I'm kinda find myself having trouble criticizing the film. It seems to be less a "modernization" of the stooges and more inserting the classic stooges into a modern setting. So all the cornball humor, bad puns, and slapstick seems to be intentional, and there might be a certain charm to it if it faithfully recreates what made the originals so popular.
I mean, it could still be awful, but watching the commercials I don't get the feeling it's unfaithful to the original, or desperately trying to "2000's" it ala something like that Honeymooners remake.
-- TheRock ~ Slow dramatic zoom-pan. Doesn't phase the hooded man. "You have issues." - MWC. Pot. Kettle.
Menji76 posted... From: OctilIery | #004 But Metacritic is more reliable for ratings than RT, because RT's rating system makes zero sense. How so? Anything 50% and lower is rotten.
The problem is that nothing's weighted, so to speak. A borderline positive review still counts in the positive column, rather than MC which would it assign it a value of, say, 6. RT sees a 6 and a 10 as the same thing, whereas MC assigns them different values.
-- TheRock ~ Slow dramatic zoom-pan. Doesn't phase the hooded man. "You have issues." - MWC. Pot. Kettle.
TheRock1525 posted... Menji76 posted... From: OctilIery | #004 But Metacritic is more reliable for ratings than RT, because RT's rating system makes zero sense. How so? Anything 50% and lower is rotten.
The problem is that nothing's weighted, so to speak. A borderline positive review still counts in the positive column, rather than MC which would it assign it a value of, say, 6. RT sees a 6 and a 10 as the same thing, whereas MC assigns them different values.
It's not just that.
Rotten Tomato doesn't average the scores of movies, it averages the opinions. It sees whether or not the review was positive or negative, and that is the ENTIRE basis for rating.
Metacritic gives the actual average score of a movie.
-- Joyrock Fresh from my first justified ban. Ever!
Rotten Tomatoes' system works fine. This arbitrary division of subjective opinions into fractions of fractions (Metroid Prime 2 was a clear 9.35/10, but I can't really see MP3 getting about a 9.27, personally) is ridiculous. Just tell me if the film is worth seeing or not! If I want a more detailed account about its aesthetic quality, numbers aren't gonna do jack for me anyway, not only because they're unreflective and usually arbitrary but because everyone uses a different system.
Westbrick posted... Rotten Tomatoes' system works fine. This arbitrary division of subjective opinions into fractions of fractions (Metroid Prime 2 was a clear 9.35/10, but I can't really see MP3 getting about a 9.27, personally) is ridiculous. Just tell me if the film is worth seeing or not! If I want a more detailed account about its aesthetic quality, numbers aren't gonna do jack for me anyway, not only because they're unreflective and usually arbitrary but because everyone uses a different system.
I hate numbers generally, too, but there's a significant difference between "well, this movie was OK, I guess" and "OMG GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE." Considering the fact that movies tend to avoid decimal places.
If someone's trying to sell me on a movie, a tepid response, even if it's positive, is less likely to have an effect on me compared to someone who gives a detailed response on how it's one of the best movies ever made.
-- TheRock ~ Slow dramatic zoom-pan. Doesn't phase the hooded man. "You have issues." - MWC. Pot. Kettle.
I hate numbers generally, too, but there's a significant difference between "well, this movie was OK, I guess" and "OMG GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE." Considering the fact that movies tend to avoid decimal places.
Sure. But a tepid recommendation still signals "worth seeing." Here are the things I'd consider important, in order:
-Whether or not I should see it -More in-depth reviews to read about just how good it is, what it does right, etc. -What you'd give it on a scale of 1-10
Both RT and MC have these three components, but I'd argue that RT has their priorities better-set than MC.
Westbrick posted... I'm not big on a simple "you should see it" or "you shouldn't see it." I need reasons WHY.
If you're about reasons, then wouldn't both MC and RT only be a first step? <_<
They are. This topic isn't about whether or not I wanted to see this movie, though. It was about A) surprise that this film isn't doing abysmal review-wise and B) how it's hard to criticize a film that's playing to it's crowd.
It only turned into a RT vs. MC topic later.
-- TheRock ~ Slow dramatic zoom-pan. Doesn't phase the hooded man. "You have issues." - MWC. Pot. Kettle.
Menji76 posted... How can any person's review be more legitimate than another's?
Well, Menji, if you posted a rave review about the Three Stooges then it turned out later that you were paid by the studio to give that positive review, it would be less legitimate than someone who was paid no money by the distributor.
-- TheRock ~ Slow dramatic zoom-pan. Doesn't phase the hooded man. "You have issues." - MWC. Pot. Kettle.
I'm exaggerating but obviously there are times when a movie reviewer shows a hint of bias against the subject matter and/or has accepted money from distributors and given it a better score than it deserves.
-- TheRock ~ Slow dramatic zoom-pan. Doesn't phase the hooded man. "You have issues." - MWC. Pot. Kettle.