RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: True Grit and Just Go With It

Summary

This week on home video, we had, yet again, a whole lot of Blu-Ray reissues and just a handful of new releases. Many of the new BRDs - like The Man Who Would Be King, Vera Cruz, and Happy Gilmore, for example - seemed pretty straightforward, so we're going to keep this one tight and focused. This week, you'll find the latest critically-acclaimed Coen brothers film, a drama about corporate downsizing, an Adam Sandler-Jennifer Aniston rom-com, and a deadly underwater adventure produced by James Cameron. Then, we've also got Mike Leigh's latest critical darling, and a definitive box set of films depicting the Man of Steel. So click through and check out the full list! Back to Article

Comments

Cory

Cory B

Definitely picking up True Grit, another masterpiece from the Coens. I liked it even better than the Wayne version, which is saying something.

Might also get the Superman collection if it's in a store near me.

Jun 5 - 09:23 PM

Kadeem S.

Kadeem Stewart

I'll skip "Just Go With It" because I'm a big fan of Adam Sandler, but not Jennifer Aniston. Her trainwreck comedies began to flop all over again. But "Sanctum" and "True Grit" is worth renting.

Jun 5 - 10:13 PM

Wisenheimer

Joshua Dinsmore

I'm not buying anything but I'll definitely rent True Grit and see it again. That movie was great.

Jun 6 - 12:05 AM

algreen99

AL Green

I enjoyed the 2nd half of True Grit but have no desire to ever watch it again. Anyone else think its overrated just because its a Coen movie? To me its mediocer compared to their pass work. Western wise The Proposition blows it out of the water. The young girl did a great job but 96%?

Jun 6 - 12:12 AM

Confounded

Matthew Bertram

As I'm sure you know, the tomatometer doesn't compare it to other films of the genre, or films from the same director (although some individual critics will judge a film that way). Is it hard to believe that on its own merits, 96% of them said, "Yes, it's good."? I don't think so. The best western ever? Probably not. The best Coen movie? Also a longshot. But it's still good. That's like saying, "Jurassic Park is at 88%? Really? I mean, it's no E.T. or Jaws..."

Jun 6 - 06:25 AM

algreen99

AL Green

Actually Cofounded it is not **Thats like saying** Your analogy is off. To be fair to you there is no way you could have known that it would be off. I enjoyed ET & Jaws more than Jurassic Park and I am personally thrilled that ET & Jaws are rated so high. They are both properly rated higher than JP to my personal satisfaction. I enjoyed The Proposition way more than True Grit yet Grit is rated higher than a movie that I think is superior not just in that genre but in general. Why are you bringing up movie critics anyways? *I* compared True grit to another western because *I* decided to. *I* dont care how critics judge or whether they compare anything. *I* like to be my own movie critic, and enjoy rating them on here. *I* will bring up or compare however *I* choose to. *I* think the name Coen being attached to Grit is what has it at 96% yet the superior 3:10ToYuma remake by the not so popular James Mangold is in the 80s. Remember Cofounded, I didnt ask anyone to feel like I do. I simply asked if anyone else felt like I do

Jun 6 - 07:47 AM

Confounded

Matthew Bertram

*I* brought up critics because you made a direct coorelation to the 96% tomatometer. If you had stopped at, "I thought it was overrated," *I* never would've needed to comment. You lace your agrument with "I" and "Me," but the 96% doesn't have anything to do with you. Not one critic based their opinion on, "I wonder what ALgreen thought." It very much appeared like you were misusing the tomatometer to say, "I don't think this movie is 96% out of 100% good." Instead of, "96% of critics felt this was better than bad." Which I didn't feel was unbelievable. And I feel my analogy holds water because, again, you're using the tomatometer to "rank" E.T., Jaws, and Jurrasic Park. And that's not the point of the tomatometer. It's not a "rating" system, as such. It's an aggregator. It's a statistical representation of only 2 choices, good or bad. If you thought Jaws, E.T., and Jurrasic Park were good movies (completely aside from how you would rank them), then you agree with 100%, 98%, and 88% of the critics, respectively. There is no other way to analyze it. Judging a film to be "better" or "worse" because of respective tomatometer scores is, well, ignorant. The average score for True Grit was 84% for critics and 82% for the audience. You can take issue with that, if you wish.

Jun 6 - 08:51 AM

algreen99

AL Green

*Judging a film to be better or worse because of respective tomatometer scores is, well, ignorant* *The 96% doesnt have anything to do with you* *Not one critic based their opinion on I wonder what ALgreen thought* Yes I know this captain obvious, I do know this. I do not think the ratings make a movie better or worse. You are talking to the leading preacher who preaches that ones personal opinion or anticipation about a movie should triumph over that of their god Ebert. Anyways, what part of *to my personal satisfaction* when mentioning the ratings do you not understand? You, I, and most people here know that a negative rating doesnt mean shit if someone personally likes the movie. Just like an Oscar doesnt mean shit. But if Gary Oldman and Christopher Plummer happened to win an Oscar one day I would personally be thrilled - not because I respect the Oscars but because I know a lot of people do. To myyyyyyy own personal satisfaction I like when a movie that i love just happens to have a 95 to 100% next to it. It satisfies me because I know thats a powerful image for some people. There are people who base what they rent or put in their netflix que based on the percentage number on here or the amount of stars on Imdb. Seeing 99% next to a movie & 61% next to another has a visual affect on none movie buffs and even some movie buffs themselves. There was a lot of excitement from those who had not seen First Class yet when it started off at 95%. It slowly went down but stayed in the upper 80s. Are you telling me that excitement would be the same if it started off at 64% and slowly went down to 60%? Xmen fans are going to see that movie regardless but for the people who were on the fence, seeing that 60% *which is lower than Singers movies* might have made them wait for the DVD. I like when movies that I love get a chance to have the visual affect on the people it does affect. Now as for me, one of my favorite movies of all time *Perfume: The Story Of a Murderer -which I highly recommend to anyone who reads this* is rotten on here. Does that stop me from watching it once a month? No. Mr Cofounded, I know that my personal satisfactions or disappointments when it comes to movie ratings matters to no one. But I never said it did or it should. Did I explain that better this time? Or did *It very much appear like* I didnt?

Jun 6 - 11:06 AM

Dave J

Dave J

I'm going to agree with "Confounded" since this is your "first" original comment "The young girl did a great job but 96%?" is a very blatant comment instead of using the term "most RT critics" - what you rather do when you come on here as opposed to going to other movie sites, such as "imdb.com" since those people are in reflection of unpaid public opinion but to come on here to discredit paid critics about a film when it's called "Rottentomatoes.com" for a reason is partly because of those "paid" movie critics and people such as yourself are curious what paid critics ratings or concenses are going to be- no one here says Ebert is a God- just you! I acknowledge what people say whether I like the film or not, I don't always agree with them! And I still don't understand why you're here, Algreen- what is your main objective- is it to slam, bash, discredit movie critics who could watch more movies than us and possibly enlighten us a little more if so few of us had seen! You should 'grow up', otherwise get out and become a member to "imdb.com" if you don't like what the paid critics say about it!

Jun 6 - 04:05 PM

algreen99

AL Green

So you who write reviews, rates movies, have a movie list, has blogs, and obviously come here for up coming movie news like I do think I should get out of RT if I dont like the critics as if the critics are all this site has to offer? Riigghht. I read every thread *even the ones I dont comment on. I have seen people on here make sexual jokes in bad taste, mention womens body parts, mention mental disability in a mean spirited way, or even mention their own genitals and I do not see you telling them to grow up. Until I see you tell those people to get out I just cant take you seriously.

Jun 6 - 10:13 PM

Dave J

Dave J

I personally didn't think "True Grit" with Jeff Bridges was great either but the thing is ALGreen, is that you've already "acknoweldged" that what you've been doing is just as childish as the "examples" you've mentioned, except that they've or most of them had "stopped" while you still want to continue (third article about your rants on movie critics) to belittle "actual" paid- movie critics (from People magazine, Rolling Stones and Entertainment Weekly... to name a few) who don't know who or what we are! Listen, if you get your kicks in any way make you feel important to be a big man scolding movie critics than that's your alternative and you should go for it because getting paid to review films can be a good gig if you can get it, whether it's online, on mag or newspaper than you can go right ahead and continue to waste other peoples time if they choose to read it- perhaps have a petition- free country, as opposed to myself, I'm going to try to read stuff that is relevent to me!

Jun 7 - 01:15 PM

algreen99

AL Green

I am sorry Dave J, I just tried but I still cant take you seriously. I need to see you tell other people to get out first. Until then I am sorry. Wait, let me end mines with an exclamation mark also. Until then I am sorry!

Jun 7 - 11:16 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Well, if you read my "last" comment very carefully- I said you can go on right ahead and scold paid movie critics you don't know "if" it makes you feel important and if other people want to waste time to join in on your example than that's their preogitive too! I, on the other hand, have better things to do than to waste time on what I perceive as pointless drivel! I mean I don't mind reading about an opinion upon a film whether I agree with 'em or not, but on critics who write about films who "don't" make the damn films when they're so many to watch as it is, should have better things to do with their lives! And I'm sorry for reading about your pointless rants about film critics who don't know even know who or what we are!

Jun 8 - 12:53 PM

Premo Beat

John Noto

Pipe down, Jesus. I didn't bother to read any of these long winded comments so I'll only say that True Grit is a near universally good movie thus its high t-meter. Average rating is a different story, but I've not met anyone who didn't enjoy it on some level and therefore would recommend it (critics job...). So you didn't like it as much as , the T-meter is not an indicator of a film's place in all-time rankings but is meant to let you know the odds that you'll enjoy a movie you'd spend 15 bucks to see.

Jun 8 - 01:18 PM

algreen99

AL Green

Ritalin Dave. Ritalin.

Jun 8 - 07:43 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Good idea ALgreen- take some ritalin, that'll calm those nerves about those damn movie critics!

Jun 9 - 04:05 PM

algreen99

AL Green

No Dave, I want you to take some so you can stop using so many exclamation marks when responding.

Jun 9 - 08:59 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Good one, ALgreen!

Jun 10 - 12:17 PM

Swampfox

Pat Marion

I didn't read all the comments but I'll just hop in here, I don't like the movie. That was your original post. And I agree with you.

Also, Company of Men is a good movie. Made me feel bad for Ben Affleck...who would've knew...

Jun 7 - 07:01 AM

Confounded

Matthew Bertram

As I'm sure you know, the tomatometer doesn't compare it to other films of the genre, or films from the same director (although some individual critics will judge a film that way). Is it hard to believe that on its own merits, 96% of them said, "Yes, it's good."? I don't think so. The best western ever? Probably not. The best Coen movie? Also a longshot. But it's still good. That's like saying, "Jurassic Park is at 88%? Really? I mean, it's no E.T. or Jaws..."

Jun 6 - 06:25 AM

algreen99

AL Green

Actually Cofounded it is not **Thats like saying** Your analogy is off. To be fair to you there is no way you could have known that it would be off. I enjoyed ET & Jaws more than Jurassic Park and I am personally thrilled that ET & Jaws are rated so high. They are both properly rated higher than JP to my personal satisfaction. I enjoyed The Proposition way more than True Grit yet Grit is rated higher than a movie that I think is superior not just in that genre but in general. Why are you bringing up movie critics anyways? *I* compared True grit to another western because *I* decided to. *I* dont care how critics judge or whether they compare anything. *I* like to be my own movie critic, and enjoy rating them on here. *I* will bring up or compare however *I* choose to. *I* think the name Coen being attached to Grit is what has it at 96% yet the superior 3:10ToYuma remake by the not so popular James Mangold is in the 80s. Remember Cofounded, I didnt ask anyone to feel like I do. I simply asked if anyone else felt like I do

Jun 6 - 07:47 AM

Confounded

Matthew Bertram

*I* brought up critics because you made a direct coorelation to the 96% tomatometer. If you had stopped at, "I thought it was overrated," *I* never would've needed to comment. You lace your agrument with "I" and "Me," but the 96% doesn't have anything to do with you. Not one critic based their opinion on, "I wonder what ALgreen thought." It very much appeared like you were misusing the tomatometer to say, "I don't think this movie is 96% out of 100% good." Instead of, "96% of critics felt this was better than bad." Which I didn't feel was unbelievable. And I feel my analogy holds water because, again, you're using the tomatometer to "rank" E.T., Jaws, and Jurrasic Park. And that's not the point of the tomatometer. It's not a "rating" system, as such. It's an aggregator. It's a statistical representation of only 2 choices, good or bad. If you thought Jaws, E.T., and Jurrasic Park were good movies (completely aside from how you would rank them), then you agree with 100%, 98%, and 88% of the critics, respectively. There is no other way to analyze it. Judging a film to be "better" or "worse" because of respective tomatometer scores is, well, ignorant. The average score for True Grit was 84% for critics and 82% for the audience. You can take issue with that, if you wish.

Jun 6 - 08:51 AM

algreen99

AL Green

*Judging a film to be better or worse because of respective tomatometer scores is, well, ignorant* *The 96% doesnt have anything to do with you* *Not one critic based their opinion on I wonder what ALgreen thought* Yes I know this captain obvious, I do know this. I do not think the ratings make a movie better or worse. You are talking to the leading preacher who preaches that ones personal opinion or anticipation about a movie should triumph over that of their god Ebert. Anyways, what part of *to my personal satisfaction* when mentioning the ratings do you not understand? You, I, and most people here know that a negative rating doesnt mean shit if someone personally likes the movie. Just like an Oscar doesnt mean shit. But if Gary Oldman and Christopher Plummer happened to win an Oscar one day I would personally be thrilled - not because I respect the Oscars but because I know a lot of people do. To myyyyyyy own personal satisfaction I like when a movie that i love just happens to have a 95 to 100% next to it. It satisfies me because I know thats a powerful image for some people. There are people who base what they rent or put in their netflix que based on the percentage number on here or the amount of stars on Imdb. Seeing 99% next to a movie & 61% next to another has a visual affect on none movie buffs and even some movie buffs themselves. There was a lot of excitement from those who had not seen First Class yet when it started off at 95%. It slowly went down but stayed in the upper 80s. Are you telling me that excitement would be the same if it started off at 64% and slowly went down to 60%? Xmen fans are going to see that movie regardless but for the people who were on the fence, seeing that 60% *which is lower than Singers movies* might have made them wait for the DVD. I like when movies that I love get a chance to have the visual affect on the people it does affect. Now as for me, one of my favorite movies of all time *Perfume: The Story Of a Murderer -which I highly recommend to anyone who reads this* is rotten on here. Does that stop me from watching it once a month? No. Mr Cofounded, I know that my personal satisfactions or disappointments when it comes to movie ratings matters to no one. But I never said it did or it should. Did I explain that better this time? Or did *It very much appear like* I didnt?

Jun 6 - 11:06 AM

Dave J

Dave J

I'm going to agree with "Confounded" since this is your "first" original comment "The young girl did a great job but 96%?" is a very blatant comment instead of using the term "most RT critics" - what you rather do when you come on here as opposed to going to other movie sites, such as "imdb.com" since those people are in reflection of unpaid public opinion but to come on here to discredit paid critics about a film when it's called "Rottentomatoes.com" for a reason is partly because of those "paid" movie critics and people such as yourself are curious what paid critics ratings or concenses are going to be- no one here says Ebert is a God- just you! I acknowledge what people say whether I like the film or not, I don't always agree with them! And I still don't understand why you're here, Algreen- what is your main objective- is it to slam, bash, discredit movie critics who could watch more movies than us and possibly enlighten us a little more if so few of us had seen! You should 'grow up', otherwise get out and become a member to "imdb.com" if you don't like what the paid critics say about it!

Jun 6 - 04:05 PM

algreen99

AL Green

So you who write reviews, rates movies, have a movie list, has blogs, and obviously come here for up coming movie news like I do think I should get out of RT if I dont like the critics as if the critics are all this site has to offer? Riigghht. I read every thread *even the ones I dont comment on. I have seen people on here make sexual jokes in bad taste, mention womens body parts, mention mental disability in a mean spirited way, or even mention their own genitals and I do not see you telling them to grow up. Until I see you tell those people to get out I just cant take you seriously.

Jun 6 - 10:13 PM

Dave J

Dave J

I personally didn't think "True Grit" with Jeff Bridges was great either but the thing is ALGreen, is that you've already "acknoweldged" that what you've been doing is just as childish as the "examples" you've mentioned, except that they've or most of them had "stopped" while you still want to continue (third article about your rants on movie critics) to belittle "actual" paid- movie critics (from People magazine, Rolling Stones and Entertainment Weekly... to name a few) who don't know who or what we are! Listen, if you get your kicks in any way make you feel important to be a big man scolding movie critics than that's your alternative and you should go for it because getting paid to review films can be a good gig if you can get it, whether it's online, on mag or newspaper than you can go right ahead and continue to waste other peoples time if they choose to read it- perhaps have a petition- free country, as opposed to myself, I'm going to try to read stuff that is relevent to me!

Jun 7 - 01:15 PM

algreen99

AL Green

I am sorry Dave J, I just tried but I still cant take you seriously. I need to see you tell other people to get out first. Until then I am sorry. Wait, let me end mines with an exclamation mark also. Until then I am sorry!

Jun 7 - 11:16 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Well, if you read my "last" comment very carefully- I said you can go on right ahead and scold paid movie critics you don't know "if" it makes you feel important and if other people want to waste time to join in on your example than that's their preogitive too! I, on the other hand, have better things to do than to waste time on what I perceive as pointless drivel! I mean I don't mind reading about an opinion upon a film whether I agree with 'em or not, but on critics who write about films who "don't" make the damn films when they're so many to watch as it is, should have better things to do with their lives! And I'm sorry for reading about your pointless rants about film critics who don't know even know who or what we are!

Jun 8 - 12:53 PM

Premo Beat

John Noto

Pipe down, Jesus. I didn't bother to read any of these long winded comments so I'll only say that True Grit is a near universally good movie thus its high t-meter. Average rating is a different story, but I've not met anyone who didn't enjoy it on some level and therefore would recommend it (critics job...). So you didn't like it as much as , the T-meter is not an indicator of a film's place in all-time rankings but is meant to let you know the odds that you'll enjoy a movie you'd spend 15 bucks to see.

Jun 8 - 01:18 PM

algreen99

AL Green

Ritalin Dave. Ritalin.

Jun 8 - 07:43 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Good idea ALgreen- take some ritalin, that'll calm those nerves about those damn movie critics!

Jun 9 - 04:05 PM

algreen99

AL Green

No Dave, I want you to take some so you can stop using so many exclamation marks when responding.

Jun 9 - 08:59 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Good one, ALgreen!

Jun 10 - 12:17 PM

algreen99

AL Green

Actually Cofounded it is not **Thats like saying** Your analogy is off. To be fair to you there is no way you could have known that it would be off. I enjoyed ET & Jaws more than Jurassic Park and I am personally thrilled that ET & Jaws are rated so high. They are both properly rated higher than JP to my personal satisfaction. I enjoyed The Proposition way more than True Grit yet Grit is rated higher than a movie that I think is superior not just in that genre but in general. Why are you bringing up movie critics anyways? *I* compared True grit to another western because *I* decided to. *I* dont care how critics judge or whether they compare anything. *I* like to be my own movie critic, and enjoy rating them on here. *I* will bring up or compare however *I* choose to. *I* think the name Coen being attached to Grit is what has it at 96% yet the superior 3:10ToYuma remake by the not so popular James Mangold is in the 80s. Remember Cofounded, I didnt ask anyone to feel like I do. I simply asked if anyone else felt like I do

Jun 6 - 07:47 AM

Confounded

Matthew Bertram

*I* brought up critics because you made a direct coorelation to the 96% tomatometer. If you had stopped at, "I thought it was overrated," *I* never would've needed to comment. You lace your agrument with "I" and "Me," but the 96% doesn't have anything to do with you. Not one critic based their opinion on, "I wonder what ALgreen thought." It very much appeared like you were misusing the tomatometer to say, "I don't think this movie is 96% out of 100% good." Instead of, "96% of critics felt this was better than bad." Which I didn't feel was unbelievable. And I feel my analogy holds water because, again, you're using the tomatometer to "rank" E.T., Jaws, and Jurrasic Park. And that's not the point of the tomatometer. It's not a "rating" system, as such. It's an aggregator. It's a statistical representation of only 2 choices, good or bad. If you thought Jaws, E.T., and Jurrasic Park were good movies (completely aside from how you would rank them), then you agree with 100%, 98%, and 88% of the critics, respectively. There is no other way to analyze it. Judging a film to be "better" or "worse" because of respective tomatometer scores is, well, ignorant. The average score for True Grit was 84% for critics and 82% for the audience. You can take issue with that, if you wish.

Jun 6 - 08:51 AM

algreen99

AL Green

*Judging a film to be better or worse because of respective tomatometer scores is, well, ignorant* *The 96% doesnt have anything to do with you* *Not one critic based their opinion on I wonder what ALgreen thought* Yes I know this captain obvious, I do know this. I do not think the ratings make a movie better or worse. You are talking to the leading preacher who preaches that ones personal opinion or anticipation about a movie should triumph over that of their god Ebert. Anyways, what part of *to my personal satisfaction* when mentioning the ratings do you not understand? You, I, and most people here know that a negative rating doesnt mean shit if someone personally likes the movie. Just like an Oscar doesnt mean shit. But if Gary Oldman and Christopher Plummer happened to win an Oscar one day I would personally be thrilled - not because I respect the Oscars but because I know a lot of people do. To myyyyyyy own personal satisfaction I like when a movie that i love just happens to have a 95 to 100% next to it. It satisfies me because I know thats a powerful image for some people. There are people who base what they rent or put in their netflix que based on the percentage number on here or the amount of stars on Imdb. Seeing 99% next to a movie & 61% next to another has a visual affect on none movie buffs and even some movie buffs themselves. There was a lot of excitement from those who had not seen First Class yet when it started off at 95%. It slowly went down but stayed in the upper 80s. Are you telling me that excitement would be the same if it started off at 64% and slowly went down to 60%? Xmen fans are going to see that movie regardless but for the people who were on the fence, seeing that 60% *which is lower than Singers movies* might have made them wait for the DVD. I like when movies that I love get a chance to have the visual affect on the people it does affect. Now as for me, one of my favorite movies of all time *Perfume: The Story Of a Murderer -which I highly recommend to anyone who reads this* is rotten on here. Does that stop me from watching it once a month? No. Mr Cofounded, I know that my personal satisfactions or disappointments when it comes to movie ratings matters to no one. But I never said it did or it should. Did I explain that better this time? Or did *It very much appear like* I didnt?

Jun 6 - 11:06 AM

Dave J

Dave J

I'm going to agree with "Confounded" since this is your "first" original comment "The young girl did a great job but 96%?" is a very blatant comment instead of using the term "most RT critics" - what you rather do when you come on here as opposed to going to other movie sites, such as "imdb.com" since those people are in reflection of unpaid public opinion but to come on here to discredit paid critics about a film when it's called "Rottentomatoes.com" for a reason is partly because of those "paid" movie critics and people such as yourself are curious what paid critics ratings or concenses are going to be- no one here says Ebert is a God- just you! I acknowledge what people say whether I like the film or not, I don't always agree with them! And I still don't understand why you're here, Algreen- what is your main objective- is it to slam, bash, discredit movie critics who could watch more movies than us and possibly enlighten us a little more if so few of us had seen! You should 'grow up', otherwise get out and become a member to "imdb.com" if you don't like what the paid critics say about it!

Jun 6 - 04:05 PM

algreen99

AL Green

So you who write reviews, rates movies, have a movie list, has blogs, and obviously come here for up coming movie news like I do think I should get out of RT if I dont like the critics as if the critics are all this site has to offer? Riigghht. I read every thread *even the ones I dont comment on. I have seen people on here make sexual jokes in bad taste, mention womens body parts, mention mental disability in a mean spirited way, or even mention their own genitals and I do not see you telling them to grow up. Until I see you tell those people to get out I just cant take you seriously.

Jun 6 - 10:13 PM

Dave J

Dave J

I personally didn't think "True Grit" with Jeff Bridges was great either but the thing is ALGreen, is that you've already "acknoweldged" that what you've been doing is just as childish as the "examples" you've mentioned, except that they've or most of them had "stopped" while you still want to continue (third article about your rants on movie critics) to belittle "actual" paid- movie critics (from People magazine, Rolling Stones and Entertainment Weekly... to name a few) who don't know who or what we are! Listen, if you get your kicks in any way make you feel important to be a big man scolding movie critics than that's your alternative and you should go for it because getting paid to review films can be a good gig if you can get it, whether it's online, on mag or newspaper than you can go right ahead and continue to waste other peoples time if they choose to read it- perhaps have a petition- free country, as opposed to myself, I'm going to try to read stuff that is relevent to me!

Jun 7 - 01:15 PM

algreen99

AL Green

I am sorry Dave J, I just tried but I still cant take you seriously. I need to see you tell other people to get out first. Until then I am sorry. Wait, let me end mines with an exclamation mark also. Until then I am sorry!

Jun 7 - 11:16 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Well, if you read my "last" comment very carefully- I said you can go on right ahead and scold paid movie critics you don't know "if" it makes you feel important and if other people want to waste time to join in on your example than that's their preogitive too! I, on the other hand, have better things to do than to waste time on what I perceive as pointless drivel! I mean I don't mind reading about an opinion upon a film whether I agree with 'em or not, but on critics who write about films who "don't" make the damn films when they're so many to watch as it is, should have better things to do with their lives! And I'm sorry for reading about your pointless rants about film critics who don't know even know who or what we are!

Jun 8 - 12:53 PM

Premo Beat

John Noto

Pipe down, Jesus. I didn't bother to read any of these long winded comments so I'll only say that True Grit is a near universally good movie thus its high t-meter. Average rating is a different story, but I've not met anyone who didn't enjoy it on some level and therefore would recommend it (critics job...). So you didn't like it as much as , the T-meter is not an indicator of a film's place in all-time rankings but is meant to let you know the odds that you'll enjoy a movie you'd spend 15 bucks to see.

Jun 8 - 01:18 PM

Brad H.

Brad Hadfield

The cover for "Another Year" is very reminicent of "Big Fish."

I do want to see "The Company Men."

Jun 6 - 07:59 AM

Confounded

Matthew Bertram

*I* brought up critics because you made a direct coorelation to the 96% tomatometer. If you had stopped at, "I thought it was overrated," *I* never would've needed to comment. You lace your agrument with "I" and "Me," but the 96% doesn't have anything to do with you. Not one critic based their opinion on, "I wonder what ALgreen thought." It very much appeared like you were misusing the tomatometer to say, "I don't think this movie is 96% out of 100% good." Instead of, "96% of critics felt this was better than bad." Which I didn't feel was unbelievable. And I feel my analogy holds water because, again, you're using the tomatometer to "rank" E.T., Jaws, and Jurrasic Park. And that's not the point of the tomatometer. It's not a "rating" system, as such. It's an aggregator. It's a statistical representation of only 2 choices, good or bad. If you thought Jaws, E.T., and Jurrasic Park were good movies (completely aside from how you would rank them), then you agree with 100%, 98%, and 88% of the critics, respectively. There is no other way to analyze it. Judging a film to be "better" or "worse" because of respective tomatometer scores is, well, ignorant. The average score for True Grit was 84% for critics and 82% for the audience. You can take issue with that, if you wish.

Jun 6 - 08:51 AM

algreen99

AL Green

*Judging a film to be better or worse because of respective tomatometer scores is, well, ignorant* *The 96% doesnt have anything to do with you* *Not one critic based their opinion on I wonder what ALgreen thought* Yes I know this captain obvious, I do know this. I do not think the ratings make a movie better or worse. You are talking to the leading preacher who preaches that ones personal opinion or anticipation about a movie should triumph over that of their god Ebert. Anyways, what part of *to my personal satisfaction* when mentioning the ratings do you not understand? You, I, and most people here know that a negative rating doesnt mean shit if someone personally likes the movie. Just like an Oscar doesnt mean shit. But if Gary Oldman and Christopher Plummer happened to win an Oscar one day I would personally be thrilled - not because I respect the Oscars but because I know a lot of people do. To myyyyyyy own personal satisfaction I like when a movie that i love just happens to have a 95 to 100% next to it. It satisfies me because I know thats a powerful image for some people. There are people who base what they rent or put in their netflix que based on the percentage number on here or the amount of stars on Imdb. Seeing 99% next to a movie & 61% next to another has a visual affect on none movie buffs and even some movie buffs themselves. There was a lot of excitement from those who had not seen First Class yet when it started off at 95%. It slowly went down but stayed in the upper 80s. Are you telling me that excitement would be the same if it started off at 64% and slowly went down to 60%? Xmen fans are going to see that movie regardless but for the people who were on the fence, seeing that 60% *which is lower than Singers movies* might have made them wait for the DVD. I like when movies that I love get a chance to have the visual affect on the people it does affect. Now as for me, one of my favorite movies of all time *Perfume: The Story Of a Murderer -which I highly recommend to anyone who reads this* is rotten on here. Does that stop me from watching it once a month? No. Mr Cofounded, I know that my personal satisfactions or disappointments when it comes to movie ratings matters to no one. But I never said it did or it should. Did I explain that better this time? Or did *It very much appear like* I didnt?

Jun 6 - 11:06 AM

TheInfamousToad

Ethan Saugey

True Grit was a good film no doubt, but the worst part was the _mood_... There was absolutely no sense of urgency or suspense for the greater part of the movie. I didn't see this as a work of art by the Coen's as much as an above average film that put on display the incredible acting talent of it's cast.

Jun 6 - 11:24 AM

Dave J

Dave J

I'm going to agree with "Confounded" since this is your "first" original comment "The young girl did a great job but 96%?" is a very blatant comment instead of using the term "most RT critics" - what you rather do when you come on here as opposed to going to other movie sites, such as "imdb.com" since those people are in reflection of unpaid public opinion but to come on here to discredit paid critics about a film when it's called "Rottentomatoes.com" for a reason is partly because of those "paid" movie critics and people such as yourself are curious what paid critics ratings or concenses are going to be- no one here says Ebert is a God- just you! I acknowledge what people say whether I like the film or not, I don't always agree with them! And I still don't understand why you're here, Algreen- what is your main objective- is it to slam, bash, discredit movie critics who could watch more movies than us and possibly enlighten us a little more if so few of us had seen! You should 'grow up', otherwise get out and become a member to "imdb.com" if you don't like what the paid critics say about it!

Jun 6 - 04:05 PM

MAMOVIES

Matheus Cassiano

Really wanna True Grit!!!!

Jun 6 - 04:30 PM

sunsaz

Chris Moore

True Grit is a lock for me. The Superman Anthology might be worthwhile if the price is right.

Jun 6 - 04:43 PM

What's Hot On RT

Cosplay Gallery
Cosplay Gallery

See over 250 Comic-Con Costumes!

Critics Consensus
Critics Consensus

Hercules Is Mighty Fun

Historical TV Shows
Historical TV Shows

40 TV depictions of past eras

Weekly Ketchup
Weekly Ketchup

Idris Elba joins King Arthur

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