| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Koli |
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 11:16:24
There's an interesting gender split in the votes for this one. The average (currently) is 2.9, which I think is low. Women give it 5/5 but men only 2.6. This rather confounds the stereotype, as it's hardly the sort of movie that would be described as a 'chick-flick'. I'm with the girls on this one: it gets a five from me.
But why don't the men appreciate it?
PS I'm off to do a similar 'analysis' of the IMDb votes to see what that reveals.
Edit: I've been to IMDb-land, and bear contradictory tidings. There the average is 5.8 out of 10, and the gender split goes the other way. The men gave it 5.8 and the women 5.1 (their votes haven't altered the total average because most of the voters are male (20,416 compared to 2,725). Females under 18 (who should not be watching it; naughty girls!) liked it the most (5.5) while the other age groups were much of a muchness: 18-29 gave 5.1, 30-44 gave 5.0 and 45+ gave 5.2. It suggests teenage girls like a good scare. (On IMDb there's significant difference between the votes of US users (6.0) and non-US users (5.7). Perhaps they're more comfortable with violent content.) |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Downtown |
Posted - 08/16/2007 : 16:58:41
I finally saw this movie for the first time last night on cable and I'm having a very hard time finding the right words to express just how much I hated it.
This movie isn't scary. Worse, it's very predictable so this movie isn't even "thrilling." This movie is just gross and unpleasant, with no reason, point, or message of any kind (other than: "Americans are jerks and that's why everybody hates us"). At least Saw - which really popularized this "torture porn" genre - has some wit and intelligence...there's a reason the villain does what he does, whatever that might be.
I'm not turned off by gore, blood, or even pain and suffering. I think Johnny Depp's death scene in Nightmare on Elm St is one of the all-time greats, and I love seeing Robert Shaw disappear into the mouth of that great white. I can watch The Silence of the Lambs without even flinching and I praise Spielberg for really showing us the brutality and horror of war on the big screen for the first time ever. Even if we just stick to movies, I'm into some pretty wild stuff that I wouldn't want to even go into detail about here (I don't mean "adult" entertainment, check out Japan's Blind Beast for an idea of what I'm talking about). I can handle almost anything if there's some point or if it's at least done with wit and intelligence...but I think there's something really demented about a movie that's nothing but a couple hours of people being tortured for no reason whatsoever.
If this is what moviegoers pay $10 to see, it makes me wonder if maybe there really ARE outfits like "Elite Hunting" that cater to rich sadists. |
| Sean |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 02:17:15
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I would point out that the two party girls weren't killers, they just worked for killers. All they had to do was take their clothes off, get some drooling morons' guard down, dance with them and maybe make sexytimes, and then wait for them to be abducted; people have done much more difficult and far worse things for a buck.
Yep. But one of those chicks was in the torture dungeon, she was laughing, and was completely detached from the torture, death and gore. And happy with the money she made. She'd have to be a psychopath to be that detached.quote:
As far as I'm concerned, the IMDb only measures how well a movie works on the surface.
Yep, there's no doubt that movies with subtlety that is missed by many end up with lower scores than might be 'fair'. But I've yet to see a movie that scored 4-5 that is worth seeing due to extra layers that the masses missed. I'm guessing there will be some though.quote:
Here's movies that I feel are much too underestimated by the viewers at large:
FINAL DESTINATION 3
IMDb rating: 6.0
THE PUNISHER
IMDb rating: 6.2
On my system, both of these get pass marks from those scores and should be worth watching (I've seen neither...yet). Punisher has the same score as Chronicles of Riddick which I found entertaining enough, and certainly worth watching.quote:
POOTIE TANG
IMDb rating: 4.2
To think people liked Wedding Crashers over this.
I've seen neither. Not sure I'd like them terribly, romantic dramas/comedies aren't normally my thing, i.e., I don't prioritise them over other genres. Might be an interesting experiment to compare them.  quote:
JACKASS: THE MOVIE and JACKASS NUMBER TWO
IMDb rating: 6.2 and 7.1
Seen neither. Both get a passing score, and 7.1 is actually a pretty damn good score at IMDb. A movie only needs 7.8 to get into the IMDb Top 250.quote:
ANOTHER 48 HRS.
IMDb rating: 5.1
Haven't seen, but thought the first one was OK but not great. I'm guessing I'd probably think that this wasn't as good as the first if I saw it.  quote:
THE BREAK-UP
IMDb rating: 5.8
It's the good old US-romantic-comedy-drama again. Not a big fan of that kind of mix. I tend to get bored. I'd guess it's the kind of movie I'd be able to tolerate but would forget about completely once I've ejected the DVD. Some love rom-com-dramas; I'm the sort that only likes them if they're extremely good (quite what seperates good ones from bad ones I'm not too sure). Two of my favourite movies ever are romantic dramas (although I wouldn't call them comedies); Lost in Translation and Fucking �m�l.
Thanks for the tips anyway, I've bookmarked some for future perusal. Once I've finished watching the IMDb Top 250 (later this year) I may test some of them. |
| Sean |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 01:38:58
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Although your 'experiment' proved that you and IMDB are in some kind of freaky mind synch...
I think it's more that I've worked out how to use IMDb scores to my benefit. |
| Sean |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 01:36:43
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
So, overall I'd call this a "soft-core-porn-slasher-flick", and give it 5/10, it wasn't really worth the bother watching. The second half was, but I was thinking "F**k this is shite!" for the first 30-40 minutes. So IMDb's 5.8 was correct again.
I'm now feeling moderately guilty for persuading Sean to watch it.
 Hey, it wasn't that bad! The only reason I gave it a marginal 'fail' was the first 30 minutes. The rest was a perfectly acceptable watching experience. One point here that didn't help my enjoyment of it:- I've netflixed all the IMDb Top 250 movies that I hadn't seen, and I'd guess I've been watching 2-3 of these per week for the last few months. The contrast between the first 30 minutes of Hostel and everything else I've been watching lately (in terms of script and acting) couldn't be more extreme.quote:
I've made a note not to watch Syriana; if it features torture scenes more grueling than the ones in Hostel it clearly isn't for me.
Hmmm, it isn't gory. The torture in Hostel is very graphic, but it's just mindless gore with poor acting. Syriana couldn't be more different, but you don't actually see it, the camera cuts away a second before it happens, so it's more psychological horror. But the victim's acting makes it seem much more real (to me) than the torture in Hostel. Others might react quite the other way around. BTW, the torture scene in Syriana is pretty short, you could look away and think of cute fluffy animals for a few seconds when you see it coming. quote:
Have you looked at the 'extras' on the DVD about how it was made etc? I found it made me like the whole enterprise more than before.
Nope, but I will before I send it back. Thanks for the tip. |
| Shiv |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 23:35:17
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
So, overall I'd call this a "soft-core-porn-slasher-flick", and give it 5/10, it wasn't really worth the bother watching. The second half was, but I was thinking "F**k this is shite!" for the first 30-40 minutes. So IMDb's 5.8 was correct again.
So does this mean I'll never be able to get your arm to breaking point ever again? Is my credibility completely blown? 
I'm now feeling moderately guilty for persuading Sean to watch it. I've made a note not to watch Syriana; if it features torture scenes more grueling than the ones in Hostel it clearly isn't for me.
Have you looked at the 'extras' on the DVD about how it was made etc? I found it made me like the whole enterprise more than before.
Sean, isn't also a positive thing that you can discuss the film in such detail with us all? Although your 'experiment' proved that you and IMDB are in some kind of freaky mind synch, we would have missed out on your 'dissection' and analysis of the film I'd also recommend the extras, by the way. |
| Koli |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 19:37:34
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
So, overall I'd call this a "soft-core-porn-slasher-flick", and give it 5/10, it wasn't really worth the bother watching. The second half was, but I was thinking "F**k this is shite!" for the first 30-40 minutes. So IMDb's 5.8 was correct again.
So does this mean I'll never be able to get your arm to breaking point ever again? Is my credibility completely blown?
I'm now feeling moderately guilty for persuading Sean to watch it. I've made a note not to watch Syriana; if it features torture scenes more grueling than the ones in Hostel it clearly isn't for me.
Have you looked at the 'extras' on the DVD about how it was made etc? I found it made me like the whole enterprise more than before. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 13:57:40
I would point out that the two party girls weren't killers, they just worked for killers. All they had to do was take their clothes off, get some drooling morons' guard down, dance with them and maybe make sexytimes, and then wait for them to be abducted; people have done much more difficult and far worse things for a buck.
As far as I'm concerned, the IMDb only measures how well a movie works on the surface. B-movies too often get the shaft. Here's movies that I feel are much too underestimated by the viewers at large:
FINAL DESTINATION 3
IMDb rating: 6.0
Final Destination 3 is one of my favorite movies of all time. Of all the films in the big '00s horror resurgence, this is the only one I think really captured that sense of post-9/11 creeping dread, the idea that the worst is coming and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. It's surprisingly heartfelt too; while we cheer the deaths of the more shallow characters in the movie, the main characters are well-acted and surprisingly deep. When the hero tells the heroine that he would have married his now-dead girlfriend, we see the heroine biting her tongue because she knows that his girlfriend had been about to dump him. It breaks my heart every damn time I think about it.
THE PUNISHER
IMDb rating: 6.2
Revenge movies are so damn simple. This guy is bad and he hurt the hero. The hero kills him. The end. Yay, Maximus killed Commodus, whoopee, movie over. The Punisher puts some of the guts back into revenge. There are two things here that The Punisher does that are gut-twistingly painful, and both of them are psychological. One is how he makes a mob underling believe he's being tortured; the other is how he gets the main bad guy to kill his own best friends. This movie put the brains and the guts back into revenge.
POOTIE TANG
IMDb rating: 4.2
To think people liked Wedding Crashers over this. Pootie Tang is a movie that's just so damn stupid that you can't not laugh. It's not only inventive in its stupidity, it's far more creative than any high-budgeted Adam Sandler movie (who was never better than in the incredibly dumb Billy Madison).
JACKASS: THE MOVIE and JACKASS NUMBER TWO
IMDb rating: 6.2 and 7.1
Another set of fine comedies; if you like the Farrelly Brothers but not these guys, consider yourself either wimps or hypocrites. This is lowbrow made as well as can be, and consider: Using a huge budget to make a weird, plotless documentary about insane people doing insane things is pretty damn daring. I hear these films have gained a critical following as surrealist art films.
ANOTHER 48 HRS.
IMDb rating: 5.1
Underneath a tired vehicle for a slumming Eddie Murphy movie is a surprisingly smart and ambiguous genre movie about how the cops use and abuse their power. Nolte and Murphy debate about whether criminals have it coming, both are victims of authoritarian abuse, and Nolte even gets confronted by a guy who he arrested for having sex with a girl the guy didn't know was underage, in a car he didn't know was stolen. Highly underrated.
THE BREAK-UP
IMDb rating: 5.8
The biggest problem with this movie -- it's a comedy that's almost never funny -- is also its greatest strength. The jokes fall flat (seriously, most of them are awful), but the character interactions are spot-on. I was blindsided by this film's unflinching look at how people who love each other can irreparably harm each other. It's the romantic comedy version of Closer, and I'd argue that it's considerably more honest than that movie. |
| Sean |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 12:34:11
OK, I saw Hostel. Wasn't expecting much, so wasn't disappointed. But the first 40 minutes were far worse than I could have imagined. It was boring and totally B-grade. OK, sure I liked the cute chicks with their tits out  , but I don't need to rent a movie just to see that.
So, first 45 minutes:- Poor acting, poor script, totally B-grade feel. And every woman in it was a braindead bimbo slut whore. Was this necessary? Sure, perhaps the point was to show males treating women as meat, but this could also be done with a good script, good actors and entertaining plot. In fact it would have been more effective to have the female characters with some depth, and the guys still treat them like meat. I'd give this bit 2.5/10.  (Would've been 1.5/10 if it wasn't for Barbara Nedeljakova who's gone straight onto my Hot Babes List.)
Next 45 minutes:- Much better, although it certainly wasn't scary in any way at all. I've seen much nastier torture scenes, e.g., Syriana was much worse, it actually felt real. I'd say I'm used to general splatter in movies and it has no effect on me any more, so I'm more interested in plot. Some plot elements here were good, as it was never clear what exactly was going on until near the end, and it wasn't clear how deep the 'carnage business' went (as others have mentioned). I'd give this part 6.5/10, i.e, a pass mark for thriller entertainment. Scariness gets a 1/10, it wasn't scary at all as I had no connection whatsoever with any of the characters.
Other comments:-
Implausible characterisation.
- The two chicks who sourced the 'prey' were on the one hand bimbo slut party-girls, on the other hand must've been psychopaths. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I tend to think of people sourcing prey for killers as weird hunchbacked nutters, or cold evil psychos, or something (perhaps I've seen too many movies?  ). Those two were too vacuous and 'normal' to be psycho-killer-helpers.
- The main character (Paxton) seemed to be finding it hard to keep a smile off his face even while escaping from unimaginable horror. He didn't do a good job of acting as if he had missing fingers. Also, nobody being tortured did a good job of acting being tortured. Gore means nothing if the actors on the receiving end aren't acting as if it's real, you might as well be splashing around red paint in a painter's study. I suppose this is why you hire good actors if you can afford them. I had no connection with any of the characters, so I couldn't care less who got the chop next or how agonisingly painful it was. I didn't even care about the Japanese chick who got torched, she was just there to be a victim. I suppose overall the characterisation was about as deep as in any teen-slasher-flick, they're just there to be slaughtered and we're supposed to laugh when they get it.
So, overall I'd call this a "soft-core-porn-slasher-flick", and give it 5/10, it wasn't really worth the bother watching. The second half was, but I was thinking "F**k this is shite!" for the first 30-40 minutes. So IMDb's 5.8 was correct again. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 10:19:05
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
Okay, so I was scraping the bottom of the barrel with that one. But what about the other award I mentioned?
Er... not sure. Who/ what are La Monde?
Oh, you mean the French newspaper which gave me possibly the best notice I ever received on 29 April 1969 when it reviewed my theatre company's presentation at the Nancy Festival, and called me "a genius - the word is not too strong ... she brings an intelligence and wit to every moment, rediscovering a level of humour so long forgotten."
That Le Monde!
Harumph! Those French are artists at understatement, apparenly!
|
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 03/16/2007 : 15:34:50
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
Okay, so I was scraping the bottom of the barrel with that one. But what about the other award I mentioned?
Er... not sure. Who/ what are La Monde?
Oh, you mean the French newspaper which gave me possibly the best notice I ever received on 29 April 1969 when it reviewed my theatre company's presentation at the Nancy Festival, and called me "a genius - the word is not too strong ... she brings an intelligence and wit to every moment, rediscovering a level of humour so long forgotten."
That Le Monde!
|
| benj clews |
Posted - 03/16/2007 : 14:26:06
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
Okay, so I was scraping the bottom of the barrel with that one. But what about the other award I mentioned?
Er... not sure. Who/ what are La Monde?
I'm no expert, but I think it's a fairly heavyweight French newspaper. Presumably it's the French equivalent of The Times Guardian (it's described as 'left-leaning') or the Washington Post.
You can read more here in the English language online version (published monthly), though I haven't found anything more about its movie awards on the site.
Hmm... I don't usually take too much stock in general newspaper or magazine film opinions, just like I wouldn't put too much value on Empire or Premiere's opinion on what makes a good inline skate. I guess the biggest question is who compiled the Best Of list at La Monde- some highly regarded film buff or 'Jean-Pierre Public'?  |
| Koli |
Posted - 03/16/2007 : 13:48:19
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
Okay, so I was scraping the bottom of the barrel with that one. But what about the other award I mentioned?
Er... not sure. Who/ what are La Monde?
I'm no expert, but I think it's a fairly heavyweight French newspaper. Presumably it's the French equivalent of The Times Guardian (it's described as 'left-leaning') or the Washington Post.
You can read more here in the English language online version (published monthly), though I haven't found anything more about its movie awards on the site. |
| rabid kazook |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 15:59:04
Sean, if you have exactly the urge, I could maybe get you some Cynthia's movies.  |
| Sean |
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 23:33:11
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
For the record, it must be nice to have your opinions so completely in tune with the general public, but if you wanna ask me, IMDB voters are wrong all the freaking time.
Hmmm, not sure I follow. How can anyone have their opinion in tune with the 'general public' for Hostel (look at the score spread) when the general public don't have an opinion on it? They either think it's brilliant, or total garbage, or anything in between and are evenly spread between the two extremes. So any opinion on this movie is in tune with the general public. And if those who voted at IMDb wrote reviews for it, one's opinion on the movie (from reading the review) would be totally dependent on whose review you read. Hence I add all the opinions and get an average (which includes the views of those who loved it and those who hated it) to decide whether I want to watch it or not. My guess is that my opinion for Hostel would be in line with those who scored it 5 or 6, which don't represent the 'general public', as only 23% gave it that score.quote:
Furthermore, I would not at all try to cut myself off from so-called "bad" movies, many of which are far more interesting than supposedly "good" movies.
That's a good point. It's quite possible that I miss out on some movies that would be fun to watch simply because they have a poor score. Do you have any to recommend? I.e., poorly scored movies that are good? My guess is though, that if the majority think a movie is crap then I'll probably agree. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 21:58:42
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
Okay, so I was scraping the bottom of the barrel with that one. But what about the other award I mentioned?
Er... not sure. Who/ what are La Monde? |
|
|
