X3 - reviews in

[Kanegrundar]

This is far better than the "big bag of suck" that I anticipated. Good to hear.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[ohGr]

Both Ebert and Roeper gave it a thumbs up on their show.

 

[Insight]

Here's the question I wish critics would always answer in their reviews:

If you like movies of this kind, will you enjoy yourself at this movie?

Too many critics get caught up in wanting every movie to be Gone with the Wind, Howard's End, or Schindler's List. They don't seem to understand that not everyone wants to see the same kind of movies.

That's really why I discount most film critics. They aren't in touch with the ticket buying public.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I don't always agree with Ebert, but what's important is that I always get where he's coming from. Same with Moriarty. They don't get swept away with feeling like the majority of critics. They aknowledge them, sure, but if the critic's only telling me what he thought of a movie he's not doing his job: He should be telling me what I'm most likely gonna think of the movie.

What is this movie trying to do and does it succeed?

Here's the question I wish critics would always answer in their reviews:

If you like movies of this kind, will you enjoy yourself at this movie?

That kind of review is also why I like Ebert. For a great example, check out the review he gave Rob Zombie's "The Devil's Rejects"

 

[Desdichado]

I don't always agree with Ebert, but what's important is that I always get where he's coming from.

Bingo. That's why I love Roger Ebert's reviews.

That said, I'm not gonna wait for anyone's reviews; I'm gonna see this movie regardless of what they say.

 

[Bront]

That kind of review is also why I like Ebert. For a great example, check out the review he gave Rob Zombie's "The Devil's Rejects"

Beet me too it.

He wrote a review for Basic Instinct 2, gave it 1 star, and then said go see it because it was entertaining, and he had to hold back from giving it 3 because as bad as it was, it kept your attention.

I don't always agree with his ratings, but I find his reviews helpfull in getting a perspective on the movie.

 

[Mercule]

The general consensus seems to be "not bad, but not that great".

Pretty well sums up my thoughts on the first two movies. If it's par-for-course, I'll see it in the theatres, but won't buy it on DVD and be happy with both decisions.

 

[Staffan]

Here's the question I wish critics would always answer in their reviews:

If you like movies of this kind, will you enjoy yourself at this movie?

The worst example of this I've seen was a reviewer on Swedish TV, who gave a really bad review to Moulin Rouge, saying "I really don't like musicals."

 

[sniffles]

The worst example of this I've seen was a reviewer on Swedish TV, who gave a really bad review to Moulin Rouge, saying "I really don't like musicals."

That's the trouble with a lot of reviewers - they only base their reviews on what they like.

Of course, if you know that you like what the reviewer likes, that can be helpful. That's why I prefer Ebert - he usually likes what I like.

 

[Iku Rex]

Spoiler warning for RottenTomato reviews: Several are dotted with minor spoilers (not uncommon, doesn't bother me), but one in particular (Scott Collura's) happily spoils away seemingly major plot points. (I stopped reading in mid-review.) Avoid if you care at all about spoilers!