Is this movie worth my time?

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

15 minutes ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

La La Land

 

Are you gonna listen to the whole label?

[John 2,032]

38 minutes ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

Batman Returns 

 

Have you seen the first Burton movie? If not I’d recommend you see it before this one. 

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

1 hour ago, John said:

Have you seen the first Burton movie? If not I’d recommend you see it before this one. 

I did this weekend. Loved it, so I'm guessing that Batman Returns will be in the same line!

 

Dunkirk was for today. Visceral, thrilling, adrenaline pumping and propelling. Additionally, a new appreciation for the score, which is hella effective! I had only ever seen clips before today. 

 

As as for La La Land, ah okay. That's too bad, @Thor. That's a rewatch for me, and that film stole my heart, so yeah.

1 hour ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Are you gonna listen to the whole label?

I wish that were in my financial capabilities, old boy, but alas!

[Thor 7,513]

2 minutes ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

I did this weekend. Loved it, so I'm guessing that Batman Returns will be in the same line!

 

It's a very different film. More downtempo, with gorgeous monochrome landscapes. It's a Euripidian-scale tragedy, really. Ultimately, I might prefer this over the first. Score too. And that's saying something, since Jack Nicholson is my alltime favourite actor.

 

2 minutes ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

As as for La La Land, ah okay. That's too bad, @Thor. That's a rewatch for me, and that film stole my heart, so yeah.

 

It's OK! I know I'm in the minority on that one. Just a few weeks ago, I rewatched Demy's LES DEMOISELLES DE ROCHEFORT, in preparation of my Michel Legrand episode, and THAT is the 'real deal'. Stupendous and lavish in all the good ways. Everything that LA LA LAND was not. To me, anyway.

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

Oh yes, Jack Nicholson was amazing! "There'll be a hot time in the old time tonight!" "We got a live one here!" and so much more. He's completely immersed in the role. It's a pleasure to watch him as Joker, with all the creepy jauntiness and such!

 

I really like Elfman's original score, but I'm not all that familiar with Batman Returns.

 

Re: Les Demoiselles de Rochefort

I'll have to check that out,

[John 2,032]

Gentlemen! Let’s broaden our minds. Lawrence?

[publicist 4,643]

7 hours ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

I really like Elfman's original score, but I'm not all that familiar with Batman Returns.

 

Returns is much less coarse and blunt, with more emphasis on the twisted comic book atmosphere (great Penguin material!) and more creative orchestration. It's among Elfman's Top Three.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

13 hours ago, John said:

Gentlemen! Let’s broaden our minds. Lawrence?

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,544]

BATMAN RETURNS is by far, the better made, and better, film, but BATMAN, for me, will always be the more influential of the two.

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

18 hours ago, John said:

Gentlemen! Let’s broaden our minds. Lawrence?

Probably my favourite scene!

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Batman is better than everything.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

3 hours ago, Dieter Stark said:

Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice is better than everything.

 

I agree.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,544]

Perhaps, and over the years, BvS:DOJ might come to be seen as a cult, camp classic, one of these "good, bad films". Who knows; it might even get a reputation as good as BATMAN AND ROBIN.

[A24 4,339]

Steef doesn't know that concept or phenomenon, Richard. To him there is only good or bad. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

This is another classic @Alexcremers misconception! Up there with @Jay loves NCIS and The Mentalist.

 

 

[A24 4,339]

5 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

This is another classic @Alexcremers misconception! Up there with @Jay loves NCIS and The Mentalist.

 

 

 

The proof is in the posting, Steef!

 

BTW, it's JoeinAR that loves The Mentalist, not Jay. Everybody knows that.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That's my point Alex, thank you for proving it!

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

On 8/5/2018 at 12:25 AM, Holko said:

Why do people still only look at RT's binary ratings? The average critic rating on a 10-scale is right below that! Fury road has 8.6, Ant-Man and the Wasp has 6.9, both are probably reasonable.

 

Rotten Tomatoes rating system is utter garbage, based on 3 reasons. (1) Each individual rating tabulates as either good/bad, the system leaves no room for nuance being calculated, which only people with brains realize is really important for sample accuracy, (2) the critics are not good at their job, because they all play it safe, never giving real personal ratings in fear that they could be wrong, and (3) so many of them are hired by the companies that promote the movies--it explains why 80% of rotten tomatoes ratings are positive. Every single movie on RT is incorrectly rated. Just look at RT Top 1000, they're all at 99-100% and the majority of them suck, then look up actual good movies which usually are like 70%, and you can see the disgusting media-manipulating use of their system.

 

Furthermore, it's not about the rating itself, but it's about the order that rating means by comparison, ie. where that rating sits on the site's scale. If you want a decent rating, one that is at least marginally accurate, then look up the IMDb Top 1000 Voters rating by clicking on the population link under the IMDb rating, and under Demographic it will say Top 1000.

For example, here are the Top 1000 Voters Greatest Films: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls020734622/

Raiders of the Lost Ark is much higher. Alien, Psycho, and Jaws are as well. They're all different.

 

Sadly this is actually 10-or-so times more accurate than RT, sadly. Not saying it's good either but it's the best one to use at the moment.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

6 minutes ago, Borodin said:

the critics are not good at their job, because they all play it safe--never giving real personal ratings in fear that they could be wrong,

 

Isnt this a massive assumption on your part?

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

No. You can compare RT critics' divergence with Top 1000 IMDb critics' divergence. The divergence of the latter is massively greater, because although they need to meet certain criteria (like amount of verified reviews) in order to be considered a Top 1000 IMDb critic (anyone can be one), the difference is they're all anonymous and amateur. This shows that real people aren't afraid to give their own opinion. RT critics aren't real opinions, they're safe guides and predictors to what people should think and it's all-too noticeable. What this leaves at RT, is a tomatometer that isn't based on any sort of personal accuracy or relevance. The word average is the mathematical point here; an IMDb average has actual meaning, whereas RT's is just an average of already assumed group-think.

 

Also, what people really need to realize is it's not about the rating itself--it's about the order these numbers yield in the end. For instance, RT might put some good movies at 90%, but the majority of their database from 90%-100% are not good movies. So their rating number doesn't mean anything. By contrast, Raiders of the Lost Ark on IMDb is much lower than on RT, but the rank it's in (see the link above) is the 3rd best movie of all time. So the rating number itself doesn't mean anything, its the scale which matters. This is how RT manipulates people by allowing a bunch of paid critics to rank mediocre films at 90% and get away with it, because no one cares. As long as the best movies are 70-90%, people buy into the RT lie. The system yields no purpose but to pay critics to manipulate audiences.

[Thor 7,513]

I never use Rotten Tomatoes for anything myself, although I sometimes observe a film's RT rating at its Wikipedia page just for curiousity's sake. What's your take on Metacritic?

[John 2,032]

 

5 hours ago, Borodin said:

 

Rotten Tomatoes rating system is utter garbage, based on 3 reasons. (1) Each individual rating tabulates as either good/bad, the system leaves no room for nuance being calculated, which only people with brains realize is really important for sample accuracy, (2) the critics are not good at their job, because they all play it safe, never giving real personal ratings in fear that they could be wrong, and (3) so many of them are hired by the companies that promote the movies--it explains why 80% of rotten tomatoes ratings are positive. Every single movie on RT is incorrectly rated. Just look at RT Top 1000, they're all at 99-100% and the majority of them suck, then look up actual good movies which usually are like 70%, and you can see the disgusting media-manipulating use of their system.

 

Furthermore, it's not about the rating itself, but it's about the order that rating means by comparison, ie. where that rating sits on the site's scale. If you want a decent rating, one that is at least marginally accurate, then look up the IMDb Top 1000 Voters rating by clicking on the population link under the IMDb rating, and under Demographic it will say Top 1000.

For example, here are the Top 1000 Voters Greatest Films: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls020734622/

Raiders of the Lost Ark is much higher. Alien, Psycho, and Jaws are as well. They're all different.

 

Sadly this is actually 10-or-so times more accurate than RT, sadly. Not saying it's good either but it's the best one to use at the moment.

 

5 hours ago, Borodin said:

No. You can compare RT critics' divergence with Top 1000 IMDb critics' divergence. The divergence of the latter is massively greater, because although they need to meet certain criteria (like amount of verified reviews) in order to be considered a Top 1000 IMDb critic (anyone can be one), the difference is they're all anonymous and amateur. This shows that real people aren't afraid to give their own opinion. RT critics aren't real opinions, they're safe guides and predictors to what people should think and it's all-too noticeable. What this leaves at RT, is a tomatometer that isn't based on any sort of personal accuracy or relevance. The word average is the mathematical point here; an IMDb average has actual meaning, whereas RT's is just an average of already assumed group-think.

 

Also, what people really need to realize is it's not about the rating itself--it's about the order these numbers yield in the end. For instance, RT might put some good movies at 90%, but the majority of their database from 90%-100% are not good movies. So their rating number doesn't mean anything. By contrast, Raiders of the Lost Ark on IMDb is much lower than on RT, but the rank it's in (see the link above) is the 3rd best movie of all time. So the rating number itself doesn't mean anything, its the scale which matters. This is how RT manipulates people by allowing a bunch of paid critics to rank mediocre films at 90% and get away with it, because no one cares. As long as the best movies are 70-90%, people buy into the RT lie. The system yields no purpose but to pay critics to manipulate audiences.

 

[Jay 37,369]

I've never seen a single episode of CSI or The Mentalist

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

TV snob!

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

NCIS.

[Jay 37,369]

I've never seen that one either

[A24 4,339]

25 minutes ago, Jay said:

I've never seen that one either

 

The only good show that CBS ever made is probably:

 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

And that was a remake of a superior British sitcom called "Till Death Do Us Part".

[Jay 37,369]

31 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

The only good show that CBS ever made is probably:

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twilight_Zone_(1959_TV_series)

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

7 hours ago, John said:

 

It's alright, I know enough people like you who, whatever you do to present the statistics and facts, they will twist them to fit their fairy tale ideology because they have no understanding of math or objective divergence, and they're ignoring the database facts.

 

It's also hilarious to see people defend Rotten Tomatoes.  

 

It's safe to bet you think "Because a lot of great classic films are on RT that people took time to rate well, that somehow Rotten Tomatoes system works." Sometimes peoples' ignorance is beyond imaginable to me; just another flaw in the system RT uses to manipulate you.

[John 2,032]

12 minutes ago, Borodin said:

 

It's alright, I know enough people like you who, whatever you do to present clear statistics and facts, they will twist them to fit their fairy tale ideology because they have no understanding of math or objective divergence.

 

You’ve established a reputation of bizarre and incoherent comments for yourself on this forum. Your above posts are no exception. 

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

2 minutes ago, John said:

You’ve established a reputation of bizarre and incoherent comments on this forum. Your above posts are no exception. 

 

Aww, that's such a smart analytical response. Good for you for thinking.

[John 2,032]

1 minute ago, Borodin said:

 

Aww, that's such a smart analytical response. Good for you for thinking.

 

Thank you very much, I definitely try. 

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

Just now, John said:

I definitely try. 

 

That's all that matters. You gave it your best effort.

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

[Fabulin 3,514]

.

 

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

9 hours ago, Thor said:

What's your take on Metacritic?

 

I personally tend to stay away from anything professionally critic-based. The reason being is I have a software that recommends movies to me, and it beats the daylights out of any of these sites. IMDb Top 1000 is the more accurate number to look at.

 

As far as my software goes, anyone can build it. Mathematically what you do is take 1000 to 2000 IMDb lists that have your favorite movies on them (you can use google search tools), then there's a principle of likelihood, ie. 'given that 99% of movies aren't popular, what's the likelihood they would show up on peoples lists?' You avoid this bias by taking the mathematical expression (# of times the film appears on the lists ÷ general popularity of this film) and you get a perfect film-recommending algorithm that works like a charm. Introduces you to all kinds of great films you'd never hear about, that fit right to your taste.

[Thor 7,513]

14 minutes ago, Borodin said:

 

I personally tend to stay away from anything professionally critic-based.

 

Damn, you just undermined my whole profession. Now what am I going to do?

 

But in all seriousness, if the software thing works for you, all the more power to ya! But doesn't it mean you only get to see 'popular' films?

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

Yeah, Borodin, what about all those pretentious films that the critics tell you to like? 

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

1 hour ago, Thor said:

Damn, you just undermined my whole profession. Now what am I going to do?

 

I think I did that in the last thread too

On accident. My bad.

 

1 hour ago, Thor said:

But doesn't it mean you only get to see 'popular' films?

 

No, out of a sample of 2000 lists for instance with an average of 100 movies on each list, almost every unpopular movie you'd enjoy is going to be in this sample somewhere. So you already ensured your favorite films are on these lists, people unconsciously give you new recommendations within these lists. Now you simply need to divide the amount of times each individual movie pops up, by its popularity, to strip down all the multi-level popularity bias. What you're left with is the perfect set of movie recommendations, popular or not popular at all.

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

You'll have to post the algorithm.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Lala Land is worth nobody's time. It is offensive to the great musicals of the past

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

It's an ok soundtrack label, though.

[Thor 7,513]

39 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

Lala Land is worth nobody's time. It is offensive to the great musicals of the past

 

 

That's rather harsh. It has its set of values, and its attempt to ape Demy has a bit of charm somehow. But yeah -- I'm leaning towards your viewpoint on this.

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

I'd say that's quite mild, coming from Joe.

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

I didn't mention it, but Hail, Caesar! was another one. Funny, witty, and charming. Loved it. 

 

As for online movie rating systems, I never look at those anyways. Why should a like percentage of random people determine whether or not you should see the movie? Plus, I trust the people of JW Fan more anyways- they reccomend half of the things I've seen in the last year (thanks!). I know well enough what I want to watch, and I like almost all of what I see. It's dissapointing to dismiss a film because of, say, a low RT rating. Really narrowing stuff, IMO.

[Holko 9,529]

Fully admitting I'm too lazy to read through their respective threads if there is one, and at the risk of sparking battles to the death:

 

Arrival - Heard some marketing talk about it on the CE3K bluray and the one-sentence premise seems interesting.

 

Blade Runner 2049 - I love the final cut of the original, haven't seen other versions, it's perfectly fine on its own without sequels. This seems loooong, it throws out answers the Deckard replicant thing by simply aging and having him, the big replicant ability twist sound weird just having read a half sentence about it, and it has a very different look, but I read somewhere it goes in a different direction, where the original was "who/what are you", this one's more "why are you doing this", which could be interesting. Also read about the score that someone thought multiple times trucks were passing by his house when it was just Zimmer

[Thor 7,513]

Both films are fine, especially ARRIVAL! In 2016, ARRIVAL came in 10th (out of 163), while in 2018, BR2049 came in 31st (out of 135). After rewatching BR2049 awhile back, it rose considerably in appreciation. I think I had to get the original film out of my system first, which no doubt affected the first viewing, and just see it/evaluate it as its own thing.

 

Two great scores too, as a bonus!

 

(and while you're at it, be sure to check out David Twohy's THE ARRIVAL from the 90s, a gem of an indie sci fi with Charlie Sheen).

[A24 4,339]

1 hour ago, Holko said:

 

Blade Runner 2049 - This seems loooong, it throws out answers the Deckard replicant thing by simply aging 

 

You mean, because Deckard is thirty years older, it proves he's a replicant? 

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Arrival is a film of empty promises. It is instantly forgettable. 

 

All I can say about the other is it has Ryan Gosling. It was an easy pass for me.