyone else's. No, Geordie, I think *you* are the fanboy in here. Go shove it down your own throat.
Dec 15 - 06:39 AM
dude what the fuck iss your problem? the hobbit iss a great movie,tha dark knight rises was just a bullshit mcollection of plotholes,fuck you you little bitch!
Dec 15 - 06:45 AM
First off, writing your statement out in CAPS LOCK format does not make your point any more correct. Second, your sad use of vocabulary and string of constant curses also tell me you have a serious maturity problem. Third, a shit sandwich? Like, really dude? Think you need to get an "Insults for Dummies" book because yours are fucking pathetic.
Dec 15 - 07:40 AM
ya Geordie = fanboy himself with batman yet he makes fun of people who like this movie lol what a puny hypocrite. The movie was great and I bet you didn't even see it.
Dec 15 - 08:24 AM
The public (that have seen the movie) pretty much overall love it, I loved the film, the negative section of critics can just carry on living their lives as normal, whilst these trolls who have been moaning about the film for ages can hopefully find something better to do now (or actually watch the film and make their own mind up). This film was made with a lot of love and hard work which comes through on the big screen!
Dec 15 - 03:28 AM
81% on RT isn't exactly a consensus of love for the film. It has deep flaws that the LOTR trilogy didn't have (at least not to this degree) and those flaws bug some people more than others.
Dec 15 - 07:57 AM
Who the hell complains that a movie is too long? I don't think I've ever left a movie and said "That movie was just way too long". Just sayin'
Dec 15 - 03:18 AM
Then you never saw Meet Joe Black. A cute idea for a romantic comedy stretched out to nearly three hours.
Dec 15 - 05:37 AM
Non fans weary if they see the same sort of stuff as LOTR, now a 4th time. It is much the same, that is the point. What do they want-flying horses? Its enough that most is in the book, and the book isnt LOTR.
Dec 15 - 02:55 AM
critics are critics because, well, they critisize things (duuh). they make their living out of pointing the bad point out of movies, and embelishing on that. you should never opt "not to see a movie" because a critic doesn't like it, as this doesn't determine weither YOU will like it or not.
Dec 15 - 01:54 AM
Face it, they just didnt like it.
Dec 14 - 08:00 PM
SORRY A CRITIC NAILED YOUR MOM ON YOUR BED WHILE YOU WERE IN IT!!!!
Dec 14 - 05:04 PM
Wow, what a douchebag.
Dec 14 - 05:39 PM
He thinks because it's a Tolkien story done by Jackson it HAS to be best movie of the year. That's all sorts of stupid whiny fanboy nonsense.
His mom is dirty
Dec 14 - 06:39 PM
What are you 12?
Dec 14 - 08:09 PM
There's no justice when this film gets the same score as Men in Black 3.
Dec 14 - 03:33 PM
I think the film isn't what the critics were expecting. It's so completely immersed in Middle Earth, showing the setting with extended shots of the locations and creatures and characters (in typical Peter Jackson fashion), that film critics are kind of disheartened when it takes 45 minutes to get to the plot. I don't think many of them have actually read the book... Sounds like it will be a flawless representation to me. As far as critical reviews go, I'd be lying if I said the prospects looked good. But we shouldn't expect a Hobbit movie to be as good as LOTR because LOTR was a better series of books than the Hobbit was meant to be.
Dec 5 - 06:41 PM
I think they should have stuck with the book, not include stuff that wasn't in it. I am sure the world would not have objected to a sort of documentary "showing the setting with extended shots of the locations and creatures and characters (in typical Peter Jackson fashion)". In a book or documentary that stuff is okay but not in a movie. In a movie, story, characterization and pacing should be the priority.
Dec 6 - 08:11 PM
A book documentary wouldn't be nearly as interesting. Besides, why make a different film for things that happen at the same time? I think it enhances the story. That said, I understand why someone who wanted the Hobbit only for its action sequences and thriller content would be totally disappointed. For someone who's loved the book since she was 10, I loved all the extensions and plot patches. I rather would've been disappointed with a 2 hour abridged version of the book with moving pictures.
Dec 15 - 07:47 AM
You nailed it... this is a very thorough trip through middle earth before the events of LOTR. I walked away thinking "that was pretty geeky". Which for me was totally awesome but it's perhaps less mainstream than LOTR.
Dec 15 - 07:15 AM
No film is "sure to be one of the best of the year". If a film receives mostly lukewarm reviews then it's because it's a lukewarm movie.
Dec 5 - 05:00 PM
Well, it's like seeing the same trick over and over again, you'll find out how it's done. At first it was a change when I first saw LOTR, now it's been copied so many times that you can watch this kind of epic battles even in Twilight. It's not the best movie, but enjoyable for the ones who love Tolkien's world.
Dec 5 - 12:22 PM
In Your Dreams
I dunno, maybe just they didn't like it? I hate to break it to you, but the moment the studio decided to break it into three separate films was the moment it lost any chance of being "one of the best of the year". The LOTR films really threw me for a loop when I first saw them too, but time and hindsight as shown me how weak and shallow those films really are.
Dec 5 - 12:05 PM
This is coming from the guy who's favorite trilogy is the Matrix.
Dec 5 - 07:38 PM
So if you want to see the Hobbit, that makes you a fanboy? Kinda like if you like the Matrix trilogy, you're a dumbass.
Dec 5 - 07:41 PM
THE DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY>>>THE RINGS TRILOGY i never said my favourite trilogy was the matrix trilogy.
Dec 5 - 07:56 PM
i agree these rings hobbit movies are long and dull peter jacksons best movie is the frighteners you actually have fun watching it.
Dec 5 - 03:24 PM
There's no doubt that LOTR is one of the greatest movie trilogies of all time. That's general consensus. You might not agree, but everyone else in the world does. "Boring" or "dull" is subjective.
Dec 5 - 06:43 PM
Fuck you and the Frighteners.
Dec 5 - 07:48 PM
fuck you the frighteners is a underrated masterpiece and michael j fox best outside of another better trilogy the back to the future trilogy
Dec 5 - 07:57 PM
What the hell is wrong with you? You attack people who enjoy a film? I expect that from a 16 year old, not a 30 year old?
Dec 14 - 03:35 PM
lol he's so cool with his terminator glasses, what a douche looking peon.
Dec 15 - 08:27 AM
anthony de la Vega
im not expecting the first movie to be epic. because i honestly believe that Peter will pull some amazing stuff with the last two movies. i dont understand why people are even comparing it to LOTR, when Tolkien himself wrote the book in a very different way than the Trilogy. Even the Fellowship film didnt get good reviews at first, nor did it win very many awards. But the final film is viewed as one of the best ever, and its got some 14 Academy awards i believe. Honestly, these reviews dont bother me in the least bit. I trust PJ.
Also, most of these rotten reviews arent even constructive criticism. yes, a few have very good basis, but paraquote "An Unexpected Journey may as well be The Phantom Menace and God help us all if the next two movies aren't better than this one". what? this an awful "review"...whats his basis? the man has probably never read the book
Dec 5 - 07:04 AM
Return of the King got 11 nominations and won all 11 but Fellowship got the most nominations of the Trilogy with 13 and I personally think the first two LOTR movies were far better than the third (which was still great btw).
Dec 5 - 08:16 AM
Sam: I would agree that Fellowship was the best, but I think Return of the King was better than Two Towers. Then again, it's my bias to put them all into one and call them one movie. It's really one continued storyline.
Dec 5 - 06:44 PM
the titanic won 11 oscars and aswell and it is a pile of shit just like avatar it sucks. james cameron has not made a good movie since true lies.
Dec 5 - 09:30 PM
Some of the negative reviews are justified. The book itself starts out very slowly. I remember stopping reading it as a kid because of this. It was not until my dad bribed me to read it that I finally read the rest. It is one of my all time favorite books. The other films will definitely not be as slow as this one.
Dec 5 - 06:59 AM
i really agree
Dec 5 - 07:05 AM
This flick is pretty much STARTING at 75%. By the time the number of reviews get to over one hundred it will have crashed to the 50-60% range. The Tomatoe rating of highly anticipated movies that turn out to not be that good always start high and then drop once more reviewers see them.
Dec 5 - 03:37 AM
I politely disagree. Just watch. when the film gets closer to release, all the Peter Jackson fanatics will come out of hiding and this will boost the film to 95% fresh. Despite obvious flaws with the film (which are justifiable,) very few want to go against the flow by saying anything too negative against Jackson. Even the fresh reviews currently featured have a great deal of negativity. (If this was Twilight or a George Lucas film, it would have been at 20% fresh by now.)
Dec 5 - 02:24 PM
I actually agree with most of that. I think this one will remain in the high 70's, but the two after this will be at least 85.
Dec 5 - 06:46 PM
peter jacksons THE FRIGHTENERS>>>RINGS/HOBBIT TRILOGYS
Dec 4 - 09:42 PM
Wrong. Your poor mum must be ashamed of you.
Dec 5 - 04:55 AM
What is it with you and the world "mum"? The Frighteners, strange as it might be, is a boldly disturbing and original film. Unlike all that Hobbit stuff which is, how do I put this, "based on a bunch of dusty old books"
Dec 5 - 12:07 PM
Dec 5 - 02:42 PM
Dusty old books? You have clearly never read them. The books are original. Therefore, a movie BASED on the books would be original. No reason to stop thinking when on RT...
Dec 5 - 06:47 PM
Also... it's only one book.
Dec 5 - 06:48 PM
lol Lord of the rings won best picture, wtf is frighteners? obviously not that important.
Dec 15 - 08:29 AM
You look like a school shooter in your pic. Should we be afraid?
Dec 4 - 08:28 PM
im sure he is
Dec 5 - 07:07 AM
don't provoke the shooter. he may crack and go after midnight screenings of the movie like some other psychos have recently (one went through with his plan, others were stopped).
Dec 5 - 01:41 PM
Naw, he's too busy GETTING LAID
Dec 5 - 01:42 PM
^ he's an egg?
Dec 14 - 04:58 PM
the phantom menace>>>an unexpected journey trollolol
Dec 4 - 08:23 PM
honestly, not one single person cares about your posts. the only reason im even bother to comment was because i noticed youre doing for attention and have posted like 4 times
That's right. Only a cave troll would say that.
Dec 5 - 07:15 AM
Like telling everyone he gonna go get laid? That was hilarious.
Dec 5 - 12:06 PM
Face it. The same critics that loved LOTR are panning this flick. The LOTR series now has it's own The Phantom Menace.
Dec 4 - 05:48 PM
Oh please, the reviews thus far are nowhere near indicative of that sort of detraction.
Dec 4 - 07:21 PM
Actually, one critic blatantly compared the two.
Dec 4 - 08:27 PM
I am aware. I meant that overall the reviews are not suggestive of the same deprecation that the Star Wars prequels received.
Dec 5 - 08:59 AM
Nice originality....not like I've heard a critic say the EXACT same thing. Dope
Dec 4 - 09:26 PM
Then apparently, a lot of people are having the same thought.
Dec 5 - 03:31 AM
UH no...i highly doubt you thought of that yourself
Dec 5 - 07:09 AM
Its really a laughable comparison.That movie was bad in every conceivable way. Bad acting, directing, writing, wretched dialogue. The only good thing was darth maul and they managed to even screw that up. Basically the only real knock ive heard on this is that its too long which is a fair critique
Dec 5 - 06:25 AM
well the one criticism that keeps popping up that seems legit is that its too stretched out which im not really surprised about since its a short book and spread out over 3 films. Im pretty sure im going to like it but i could see how that could be a problem
Dec 4 - 05:47 PM
To be fair, the generally positive reviews are outweighing the negative ones at the moment by quite a bit. The main issue is that the divisiveness of the 48 fps is negatively affecting some of the more positive reviews as well, which really shouldn't be happening - the vast majority of those who see this in the cinema will see it at 24 fps, and the purpose of a review is to inform a prospective audience.
Dec 4 - 04:47 PM
keep telling yourself that Gaydon
Dec 5 - 12:10 PM
Just keep trolling every comment that doesn't agree with your point of view, In Your Dreams.
Dec 5 - 02:44 PM
stop judging a movie you haven't even seen yet
Dec 4 - 02:47 PM
When will people learn that a film is not immune to criticism. It doesn't matter what the source material is, the pedigree of the filmmakers, or the acclaim of previous works. If the film has issues, critics will let you know, but saying a film is "surely to be the best" before you've even seen it is the most laughable kind of ignorance. I can understand hoping something will be good, or even expecting it will be, but deluding yourself into thinking critic's opinions suddenly are worthless just to shield yourself from disappointment is extremely immature.
The film's not perfect, that explains the reviews, and if your own personal sense of validation rests solely on a Rotten Tomatoes percentage, you're doing it wrong. Have a mind of your own. If people don't unanimously degree, you shouldn't care, and if you must, defend with empirical evidence and legitimate critical analysis upon actually SEEING the film, and I'm sure many people would be happy to engage in a substantive debate. Until then, let's ditch these ridiculous threads.
Dec 4 - 01:55 PM
I wish I was able to upvote comments. Yours is spot-on.
Dec 4 - 02:17 PM
Unfortunately, certain posters aren't going to listen to you. They are blinded by the power of the ring.
Dec 4 - 02:20 PM
Dec 4 - 02:22 PM
I love how the whole YOU COPYPASTAD thing is supposed to be an indictment. More than one thread required similar wisdom. They got it. Condemning my argument by saying I used it more than once... is not a condemnation of my argument.
hes not condemning your argument...he only said "stop"...
Dec 5 - 07:11 AM
Why should he come up with a new way to say the right thing when all you people do is find new ways to say the same stupid thing?
Dec 5 - 12:12 PM
in your dreams, well said. zachary, the reply you're replying to gives you the answer to your question. "More than one thread required similar wisdom." why bother wasting time making up a whole new comment with different semantics when the underlying message you want to get through is a carbon copy?
Dec 5 - 01:47 PM
i fully agree. too bad there weren't 'likes' on here.
Dec 4 - 06:03 PM
The critics reviews do not entirely reflect the views of the audiences. In fact, there are many statistics that show the polarisation of audience and critics of plenty of films. I have found that a few of my favourite films are disliked by the critics, while films I've hated are adored by the critics. I myself don't understand, because it seems that critics prefer 'arty' films over others.
Take Equilibrium for example. Many critics loathed it, but the fandom protested against it by saying it was excellent.
Dec 4 - 01:44 PM
"The critics reviews do not entirely reflect the views of the audiences."
There is a huge difference between critics and audiences. For example, the critics have seen "The Hobbit," and the people complaining about the reviews haven't.
Dec 4 - 03:01 PM
to go further, critics are from a wide variety of backgrounds and will see movies outside of their personal preference to write reviews on it. the audience rating is typically biased because generally people go to see films that they think will appeal to their tastes, meaning it will most likely be more positively biased (exceptions are where the movie was marketed to show the movie as something different, where 'drive' and 'killing them softly' come to mind, or the movie is just REALLY bad). but generally, it's typically positively biased
Dec 4 - 06:08 PM
Goddamnit. Enough with these threads about critics. Who gives a rat's ass. This movie is critic proof anyways. I'm seeing it no matter what the critics say-liking it or not.
Dec 4 - 01:35 PM
Well, they've seen it and we haven't...
Dec 4 - 01:33 PM
probably has something to do with the necromancer
Dec 4 - 01:14 PM