For Netflix originals, the verified audience score are from limited screenings, all audience is a better metric
Red Notice: 92% 100+ Verified Audience Ratings, 65% 5,000+ All Audience Ratings
The Gray Man: 91% 100+ Verified Audience Ratings, 68% 2,500+ All Audience Ratings
Army of the Dead: 75% 250+ Verified Audience Ratings, 52% 5,000+ All Audience Ratings
That gave me a milder version of the same relieved rush I felt when I found out that "90% of the world's plankton is gone" story from a month back wasn't *quite* credible.
Because it was really stupid. I was actually excited considering his Dawn of the Dead is one of my favourite modern zombie movies, but good god does Snyder need someone who can tell him "no".
Why is there a random UFO?
Why didn't the soldiers just close the box?
Why doesn't the military just send their own team?
Why doesn't Mr Casino Guy know the codes for his own vault?
Why doesn't the military just tell the team they want a zombie head?
Why don't they just take the zombie head when they see her near the entrance?
Why are some of the zombies cyborgs?
Why do they just watch someone get eaten from a few meters away?
Why don't they just kill the obviously evil guy?
Why was there a random subplot about the zombies capturing women? (for the love of god don't look up Snyder's answer at work)
The opening was pretty awesome, I wish he just made that the movie.
I usually hate responding to somebody positive about things with a complaint, but I was literally just about to post a reply to the parent comment about how relieved I was to find out Army of the Dead was scored so low, I was under the impression people generally liked it after it won the fucking fan favourite oscar.
Personally, I thought it was just non-sensical, and not a single character was even in the slightest bit endearing. There's also almost no action, and the only setpieces we get are incredibly hastily edited, and it's not as if the horror aspects work, either. I also thought it was one of the ugliest and most visually incoherent blockbusters I've seen, which is a shame because it's Snyder's debut as a cinematographer and I've been saying for years that it's a job he'd be perfect for... Thanks for proving me wrong, Zack.
I was mostly let down because Dawn of the Dead might very well be the only good Snyder movie IMO, and really wanted this to be a spiritual successor, but it almost put me to sleep.
That’s me and my mom with The Gray Man. I hated it, she insists it was “fun”.
Did we watch the same movie? Genuinely, the only reason I waited to the end of that movie is so I could say “The Gray Man, more like The Gay Man” and just leave without elaborating, but it drained so much out of me that I couldn’t even do that.
If you go back and watch adventure movies like that from the 90s and early 00s, (your mummy’s and tomb raiders) that movie is right in line with those. It’s fun and doesn’t take itself seriously at all. A lot of people like that light heartedness and aren’t looking for Oscar worthy acting in every movie they see, and as long as the plot is coherent and the movie is enjoyable people eat it up.
>A lot of people like that light heartedness and aren’t looking for Oscar worthy acting in every movie they se
yeah but there's plenty of light hearted content that isn't pandering or stupid. The original Pirates of the Caribbean is a perfect example.
I actually quite liked Uncharted. I guess for what it is, but I thought it was just fine, definitely better than that Tomb Raider movie from several years ago.
I didn’t think it was better than the Vikander Tomb Raider but I thought the Vikander Tomb Raider was pretty fine, just like Uncharted was fine despite changing the characters backgrounds/characterization. In a vacuum it was just a normal adventure movie, no sillier than National Treasure or dozens of others.
I laughed so much during sonic 2 that my face hurt afterwords. I just went with it after cringing out of my skin from the first one. They aren't the funniest movies but they are fun to watch and make fun of. 10/10 with friends
It's what annoys me about the *turn your brain off* shit. There's plenty of lighthearted films which are also just good movies. Being lighthearted isn't an excuse to be bad.
My brother is one of those people. I showed him The Big Lebowski once, as an example of this, thinking he was going to love it (it's both light-hearted and incredibly clever). When it was done he said: "I guess that was kind of funny".
I’d say Pirates takes itself far more serious than Red Notice and is in a category closer to something like Indiana Jones. I place those in the serious fun category.
Red Notice I’d say is trying to be in the stupid fun category. More like a Mummy or Shanghai Noon kind of movie.
The first movie is fun while trying to win awards, the second is fun while just trying to give your brain a brake and make money.
Except Shanghai Noon had spectacular, practical fight choreography and two excellent comedians as leads. It was made to be fun, sure, but there's a difference between a film that aspires to be fun, and a film that settles for it.
As someone who has seen the Mummy recently I would hard disagree. That movie is about as algorithmic as it gets (I love it btw). Just read Roger Eberts review here from the time. Dude literally compares it to Congo and Anaconda.
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-mummy-1999
Y’all just have some rose colored glasses and imagine this mythical time in Hollywood where bad movies were few and even money grabs would end up as critically acclaimed gems.
I will be messaging you in 20 years on [**2042-08-09 03:44:40 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2042-08-09%2003:44:40%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/moviescirclejerk/comments/wjkc5b/presented_without_comment/ijjaxkw/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fmoviescirclejerk%2Fcomments%2Fwjkc5b%2Fpresented_without_comment%2Fijjaxkw%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202042-08-09%2003%3A44%3A40%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20wjkc5b)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
"doesn't take itself seriously" needs to stop being a positive trait for movies. The cynicism is painfully unfunny. It feels like everyone making the movie doesn't care about anything beyond the payday.
Not that everything has to take itself seriously. "Galaxy Quest" doesn't take itself seriously as a parody of Star Trek, but the actors commit to their roles and the writing has its earnest moments, that's what makes it stay as a memorable, enjoyable movie.
It was really strange when her song devolved into a string of racial and religious epithets towards the Palestinian people though.
I wonder if that was in the script or not.
I went into it knowing exactly what i was getting, with both RR and Dwayne Johnson in an action movie. I still scoffed at every marvel ass quip. I dont know why i do this to myself
I mean it did make over a billion dollars so it sort of had to be a crowd pleaser. It’s one of those things where like a lot of critics knew it was shit and diehard film (and especially animation) fans fully agreed with them, but the normal people just went “ooh look cool lion doing thing I remember from childhood” and are it up
💀 If children who never watched the original liked that movie, I understand, but if people who had watched the original liked that abomination, that is an insult to cinema.
It's nostalgia bait, the target audience is young adults and parents who grew up on the original. Doubt it's going to have the same impact the original did.
I feel the opposite. For dumb people who grew up with the original, I can see why they'd like it. It plays on nostalgia and because most people don't really appreciate art for the sake of it, they see fancier graphics as an improvement.
If you hadn't seen the original, so many things are vague or strange and just don't make sense if you aren't filling in the gaps with "oh this is like that scene I liked from the first one but now real"
Honestly, it didn’t click with some of the regular non movie people for being “too weird.” (Disclaimer: I loved the Northman)
My cousin, who is like an average, marvel and action movie loving dude, said it was, “too weird,” and he couldn’t follow, “the ritual stuff,” so he never finished watching it. My aunt said the same thing about it. I heard a few other people say they thought it was, “too weird.”
I dunno man, American audiences are so all over the place these days. And as much as I hate to admit this (because it’s usually quoted by annoying people), I think Scorsese was spot on about what corporatized movies have done to the average American audience.
I usually hate using RT scores as a metric, but these are absolutely an accurate depiction of the current movie landscape. Don’t get me wrong, I loved me some Top Gun and Prey.
But I think that, in general, Marvel type blockbusters are desensitizing audiences and just, like, wiping people’s hard drives so they can only enjoy movies that hit the correct dopamine buttons. I’m not saying everyone has to watch all the classics or that people are dumb for liking blockbusters. It just sucks that such a large portion of the audience won’t give, “boring,” “weird,” movies a chance anymore because they need the flashing CGI dopamine.
Sorry for ranting. Probably coming off as an elitist, but I swear, I think blockbusters have merit for when you just want a fun thrill ride (again, recent ones I can think of for me were Top Gun Maverick and Prey). But the depressing thing to me is that most CGI fests don’t even have much of a thrilling feeling anymore. The last Marvel movie I watched was the new Doctor Strange, and it felt like it was just the movie equivalent of a laser light show. I didn’t feel anything. Not even the mindless joy a blockbuster is supposed to make me feel.
I don’t think its that. The problem is that people only have two options consistently nowadays, generic franchise blockbuster and indie movies. Which don’t get me wrong, indie movies are weird and there are some that are even weirder, but long gone are the days in which the middle ground in between (a non franchise blockbuster that is somewhat fresh) would fill that gap consistently. I mean, when was the last time we had a Gladiator, Saving Private Ryan, Benjamin Button, Forrest Gump? Indie films such as The Northman and The Green Knight are being promoted like this, but they are no more than the weird indie films that they were conceived as. We sometimes have some flashes like 1917 for example, but they are few and far between.
Crowd-pleasing "dumb" movies have been around for quite a while, and there has long been a "movie vs film" debate. But for me the amazing thing about movies these days is the sheer *volume* of them. I would venture that that is the predominant reason people's very concept of movies has changed.
When a studio feature film came out, it used to be a big deal. People would talk about it, there would be interviews with the stars, behind the scenes gossip, and just in general a big media hubbub about it. It would go to theaters only and stay there for a couple of *months.* I worked at a movie theater in the early/mid-90s. A moderately successful movie could expect to stay in a theater for about six weeks. *Jurassic Park, Forrest Gump* and *Pulp Fiction* were monsters and stuck around for six *months*. And once it was gone, it was gone, and you had to wait a minimum of six more months before it would be released on VHS.
Now a movie is released in theaters and is lucky, very lucky, to stick around a month. And it's often released on streaming simultaneously, and there are a dozen more movies released at the same time. The pace now is just so so so fast. People don't really talk about the Big Movie of The Moment, not really. Or rather they do, but it's compressed down to a short time. Video on demand means there's no anticipation of seeing it again like when you waited for the VHS or DVD release. And there are just so many damn things to watch.
The technology now is cool as hell, but it's also watering down movies as a social experience. Of course, there are exceptions, but I just wish movies were a big deal like they used to be.
I agree with everything you said, but what I find weird is, I AM the average moviegoer, or at least I was until very recently. I've seen somewhere in the ballpark of 450 films, I've only logged 420 ish bc I can't remember a decent amount, but I'm currently 18. I was a diehard MCU fan up until the endgame trailer dropped. Sure I had seen a couple classics, especially older action movies, die hard, the terminator (2), both aliens, etc etc. Parasite was really the first movie that made me want to watch like classics and important films in movie history and shit like that, (it's still in my top ten though). I haven't seen a single david lynch movie, and I'm not a big fan of not actually being able to understand the basic story of a film without an hour video essay, but the northman felt totally mainstream to me. Like I get when I love a film and other people I know probably wouldn't appreciate it in the same way. But the Northman really only had a couple trippy scenes, and 1. they were not so weird as to be incomprenshible, and 2. It still had a bunch of cool viking shit. Yes it's a revenge critique, but the viking raid + the volcano fight fucking rule. The themes are simple enough, the story is simple enough, it's not all that slow, and it looks cool. Even during my "MCU is nigh perfect and old movies are dumb" phase I would've love a slightly trippy but ass kicking viking revenge story.
>I've seen somewhere in the ballpark of 450 films, I've only logged 420 ish
This shows that you are not a regular moviegoer, most people don't care about logging movies and keeping track of what they are watching, they'll also definitely not have watched 450 movies by the time they are 18.
You probably watched The Lightouse and The Witch, so yeah, in comparison The Northman is simple, but the way the movie is presented is far from simple for most people, just that village raid scene must be enough for some to leave.
People have always liked dumb blockbusters from the dawn of film. I don’t think it’s really a new thing. Plus, it’s not like there aren’t films liked by both critics and audiences. (Fury Road, Parasite, Moonlight come to mind going by RT)
A lot of people don't expect anything of Robert Eggers because they don't know who Robert Eggers is. They just think "hey there's a cool looking Viking movie with that guy from True Blood and Big Little Lies"
Those are the people who are probably disappointed by The Northman.
Oh for sure and it definitely didn’t help that the movie was a bit slower too, in contrast to the high action big battle Viking epic that people were expecting.
I for one went in totally blind and just for Robert Eggers, so I was just pleasantly surprised. But I still get how it didn’t live up to many people’s expectations or just pissed them off for certain reasons.
but didn't RT do something to prevent movies from being review bombed *precisely* because of the TLJ incident? been a while and I could totally be pulling this out of my ass but I think I remember some of that being connected, I'll try to look for a source for this
You're right, you can see it in the image above, where TRoS has a "verified audience score" where they only show ratings from people who verified they bought a ticket. That's also why there's only about 100 ratings for the Netflix kinos that play in 15 theaters worldwide.
Close, they actually did it because of Captain Marvel. The "want to see score" was at like 50% before the movie came out, most movies are usually in the high 90% range.
In my experience almost everyone dislikes Episode 9 but Episode 8 is a lot louder and harsher from those who do hate it.
Anyone who liked 8 got burned by how 9 was written to either ignore or downplay it, when people who were still with the trilogy at that point should have been the #1 audience. And 9 is also just not a well made movie, leaving any 8 haters who went to see it unsatisfied (but maybe less mad than they were at 8).
point lip mountainous heavy drab fanatical beneficial governor correct rhythm
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah, it got an A- Cinemascore in its limited release (which likely primarily attracted arthouse audiences rather than Sandler fans), but once it went wide its official Cinemascore ended up being a C+.
Yeah, I’m also pretty sure it passed The Wolf of Wall Street for most uses of the word “fuck” and it’s variations, even though Wolf is almost an hour longer.
Technically Wolf barely beats it out [569 vs 560](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_that_most_frequently_use_the_word_fuck), but yeah it's also nearly an hour longer. Uncut Gems featured 4.15 fucks per minute vs 3.16 for Wolf.
Probably cause this one by the trailers and even some posters very clearly indicates it’s not for general audiences where as the others still look pretty normal
A lot of people don’t like the stressful busyness. I don’t agree with it but it’s one of the easier movies to pinpoint where it went wrong with some people
It definitely was but it also probably gave general audiences anxiety attacks and headaches. It was a pretty stressful movie to watch (in a really good way) so I understand why people may not latch onto it or even rewatch it. I'll be honest, I fucking loved everything about Uncut Gems but I have not rewatched it. It's simply too anxiety inducing
I feel like Good Time wasn't nearly as widely watched as Uncut Gems, so people who saw it were more likely to know what they were getting into. Also, there were absolutely people who saw Uncut Gems solely because Sandler was in it expecting a goofy Happy Madison comedy. There were a bunch of user reviews when it was new that can basically be summed up as "this movie isn't funny."
For general audiences who aren't necessarily super into movies, whether or not they enjoy a movie is often very dependent on whether or not it met their expectations. As in, if they expect a comedy and get a twisted drama/thriller, they're going to be dissastisfied no matter how good it was at what it set out to do.
RT user scores (along with user scores on similar sites) should really only be used as a way to judge how successful a movie's marketing was at finding its target audience.
How are people turned off by the stress but totally fine watching building after building get destroyed by incomprehensible vfx noise? That shit stresses me out
Probably because Uncut Gems feels grounded in reality. When you're watching CGI clusterfuck movies, it may be nonsensically busy but it's clearly fantasy. The action may be gripping (to some) but it's still far removed from our lives/world.
By contrast, it's very easy to believe that people like Howard Ratner exist. In fact, many people probably know someone like him. My dad came out of Uncut Gems telling me how he knows so many people just like that.
Same reason why over the top gore and violence is usually looked at better than depictions of sexual assault or sexual violence. Violence in movies and video games tend to feel more removed from reality than sexual assault.
Eh. I could see that. I’ve met multiple people who hate watching Mr Bean, because so much of the comedy is built on anxiety, misfortune, and accidents. Using a similar kind of energy for outright horror within the context of a thriller seems like it would push people over the edge.
It could also just be people who assumed that it was a comedy due to Adam Sandler, despite having already done multiple dramatic roles.
To be fair, Safdie bros are an acquired taste. That constant barrage of bad decisions is anxiety inducing, and I love it, but I can understand people getting frustrated
it’s a fucking exhausting movie. i love it and thought it was great, but it totally makes sense that audiences would be divided on a movie who’s whole thing is that watching it feels like you’re having a bad day.
Because it is kinda hard to watch. It’s a very stressful and sensory overloaded film. But the biggest reason is that it’s nothing like any previous Sandler movie (though it does share the common trope of Sandler playing a bumbling idiot who is with a smoking hot actress, in this case two actually), so the combination of both is what really gets it down there
I love Punch-Drunk Love (more than Uncut Gems actually), but while it is also different than previous Sandler’s, it’s still at the end of the day a romantic comedy-drama, so it is in his wheelhouse. Whereas with Uncut Gems, he’s never done a crime thriller before. I was approaching “nothing like his previous movies” in more of a genre sense
The takeaway from this is you shouldn't really care what RT says anyway.
Most movies have a high audience score because most people only feel the need to leave a score when its a movie they either like or super-hate. They're not kinophiles who weigh every movie they watch on a 1-5 star score.
The worst habit of a shitty reviewer is taking umbrage with a movie for failing to meet their expectations. Modern audiences have been trained, by blockbusters, to expect a certain rhythm, and tone of storytelling. Failing to fit that mold means losing points with those kinds of dipsticks.
Movies that are designed to make audiences feel good vs a movie designed to make the audience spend two hours on the verge of an anxiety attack.
Some movies aren’t for everybody. Other mo ones are purposely trying their hardest to be for everybody.
As hard as it is to believe, a huge amount of people, even the vast number, don't have a criteria for a film being good or bad other than **"Did cool stuff happen on-screen?"**
Did cool stuff happen in Rise of Skywalker and The Gray Man? Sure. Good film.
Did cool stuff happen in Uncut Gems? Getting an anxiety attack isn't cool, so no. Bad film.
I wish I was kidding.
Well that is still consistent with the "movies should only be mindless entertainment" type view. It's still just theme parks, and horror movies are the haunted house exhibit
Mfs be like, omg Joker so based and turn around and look at Howie and go 🤮🤢. But for real, the literally me potential for Howard Ratner is off the charts considering how much sports gambling is being pushed now, untapped meme potential? 📈
I've noticed the same thing with a lot of horror games on Steam, as long as a monster jumps out and says "boo!" it gets a positive review. Doesn't matter how good the game actually is, the only check mark for quality is "did I jump"
What I really don't get is Eternals, No one I know likes that movie, if they've even seen it. I'm not in too many "film circles" mostly just general audience types and literally no one liked it.
This. Chris Evans playing the villian as a stoic, serious “Mads Mikkelsen in *Casino Royale*”-esque mastermind would’ve been the final nail in the coffin for me. Instead Evans realized the stupid movie he was in, and turned up the goofiness to 11 and yes, saved the movie in the process. He was borderline enchanting to watch.
Every scene he wasn’t on screen I was just waiting for him to come back on screen, especially compared to how utterly boring and forgettable whatever tf Gosling was going for was.
I liked that they made the toughest heavy an Indian guy. I guess since they can't chase the Chinese market now, they're going after the Indian subcontinent, which I'm all for.
I do think people's points of reference for what makes a good film are deterioting, but they generally do have the same tastes they always had, it's just that studios are slowly making shittier movies gradually enough for the average movie goer to not notice.
I think Schindler's List is a very rare type of film that comes along every decade or so, a genuine masterpiece that's accessible to general audiences, allowing it to make heaps of money and rightfully win every award it gets. It's hard to say whether it would achieve the same level of success today though. I doubt most Marvel and Minions consuming audiences would watch a three hour black and white film with relatively unknown actors about a subject like the Holocaust. However, if people can get behind Joker, which is a pretty big departure from the top mainstream films of the last decade, I don't see why they can do it again for a genuinely brilliant film. (It genuinely sickens me to compare Schindler's List to Joker, but you get the point). I'm sure if a New New Hollywood movement started and the current strain of souless corporate drivel died off, people would start going to the cinema a bit more, but alas Disney ™ will never allow that to happen.
> I'm sure if a New New Hollywood movement started and the current strain of souless corporate drivel died off, people would start going to the cinema a bit more
It took four months for Everything, Everywhere, All At Once to hit $100 million and Elvis has hit $250 million since release. Both modest successes. To me this tells me there is a hunger for good things not based off of blockbuster IPs, but other types of films. And you know what else does?
Late Summer through Winter of 2019. Marvel finally fucked off after Far From Home left and the only blockbusters we got after were Joker and Star Wars IX. Joker had some interesting discourse and everyone hated TROS. And you know what else made a splash? Knives Out, Midsommar, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, The Lighthouse, Parasite, Ford V. Ferrari, & JoJo Rabbit. Marvel is kind of a colonizing force. ESPECIALLY since the MCU only gets one or two good projects a phase that's worth remembering.
the success of Schindler List was not surprising, Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction were in the Top 10 a year later, and Se7en the year after that.
Joker on the other hand is a miraculous outlier for these days (a slow burn drama that made over a billion dollars), and it’s still attached to some pre existing IP. It’s a fan favorite character that appeared many times before. If the same movie had been called *Eric* without any ties to DC it obviously wouldn’t have done that well.
I think many movies from today should have been successful, and definitely would have been 20 years ago. For example, The Northman. The movie is pure spectacle, if anything it’s *too* much spectacle. Makes no sense that it flopped the way it did. On a smaller scale, West Side Story, Nightmare Alley, Ambulance, etc all should have done much better than they did, if people cared about anything that isn’t franchise stuff.
I also pray for a New Hollywood 2.0, but that requires a whole generation that is tired of big spectacle films (musicals and epic movies were those in the 60s), which isn’t really the case for Gen Z.
I find it funny that you bring up Joker as the "cinephile" crowd shits on Joker (2019) pretty damn hard along with the people who found it deep and profound. I think that's a little unfair, as while the script and overall story aren't the greatest, Joaquin Phoenix's acting single-handedly made the movie as good as it is.
I mean this is why audience scores are useless really.
Most people who aren't terminally online kinophiles approach ranking movies like its Uber. If they like it at all its 5 stars, if they don't like it at all its 1 star.
Eternals is interesting in that it's trying to be about something but it gets EXTREMELY frustrating when Marvel clearly jumps in and makes Chloe Zhao do some Marvel shit that clashes so hard with the movie. Like there's that conversation between King Kingo and Sprite that's really good and then Kingo's valet buddy shows up with his camera and it ruins the momentum.
I actually think it was all Zhao and the Firpos for that. Not that Marvel Studios doesn't get overly involved in most cases, but by all accounts Zhao was actually allowed to do what she wanted and had full script involvement. It's just that she wanted to make a Marvel movie, and her style isn't really all that compatible.
For real, most of the 80s and 90s most successful films were dumb action movies, too. I don't see anyone discussing the artistic merit of Rocky IV or Independence Day.
People did not like Uncut Gems. They thought it was another Adam Sandler comedy type movie and that caught them off guard. *"This movie is not funny babe, I wanna leave the theater!"*
Because it's based on a beloved video game franchise, and many of the video game fans weren't too happy about it from the very beginning (from Tom Holland's casting, Mark Wahlberg as Sully, no Nathan Fillion).
Im in agreement. It wasn’t spectacular but it was a competently made and well acted adventure story. Formulaic sure, but still better than a lot of other blockbusters we got around the same time. Frankly I’d sooner rewatch it than any of the recent Marvel movies.
My favourite is that Man of Steel and WW84 have almost identical audience and critic scores.
Funny thing is WW84 seems to be universally hated on Reddit, you almost never see someone say they like it and some claim it is the worst superhero or even worst movie they have seen. In comparison there are plenty on here who have MoS as a masterpiece.
For Netflix originals, the verified audience score are from limited screenings, all audience is a better metric Red Notice: 92% 100+ Verified Audience Ratings, 65% 5,000+ All Audience Ratings The Gray Man: 91% 100+ Verified Audience Ratings, 68% 2,500+ All Audience Ratings Army of the Dead: 75% 250+ Verified Audience Ratings, 52% 5,000+ All Audience Ratings
Yeah pretty sure only Ryan Reynolds superfans are going to see Red Notice in theaters
I fear those who watched red notice in a theater
That gave me a milder version of the same relieved rush I felt when I found out that "90% of the world's plankton is gone" story from a month back wasn't *quite* credible.
I actually kinda liked army of the dead, other than it being so goddamn long, why does everybody here dunk on it?
Because it was really stupid. I was actually excited considering his Dawn of the Dead is one of my favourite modern zombie movies, but good god does Snyder need someone who can tell him "no". Why is there a random UFO? Why didn't the soldiers just close the box? Why doesn't the military just send their own team? Why doesn't Mr Casino Guy know the codes for his own vault? Why doesn't the military just tell the team they want a zombie head? Why don't they just take the zombie head when they see her near the entrance? Why are some of the zombies cyborgs? Why do they just watch someone get eaten from a few meters away? Why don't they just kill the obviously evil guy? Why was there a random subplot about the zombies capturing women? (for the love of god don't look up Snyder's answer at work) The opening was pretty awesome, I wish he just made that the movie.
I usually hate responding to somebody positive about things with a complaint, but I was literally just about to post a reply to the parent comment about how relieved I was to find out Army of the Dead was scored so low, I was under the impression people generally liked it after it won the fucking fan favourite oscar. Personally, I thought it was just non-sensical, and not a single character was even in the slightest bit endearing. There's also almost no action, and the only setpieces we get are incredibly hastily edited, and it's not as if the horror aspects work, either. I also thought it was one of the ugliest and most visually incoherent blockbusters I've seen, which is a shame because it's Snyder's debut as a cinematographer and I've been saying for years that it's a job he'd be perfect for... Thanks for proving me wrong, Zack. I was mostly let down because Dawn of the Dead might very well be the only good Snyder movie IMO, and really wanted this to be a spiritual successor, but it almost put me to sleep.
Red Notice at 92%... it broke me..
My mom swears by that movie. I don't get it...
Sorry but it looks like your mom’s an NPC
That’s me and my mom with The Gray Man. I hated it, she insists it was “fun”. Did we watch the same movie? Genuinely, the only reason I waited to the end of that movie is so I could say “The Gray Man, more like The Gay Man” and just leave without elaborating, but it drained so much out of me that I couldn’t even do that.
So The Gray Man won.
If you go back and watch adventure movies like that from the 90s and early 00s, (your mummy’s and tomb raiders) that movie is right in line with those. It’s fun and doesn’t take itself seriously at all. A lot of people like that light heartedness and aren’t looking for Oscar worthy acting in every movie they see, and as long as the plot is coherent and the movie is enjoyable people eat it up.
>A lot of people like that light heartedness and aren’t looking for Oscar worthy acting in every movie they se yeah but there's plenty of light hearted content that isn't pandering or stupid. The original Pirates of the Caribbean is a perfect example.
Hell, *Uncharted* is better than Red Notice.
I actually quite liked Uncharted. I guess for what it is, but I thought it was just fine, definitely better than that Tomb Raider movie from several years ago.
Uncharted wasn't written by an AI and Tom Holland has way more charisma than any of the stars of Red Notice
I didn’t think it was better than the Vikander Tomb Raider but I thought the Vikander Tomb Raider was pretty fine, just like Uncharted was fine despite changing the characters backgrounds/characterization. In a vacuum it was just a normal adventure movie, no sillier than National Treasure or dozens of others.
*Sonic 2*, too. At least that film is fucking ***sincere.***
I laughed so much during sonic 2 that my face hurt afterwords. I just went with it after cringing out of my skin from the first one. They aren't the funniest movies but they are fun to watch and make fun of. 10/10 with friends
Sonic 2 might have been the funniest movie of the year. Certainly the funniest Carrey has been in a long time.
Fr, if you're looking for light-heartedness there's so many better and interesting options to choose from.
It's what annoys me about the *turn your brain off* shit. There's plenty of lighthearted films which are also just good movies. Being lighthearted isn't an excuse to be bad.
My brother is one of those people. I showed him The Big Lebowski once, as an example of this, thinking he was going to love it (it's both light-hearted and incredibly clever). When it was done he said: "I guess that was kind of funny".
Just turn your brain off
I’d say Pirates takes itself far more serious than Red Notice and is in a category closer to something like Indiana Jones. I place those in the serious fun category. Red Notice I’d say is trying to be in the stupid fun category. More like a Mummy or Shanghai Noon kind of movie. The first movie is fun while trying to win awards, the second is fun while just trying to give your brain a brake and make money.
Except Shanghai Noon had spectacular, practical fight choreography and two excellent comedians as leads. It was made to be fun, sure, but there's a difference between a film that aspires to be fun, and a film that settles for it.
[удалено]
As someone who has seen the Mummy recently I would hard disagree. That movie is about as algorithmic as it gets (I love it btw). Just read Roger Eberts review here from the time. Dude literally compares it to Congo and Anaconda. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-mummy-1999 Y’all just have some rose colored glasses and imagine this mythical time in Hollywood where bad movies were few and even money grabs would end up as critically acclaimed gems.
[удалено]
Set a remindme! for 20 years. Red Notice will finally be recognized for the fire it is with 16 dedicated subs and world hunger will be solved.
I will be messaging you in 20 years on [**2042-08-09 03:44:40 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2042-08-09%2003:44:40%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/moviescirclejerk/comments/wjkc5b/presented_without_comment/ijjaxkw/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fmoviescirclejerk%2Fcomments%2Fwjkc5b%2Fpresented_without_comment%2Fijjaxkw%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202042-08-09%2003%3A44%3A40%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20wjkc5b) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
"doesn't take itself seriously" needs to stop being a positive trait for movies. The cynicism is painfully unfunny. It feels like everyone making the movie doesn't care about anything beyond the payday. Not that everything has to take itself seriously. "Galaxy Quest" doesn't take itself seriously as a parody of Star Trek, but the actors commit to their roles and the writing has its earnest moments, that's what makes it stay as a memorable, enjoyable movie.
Gal Gadot's acting broke me in that movie.
There is a scene where Gal Gadot sings while torturing The Rock, it makes me cringe so hard and I feel secondhand embarrassment from watching it.
does she sing "Imagine?"
Did she really the first time?
That was the torture. She made him watch the entire Imagine video.
It was really strange when her song devolved into a string of racial and religious epithets towards the Palestinian people though. I wonder if that was in the script or not.
Was it really that strange?
I went into it knowing exactly what i was getting, with both RR and Dwayne Johnson in an action movie. I still scoffed at every marvel ass quip. I dont know why i do this to myself
God that movie was the breaking point for me, I couldn't take Ryan Reynolds being Ryan Reynolds anymore after that.
I've never even heard of that one
That movie was horrible
Horrible enough TO FILL THE NILE
It has the best RR acting to date tho... Edit: Which is a pretty low standard if I'm honest, lol, but still.
>It has the best RR acting to date tho... Uh...*Buried*?
I only ever watched him trying a similar approach in The Voices, less goofy and with a blank expression.
Uh...*Green Lantern*?
Uh... *X-Men Origins: Wolverine*?
Please do not ever remind me ever of that movie ever. So f-ing depressing.
Ah yes Ryan Reynolds playing quirky sarcastic arrogant man #1678. I don’t even watch movies with him in it anymore.
This is Blade: Trinity slander and I will not stand for it.
I loved Ryan Reynolds when I was younger. Now I never want to see him again. He leaned too far into the Deadpool humor
The 2019 Lion King has an 88% audience score.
Game over, man, game over!
I mean it did make over a billion dollars so it sort of had to be a crowd pleaser. It’s one of those things where like a lot of critics knew it was shit and diehard film (and especially animation) fans fully agreed with them, but the normal people just went “ooh look cool lion doing thing I remember from childhood” and are it up
💀 If children who never watched the original liked that movie, I understand, but if people who had watched the original liked that abomination, that is an insult to cinema.
It's nostalgia bait, the target audience is young adults and parents who grew up on the original. Doubt it's going to have the same impact the original did.
I feel the opposite. For dumb people who grew up with the original, I can see why they'd like it. It plays on nostalgia and because most people don't really appreciate art for the sake of it, they see fancier graphics as an improvement. If you hadn't seen the original, so many things are vague or strange and just don't make sense if you aren't filling in the gaps with "oh this is like that scene I liked from the first one but now real"
Don’t look at The Northman’s score.
AUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH that one hurt me (I legit did that one fading screaming emoji thing)
Holy shit, did you just reference Infinity War?!!! That's so epic!!! No but fr, I totally understand that feeling
Apparently it’s legitimately controversial, so whatever
Honestly, it didn’t click with some of the regular non movie people for being “too weird.” (Disclaimer: I loved the Northman) My cousin, who is like an average, marvel and action movie loving dude, said it was, “too weird,” and he couldn’t follow, “the ritual stuff,” so he never finished watching it. My aunt said the same thing about it. I heard a few other people say they thought it was, “too weird.” I dunno man, American audiences are so all over the place these days. And as much as I hate to admit this (because it’s usually quoted by annoying people), I think Scorsese was spot on about what corporatized movies have done to the average American audience. I usually hate using RT scores as a metric, but these are absolutely an accurate depiction of the current movie landscape. Don’t get me wrong, I loved me some Top Gun and Prey. But I think that, in general, Marvel type blockbusters are desensitizing audiences and just, like, wiping people’s hard drives so they can only enjoy movies that hit the correct dopamine buttons. I’m not saying everyone has to watch all the classics or that people are dumb for liking blockbusters. It just sucks that such a large portion of the audience won’t give, “boring,” “weird,” movies a chance anymore because they need the flashing CGI dopamine. Sorry for ranting. Probably coming off as an elitist, but I swear, I think blockbusters have merit for when you just want a fun thrill ride (again, recent ones I can think of for me were Top Gun Maverick and Prey). But the depressing thing to me is that most CGI fests don’t even have much of a thrilling feeling anymore. The last Marvel movie I watched was the new Doctor Strange, and it felt like it was just the movie equivalent of a laser light show. I didn’t feel anything. Not even the mindless joy a blockbuster is supposed to make me feel.
I don’t think its that. The problem is that people only have two options consistently nowadays, generic franchise blockbuster and indie movies. Which don’t get me wrong, indie movies are weird and there are some that are even weirder, but long gone are the days in which the middle ground in between (a non franchise blockbuster that is somewhat fresh) would fill that gap consistently. I mean, when was the last time we had a Gladiator, Saving Private Ryan, Benjamin Button, Forrest Gump? Indie films such as The Northman and The Green Knight are being promoted like this, but they are no more than the weird indie films that they were conceived as. We sometimes have some flashes like 1917 for example, but they are few and far between.
Crowd-pleasing "dumb" movies have been around for quite a while, and there has long been a "movie vs film" debate. But for me the amazing thing about movies these days is the sheer *volume* of them. I would venture that that is the predominant reason people's very concept of movies has changed. When a studio feature film came out, it used to be a big deal. People would talk about it, there would be interviews with the stars, behind the scenes gossip, and just in general a big media hubbub about it. It would go to theaters only and stay there for a couple of *months.* I worked at a movie theater in the early/mid-90s. A moderately successful movie could expect to stay in a theater for about six weeks. *Jurassic Park, Forrest Gump* and *Pulp Fiction* were monsters and stuck around for six *months*. And once it was gone, it was gone, and you had to wait a minimum of six more months before it would be released on VHS. Now a movie is released in theaters and is lucky, very lucky, to stick around a month. And it's often released on streaming simultaneously, and there are a dozen more movies released at the same time. The pace now is just so so so fast. People don't really talk about the Big Movie of The Moment, not really. Or rather they do, but it's compressed down to a short time. Video on demand means there's no anticipation of seeing it again like when you waited for the VHS or DVD release. And there are just so many damn things to watch. The technology now is cool as hell, but it's also watering down movies as a social experience. Of course, there are exceptions, but I just wish movies were a big deal like they used to be.
I agree with everything you said, but what I find weird is, I AM the average moviegoer, or at least I was until very recently. I've seen somewhere in the ballpark of 450 films, I've only logged 420 ish bc I can't remember a decent amount, but I'm currently 18. I was a diehard MCU fan up until the endgame trailer dropped. Sure I had seen a couple classics, especially older action movies, die hard, the terminator (2), both aliens, etc etc. Parasite was really the first movie that made me want to watch like classics and important films in movie history and shit like that, (it's still in my top ten though). I haven't seen a single david lynch movie, and I'm not a big fan of not actually being able to understand the basic story of a film without an hour video essay, but the northman felt totally mainstream to me. Like I get when I love a film and other people I know probably wouldn't appreciate it in the same way. But the Northman really only had a couple trippy scenes, and 1. they were not so weird as to be incomprenshible, and 2. It still had a bunch of cool viking shit. Yes it's a revenge critique, but the viking raid + the volcano fight fucking rule. The themes are simple enough, the story is simple enough, it's not all that slow, and it looks cool. Even during my "MCU is nigh perfect and old movies are dumb" phase I would've love a slightly trippy but ass kicking viking revenge story.
>I've seen somewhere in the ballpark of 450 films, I've only logged 420 ish This shows that you are not a regular moviegoer, most people don't care about logging movies and keeping track of what they are watching, they'll also definitely not have watched 450 movies by the time they are 18. You probably watched The Lightouse and The Witch, so yeah, in comparison The Northman is simple, but the way the movie is presented is far from simple for most people, just that village raid scene must be enough for some to leave.
People have always liked dumb blockbusters from the dawn of film. I don’t think it’s really a new thing. Plus, it’s not like there aren’t films liked by both critics and audiences. (Fury Road, Parasite, Moonlight come to mind going by RT)
Of course it was going to be weird, what did they expect of Robert Eggers?
Yer fond of me revenge story, aint ye?
A lot of people don't expect anything of Robert Eggers because they don't know who Robert Eggers is. They just think "hey there's a cool looking Viking movie with that guy from True Blood and Big Little Lies" Those are the people who are probably disappointed by The Northman.
[удалено]
Oh for sure and it definitely didn’t help that the movie was a bit slower too, in contrast to the high action big battle Viking epic that people were expecting. I for one went in totally blind and just for Robert Eggers, so I was just pleasantly surprised. But I still get how it didn’t live up to many people’s expectations or just pissed them off for certain reasons.
I was just happy to watch a bunch of men shirtless and screaming at each other lol
I was expecting much worse but damn, that's still not great :(
comparing the audience scores of the rise of skywlaker & the last jedi is so funny
Kinda crazy that rise of Skywalker wasn't review bombed
but didn't RT do something to prevent movies from being review bombed *precisely* because of the TLJ incident? been a while and I could totally be pulling this out of my ass but I think I remember some of that being connected, I'll try to look for a source for this
You're right, you can see it in the image above, where TRoS has a "verified audience score" where they only show ratings from people who verified they bought a ticket. That's also why there's only about 100 ratings for the Netflix kinos that play in 15 theaters worldwide.
Close, they actually did it because of Captain Marvel. The "want to see score" was at like 50% before the movie came out, most movies are usually in the high 90% range.
Not surprising at all, the people that review bomb things wrote the screenplay
[удалено]
This sub has always been based
Why would they? The people who do shit like that got exactly the movie they wanted in TROS.
I feel like at this point TLJ left a lot of people feeling cold but man, the red-hot hate I hear about Episode 9 is so much stronger.
internet bros online are definitely still more angry about TLJ, movie just lives rent-free in some of their heads
That's because the hate for TROS comes from people who actually have souls
In my experience almost everyone dislikes Episode 9 but Episode 8 is a lot louder and harsher from those who do hate it. Anyone who liked 8 got burned by how 9 was written to either ignore or downplay it, when people who were still with the trilogy at that point should have been the #1 audience. And 9 is also just not a well made movie, leaving any 8 haters who went to see it unsatisfied (but maybe less mad than they were at 8).
And they still hated it, lmao.
They played themselves which is one of two good things about TROS lol.
point lip mountainous heavy drab fanatical beneficial governor correct rhythm *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I actually agree. Why was Uncut Gems so badly received by whoever votes on Rotten Tomatoes? It makes no sense to me.
If I remember correctly lots of angry parents who walked into the theater thinking it was a regular Adam Sandler movie
Holy shit I'm gonna cum
Julia Fox does have a dumpy ass
Remember when she dated Kanye for two weeks
And went Goblin Mode.
One look at the film poster and it's clear it's not gonna be Click 2 lmao
That's a high bar to [live up to](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz6jHTpi6zw).
>Asking customers to read
Yeah, it got an A- Cinemascore in its limited release (which likely primarily attracted arthouse audiences rather than Sandler fans), but once it went wide its official Cinemascore ended up being a C+.
Reminds me of how Wolf of Wall Street got a C Cinemascore because it opened on Christmas and families hated it.
literally just take a look at the trailer or the genre descriptions lmao how lazy can people be
There are no depths to the laziness of a parent picking movies for their children to watch.
Wasn’t it R rated too?
Yeah, I’m also pretty sure it passed The Wolf of Wall Street for most uses of the word “fuck” and it’s variations, even though Wolf is almost an hour longer.
Technically Wolf barely beats it out [569 vs 560](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_that_most_frequently_use_the_word_fuck), but yeah it's also nearly an hour longer. Uncut Gems featured 4.15 fucks per minute vs 3.16 for Wolf.
That's some high FPMs.
Yes but that surprisingly doesn't make some parents blink either.
Most A24 movie have a low audience score, probably the average movie watcher isn't that into them
Apart from the lighthouse which has 100% from both audience and critics
The Kinohouse.
Probably cause this one by the trailers and even some posters very clearly indicates it’s not for general audiences where as the others still look pretty normal
Me watching the trailer for Lamb (2021): "Yeah this looks normal"
Most of my favorite movies that have come out fairly recently are A24 tho
A lot of people don’t like the stressful busyness. I don’t agree with it but it’s one of the easier movies to pinpoint where it went wrong with some people
I feel like that was the point. They wanted to take you into the mind of a gambling addict who has constant worries and stresses in his life
Oh it absolutely was
It definitely was but it also probably gave general audiences anxiety attacks and headaches. It was a pretty stressful movie to watch (in a really good way) so I understand why people may not latch onto it or even rewatch it. I'll be honest, I fucking loved everything about Uncut Gems but I have not rewatched it. It's simply too anxiety inducing
It’s crazy because that was literally the best part
But Good Time is just as anxiety inducing and it has 82% audience score
I feel like Good Time wasn't nearly as widely watched as Uncut Gems, so people who saw it were more likely to know what they were getting into. Also, there were absolutely people who saw Uncut Gems solely because Sandler was in it expecting a goofy Happy Madison comedy. There were a bunch of user reviews when it was new that can basically be summed up as "this movie isn't funny." For general audiences who aren't necessarily super into movies, whether or not they enjoy a movie is often very dependent on whether or not it met their expectations. As in, if they expect a comedy and get a twisted drama/thriller, they're going to be dissastisfied no matter how good it was at what it set out to do. RT user scores (along with user scores on similar sites) should really only be used as a way to judge how successful a movie's marketing was at finding its target audience.
How are people turned off by the stress but totally fine watching building after building get destroyed by incomprehensible vfx noise? That shit stresses me out
Probably because Uncut Gems feels grounded in reality. When you're watching CGI clusterfuck movies, it may be nonsensically busy but it's clearly fantasy. The action may be gripping (to some) but it's still far removed from our lives/world. By contrast, it's very easy to believe that people like Howard Ratner exist. In fact, many people probably know someone like him. My dad came out of Uncut Gems telling me how he knows so many people just like that.
Same reason why over the top gore and violence is usually looked at better than depictions of sexual assault or sexual violence. Violence in movies and video games tend to feel more removed from reality than sexual assault.
Eh. I could see that. I’ve met multiple people who hate watching Mr Bean, because so much of the comedy is built on anxiety, misfortune, and accidents. Using a similar kind of energy for outright horror within the context of a thriller seems like it would push people over the edge. It could also just be people who assumed that it was a comedy due to Adam Sandler, despite having already done multiple dramatic roles.
This actually shocks me, wtf
To be fair, Safdie bros are an acquired taste. That constant barrage of bad decisions is anxiety inducing, and I love it, but I can understand people getting frustrated
it’s a fucking exhausting movie. i love it and thought it was great, but it totally makes sense that audiences would be divided on a movie who’s whole thing is that watching it feels like you’re having a bad day.
They were probably Lakers fans.
Because it is kinda hard to watch. It’s a very stressful and sensory overloaded film. But the biggest reason is that it’s nothing like any previous Sandler movie (though it does share the common trope of Sandler playing a bumbling idiot who is with a smoking hot actress, in this case two actually), so the combination of both is what really gets it down there
>But the biggest reason is that it’s nothing like any previous Sandler movie Should be an automatic win. This is punch drunk love erasure though.
I love Punch-Drunk Love (more than Uncut Gems actually), but while it is also different than previous Sandler’s, it’s still at the end of the day a romantic comedy-drama, so it is in his wheelhouse. Whereas with Uncut Gems, he’s never done a crime thriller before. I was approaching “nothing like his previous movies” in more of a genre sense
And Meyerowitz Stories
The takeaway from this is you shouldn't really care what RT says anyway. Most movies have a high audience score because most people only feel the need to leave a score when its a movie they either like or super-hate. They're not kinophiles who weigh every movie they watch on a 1-5 star score.
The worst habit of a shitty reviewer is taking umbrage with a movie for failing to meet their expectations. Modern audiences have been trained, by blockbusters, to expect a certain rhythm, and tone of storytelling. Failing to fit that mold means losing points with those kinds of dipsticks.
Movies that are designed to make audiences feel good vs a movie designed to make the audience spend two hours on the verge of an anxiety attack. Some movies aren’t for everybody. Other mo ones are purposely trying their hardest to be for everybody.
I thought the uncut gems audience score was edited for the meme
As hard as it is to believe, a huge amount of people, even the vast number, don't have a criteria for a film being good or bad other than **"Did cool stuff happen on-screen?"** Did cool stuff happen in Rise of Skywalker and The Gray Man? Sure. Good film. Did cool stuff happen in Uncut Gems? Getting an anxiety attack isn't cool, so no. Bad film. I wish I was kidding.
Transformers, venom, White House down, Olympus has fallen trilogy, F&F, morbius, den of thieves and moonfall all agree with you
This is probably the most accurate description of bad taste in movies I’ve ever seen! It deserves a place in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Dumb and dumber (1994)
Ewwww omg, uncut gems stressed me out too much, why would I want to watch a movie where I get stressed when I'm supposed to be having fun 😩
People be like this, and then go give the absolute worst horror movie ever made a high score. "Truth or dare scared the shit out of me" type beat
Well that is still consistent with the "movies should only be mindless entertainment" type view. It's still just theme parks, and horror movies are the haunted house exhibit
Spoke facts
Mfs be like, omg Joker so based and turn around and look at Howie and go 🤮🤢. But for real, the literally me potential for Howard Ratner is off the charts considering how much sports gambling is being pushed now, untapped meme potential? 📈
I've noticed the same thing with a lot of horror games on Steam, as long as a monster jumps out and says "boo!" it gets a positive review. Doesn't matter how good the game actually is, the only check mark for quality is "did I jump"
Fr fr. People are so used to watching the most generic and safe films that they get confused with what makes something good.
Tfw I watch a thriller and get thrilled 😭
[удалено]
yikes, I don't want my movies to make me feel emotions
“Current generation audience” like people haven’t been gobbling up mediocre action flicks since forever.
What I really don't get is Eternals, No one I know likes that movie, if they've even seen it. I'm not in too many "film circles" mostly just general audience types and literally no one liked it.
Because dumb action flicks are something new. Lmfao
I, for one, enjoyed Netflix’s *The Gay Man*.
I also enoy The Gay Man.
100+ verified chad Gray Man enjoyers. I see no issue here.
I thought it was stupid as fuck for the first half but then I kinda dug how goofy it was, am I b\_sed?
Chris Evans fully embraced the goofiness of his character and it completely saved the movie for me
This. Chris Evans playing the villian as a stoic, serious “Mads Mikkelsen in *Casino Royale*”-esque mastermind would’ve been the final nail in the coffin for me. Instead Evans realized the stupid movie he was in, and turned up the goofiness to 11 and yes, saved the movie in the process. He was borderline enchanting to watch. Every scene he wasn’t on screen I was just waiting for him to come back on screen, especially compared to how utterly boring and forgettable whatever tf Gosling was going for was.
He started as a comedy actor so I feel like he missed doing those stuff.
I liked that they made the toughest heavy an Indian guy. I guess since they can't chase the Chinese market now, they're going after the Indian subcontinent, which I'm all for.
Yes. I’ll be god damned if I don’t support a literally me action franchise
Chris Evans understood the assignment and carried the damn movie, his 80s pornstache and douchebag drip will forever be iconic.
*Death of Cinema*
Externals was in fact a movie
I do think people's points of reference for what makes a good film are deterioting, but they generally do have the same tastes they always had, it's just that studios are slowly making shittier movies gradually enough for the average movie goer to not notice.
hmm idk about that. Schindler’s list is on 1993s top 10 highest grossing movies. I think we have definitely become dumber. Who’s to blame I dont know.
I think Schindler's List is a very rare type of film that comes along every decade or so, a genuine masterpiece that's accessible to general audiences, allowing it to make heaps of money and rightfully win every award it gets. It's hard to say whether it would achieve the same level of success today though. I doubt most Marvel and Minions consuming audiences would watch a three hour black and white film with relatively unknown actors about a subject like the Holocaust. However, if people can get behind Joker, which is a pretty big departure from the top mainstream films of the last decade, I don't see why they can do it again for a genuinely brilliant film. (It genuinely sickens me to compare Schindler's List to Joker, but you get the point). I'm sure if a New New Hollywood movement started and the current strain of souless corporate drivel died off, people would start going to the cinema a bit more, but alas Disney ™ will never allow that to happen.
> I'm sure if a New New Hollywood movement started and the current strain of souless corporate drivel died off, people would start going to the cinema a bit more It took four months for Everything, Everywhere, All At Once to hit $100 million and Elvis has hit $250 million since release. Both modest successes. To me this tells me there is a hunger for good things not based off of blockbuster IPs, but other types of films. And you know what else does? Late Summer through Winter of 2019. Marvel finally fucked off after Far From Home left and the only blockbusters we got after were Joker and Star Wars IX. Joker had some interesting discourse and everyone hated TROS. And you know what else made a splash? Knives Out, Midsommar, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, The Lighthouse, Parasite, Ford V. Ferrari, & JoJo Rabbit. Marvel is kind of a colonizing force. ESPECIALLY since the MCU only gets one or two good projects a phase that's worth remembering.
the success of Schindler List was not surprising, Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction were in the Top 10 a year later, and Se7en the year after that. Joker on the other hand is a miraculous outlier for these days (a slow burn drama that made over a billion dollars), and it’s still attached to some pre existing IP. It’s a fan favorite character that appeared many times before. If the same movie had been called *Eric* without any ties to DC it obviously wouldn’t have done that well. I think many movies from today should have been successful, and definitely would have been 20 years ago. For example, The Northman. The movie is pure spectacle, if anything it’s *too* much spectacle. Makes no sense that it flopped the way it did. On a smaller scale, West Side Story, Nightmare Alley, Ambulance, etc all should have done much better than they did, if people cared about anything that isn’t franchise stuff. I also pray for a New Hollywood 2.0, but that requires a whole generation that is tired of big spectacle films (musicals and epic movies were those in the 60s), which isn’t really the case for Gen Z.
I find it funny that you bring up Joker as the "cinephile" crowd shits on Joker (2019) pretty damn hard along with the people who found it deep and profound. I think that's a little unfair, as while the script and overall story aren't the greatest, Joaquin Phoenix's acting single-handedly made the movie as good as it is.
Schindler's List is a big budget war movie made by probably the most famous director ever.
I mean this is why audience scores are useless really. Most people who aren't terminally online kinophiles approach ranking movies like its Uber. If they like it at all its 5 stars, if they don't like it at all its 1 star.
Eternals is a weird one thought, I don’t feel like it’s as cut and dry as the other ones presented there
Eternals is interesting in that it's trying to be about something but it gets EXTREMELY frustrating when Marvel clearly jumps in and makes Chloe Zhao do some Marvel shit that clashes so hard with the movie. Like there's that conversation between King Kingo and Sprite that's really good and then Kingo's valet buddy shows up with his camera and it ruins the momentum.
I actually think it was all Zhao and the Firpos for that. Not that Marvel Studios doesn't get overly involved in most cases, but by all accounts Zhao was actually allowed to do what she wanted and had full script involvement. It's just that she wanted to make a Marvel movie, and her style isn't really all that compatible.
Uncut Gems’ audience score is HOW LOW???
I’m having real trouble understanding that Rise of Skywalker tomatometer score.
It’s not good lol
Successful brainwashing of consumer interests
This isn't a "current generation" thing. This has been going on long before Rotten Tomatoes was a thing.
For real, most of the 80s and 90s most successful films were dumb action movies, too. I don't see anyone discussing the artistic merit of Rocky IV or Independence Day.
People did not like Uncut Gems. They thought it was another Adam Sandler comedy type movie and that caught them off guard. *"This movie is not funny babe, I wanna leave the theater!"*
Let's be real tho, who here actually used rotten tomatoes
NGL I liked Uncharted, still not sure why it got bashed so hard
Because it's based on a beloved video game franchise, and many of the video game fans weren't too happy about it from the very beginning (from Tom Holland's casting, Mark Wahlberg as Sully, no Nathan Fillion).
Im in agreement. It wasn’t spectacular but it was a competently made and well acted adventure story. Formulaic sure, but still better than a lot of other blockbusters we got around the same time. Frankly I’d sooner rewatch it than any of the recent Marvel movies.
Yeah like no one liked stupid action movies before
Somehow, the 80s returned
stupid 1980s action movies were the best kind of stupid
I take Letterboxd reviews and ratings more seriously than RT
My favourite is that Man of Steel and WW84 have almost identical audience and critic scores. Funny thing is WW84 seems to be universally hated on Reddit, you almost never see someone say they like it and some claim it is the worst superhero or even worst movie they have seen. In comparison there are plenty on here who have MoS as a masterpiece.
It would be different if everything was received positively but no it feels like only bad movies are well reviewed
The gray man wasn’t bad, every other movie on here yeah they sucked big time