Bor Gullet
-
Posts
23 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Bor Gullet
-
-
88% on RT, 8/10 average rating.
Anyone seen this yet?
-
There seems to be a huge disconnect between the positive and negative reviews on RT. Weird.
-
9 hours ago, Disco Stu said:
This could be a game changer, cinematically.
I doubt it will be a game changer like Bridge of Spies.
-
-
-
10 hours ago, publicist said:
Spotlight is at 97%, so...
With an insanely high 8.8 average rating!
-
9 hours ago, Nick1066 said:
This is just one of those movies that start at 2.5 stars and has no where to go but up. Directed by Spielberg, A-list cast, timely subject that makes heroes of journalists. It's given a certain amount of credibility right out the gate. At let's remember Steven Spielberg doesn't make bad movies. It only has to be average to get good reviews, and I tend to agree that it will it middle to generally positive reviews.
We should have threads predicting the Rotten Tomatoes score for upcoming movies, winner gets bragging rights as a prognosticator or prognosticators. I'll predict 71% for The Post.
I'd wager anything between 75 to the low 90's on RT.
-
-
5 hours ago, Jay said:
Holy cow, that trailer was absolutely terrible. It felt like a parody trailer for these kinds of movies a comedy TV show would make. What a disappointment.
Hopefully JW found inspiration somewhere and the score is great!
Not as bad as the Lincoln trailer though.
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
A new tidbit.
Spielberg is working closely with ILM on the massive number of visual effects for his next epic, ’80s-inflected Ready Player One (Warner Bros., March 30), based on the 2011 Ernest Cline sci-fi novel, which wrapped principal photography a year ago. Spielberg said he spends three three-hour meetings a week going over visual effects with ILM.
"This is the most difficult movie I’ve done since Saving Private Ryan."
http://www.indiewire.com/2017/11/steven-spielberg-the-post-ready-player-one-ben-mendelsohn-arthur-miller-writer-1201895214/ -
On 11/4/2017 at 4:52 PM, The Doctor said:
The only way The BFG got good reviews was that Disney likely owns the critics.
I really hope you're being sarcastic.
-
Word to the wise: I personally recall rumors swirling around in early November 2005 that Munich was something resembling a mess and that Spielberg and Friends were struggling to put it all together as both a coherent and enjoyable film in the editing room.
The time span between the start of production to the release date in December 22, 2005 was less than six months. The first trailer came out November 7.It's possible we could get a trailer for The Post sometime this week.
Taken from the Munich IMDB page: The film crews called the shooting of the movie as a "race against the clock". In order to have the film ready by Christmas for Academy Awards consideration, Steven Spielberg and Editor Michael Kahn devised an editing schedule in which: 1) All of the scenes in Malta and Hungary shot in twelve weeks were edited on the spot. Each day, Spielberg would review an edited scene shot two days earlier. 2) Two copies of the edited scene were sent out, one to John Williams for music and the other to Ben Burtt for sound effects. 3) The Paris and New York City scenes were edited two weeks after photography, and the final cut was readied after another two weeks.
-
4 hours ago, Thor said:
It must be painful for you to post on a John Wiliams fan forum, then.
Don't misunderstand me. I would dislike TLW less if Spielberg hadn't directed, like Jaws 2.
I'm a big fan of Spielberg, and it shocks me he could direct such a boring turd.
-
1 hour ago, crumbs said:
Well these rumours don't surprise me. Wasn't the script meant to be an awful mess desperately in need of another writing pass? That he rushed into it half-baked might have done the film a real disservice.
That said, they're already scoring so they're pushing ahead with a December release, hell or high water. Maybe all the film's missing is some syrupy John Williams indulgence... but even he might not be able to save the world's most boring screenplay.
Where did you hear that? The script was in the black list.
-
I always use Rotten Tomomatoes to validate my opinions because I'm lazy.
-
On 10/13/2017 at 0:42 PM, Quintus said:
E.T. is not only more readily accessible than Blade Runner, commercially far more broadly appealing than it; but it's arguably just better than it, too.
Get dem apples and oranges out!
This shouldn't be an unpopular opinion. E.T. is considered to be one of the greatest films ever made. Blade Runner is a very influencial sci-film and one of the best in it's genre (though I don't hold it in that high regard).
According to critics from Rotten Tomatoes
E.T. has a 9.2/10 average rating from critics
Blade Runner has a 8.5/10 average rating
ET=wins
-
I mean, going by Rotten Tomatoes Spielberg hasn't made a rotten film since The Lost World.
The BFG flopped but got positive reviews.
12 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:Interesting that the early buzz on this is so bad. Given how rushed this thing was, the shameless way that it's Oscar bait designed specifically as a response to current events, and the fact that it appears to have been made for political, not artistic reasons (always a bad sign), I'm not surprised.
Spielberg hasn't had an outright, no holds barred critical+commercial flop for a while. Even BFG got somewhat decent reviews.
Spielberg rushing a movie isn't a bad thing necessarily. The faster he works, the better his films usually are. Look at his 2001-2005 output. Spielberg was firing on all cylinders and pumping out good/great films at a very fast rate (A.I., Minority Report, Catch me if You Can, War of the Worlds, and Munich). He filmed Raiders very quickly, and ended up with one of the best films of his career.
-
To be fair though, Spielberg's historical dramas are always solid. His weakest historical drama is probably Amistad, and even that's pretty decent. If this was about Ready Player One (which does look cool by the way), I'd be more inclined to believe it.
And the Spielberg/Hanks collab has never let me down yet. Even The Terminal, which is the weakest of the four Spielberg/Hanks films, is still a very enjoyable movie. Speaking of which, if I remember correctly poor test screenings of that film also caused Spielberg to re-shoot the ending.
59 minutes ago, Not Mr. Big said:Makes sense. Bad vibes from the beginning. The negative review of the script, the last minute "have to stay relevant" manner Spielberg took it on, the fact that nothing about the premise sounds cinematically interesting or suited to Spielberg's talents.
What negative script review? It was on The Black List.
-
I like The BFG. The visuals are quite nice and Mark Rylance is wonderful in it.
Hook is bad but Williams score is great
-
According to The Awards Circuit (a pretty reliable site), the test screening for this film was a "disaster" and their scrambling to turn it into something decent. That's why we haven't had a trailer yet
Link: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/circuit-breaker/id1120795055?mt=2
10/25 episode of the podcast, 46 minute mark. -
Both films are of equal quality (a.k.a. shit) but TLW was directed by Spielberg, therefore it's worse in my book.
I firmly believe the Lost World is Spielberg's worst film. The most dull, boring film he's ever directed, with an awful screenplay to boot. Jurassic Park should never have been a franchise, at least not by Spielberg. I think that's what pisses me off about TLW the most. It's a shitty, cash grabbing sequel to a beloved 90's film.
Coming from the man who said "making a sequel to anything is just a cheap carny trick" in regards to Jaws, and not wanting to do a sequel to E.T. because it would take away the "virginity" of the original. Indiana Jones is different because it's based on the 30's adventure serial, sequels are in it's DNA.
Jurassic Park should have been a one off, like Jaws and E.T.Jaws 2 also sucks though. Just not as bad as the other sequels.
Ready Player One (2018) FILM Discussion
in General Discussion
Posted
*The Color Purple