Inspired by the linked XKCD. Using 60% instead of 50% because that’s an easy filter to apply on rottentomatoes.
I’ll go first: I think “Sherlock Holmes: A game of Shadows” was awesome, from the plot to the characters ,and especially how they used screen-play to highlight how Sherlocks head works in these absurd ways.
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Sure it’s campy and way over the top. But I kinda like it for that. Plus the characters are awesome, the designs were pretty cool, and Sean Connery was great. Currently at 17% on rt.
Grandma’s Boy is a perfect stoner comedy. Featuring Nick Swardson in a hilarious breakout performance. RT can kiss 15% of my ass.
Chappie (32%)
I love that movie and have seen it several times. Directed by Noel Blompkamp (District 9) and starring Die Antwoord.
It’s extremely original and entertaining sci fi.
I liked that movie, although the couple from die Antwoord are terrible actors, I found it a bit distracting. I still recommend people watch it.
I just looked up Event Horizon and it only got a 33%. I love that movie. It genuinely really creeped me out. Few horror films do.
Indeed, that movie is actually scary! Like proper scary, not how most movies are.
That is absurd! Event Horizon is the only legit Doom movie. That was the idea all along and they even used the sound clip from the spawn cube in the movie.
Also, although I am not a 40k fan, I know some people see this as a prequel to Warhammer 40k as the moment in which humans first get to use the Warp.
It was ruined by execs, but it is a masterpiece, especially in the production design.
Just goes to show you some people (critics) have no taste. That movie was awesome!
I love the dismissal of critics as a while because a movie you like scored low. It’s a good creepy movie but it’s no that good of a movie overall. It’s very cheesy, the dialogue is poor, the story is minimal. It’s got great creeps though.
I enjoy critics that can clearly convey the reasons why a movie might hit or miss for their audiences. I detest critics that have to dissect a film and score it low because it doesn’t meet their art house ideals.
And there are people who feel the exact opposite of me. Which is fine.
I, Robot, especially after reading the books. It functions as a combo of the books, but set roughly where the first book took place in, using a variant of the protagonist from the sequels. The robots taking over as they did, though, wasn’t really accurate, even just regarding the laws of robotics, but it worked for the movie’s conflict. In the books, they get a larger hold on humanity, but to help them go past Earth to become an intragalactic society. For a one-off, though, I can see the directions the movie took to give it that close-ended feeling. Also, the implications of robots and humans, and Spooner as a chracter were pretty faithful to the source material, IMO.
I would say the only thing the movie has in common with the book is that it mentions the book’s main character and the laws of robotics. The book is all about weird behavior of robots that actually obey the laws but the movie just treats them as some corporate doublespeak.
