RE: That's it!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


horribleives -> RE: That's it!! (17/4/2011 3:17:04 PM)

I was just about to say 'is it to much to ask that people grow some balls and stop crying like little girls because someone gave a film they like a bad review?' but unfortunately, it appears it is.
I liked Scream 4. The reviewer didn't. That's about it, really.




CORLEONE -> RE: That's it!! (17/4/2011 3:49:34 PM)

If this was a movie the reviewer would be killed [:D]

I really enjoyed it. Great nods to the previous films, and taking the piss out of other franchises. Plus, come chilling moments. The right mix of horror and humour which made the original so good. Miles better than the 3rd, there's life in the old dog yet.

4 stars.

PS. I love Hayden Panettiere.




HughesRoss -> RE: That's it!! (17/4/2011 3:55:42 PM)

Aye....Hayden was the best thing in it!




sandwichbob -> RE: FINAL POST (17/4/2011 7:27:37 PM)

For the franchiseheads, the majority of the people who'll turn out for it, I think it's a great addition. It has what I think people want from a Scream film, not necessarily a modern slasher. It observes the modern conventions (creative deaths, gore porn) but stubbornly refuses to go there too much, which I think works.

My only problem with the review is that only the last two (short) paragraphs actually criticise the film in question. The rest just seems to parrot the original Scream's Empire Essay, which is bad form.




Jamie_vet -> A better ending?... CONTAINS SPOILERS (17/4/2011 9:58:30 PM)

Loved Scream and Scream 2 back when I was a teenager, thought Scream 3 was OK - has an unfairly bad reputation I think.

Scream 4 is a solid effort, consistently entertaining, some jump moments, some great lines and defintely better than 2 stars (I'd give it 3.5 if the Empire review system would let me - doesn't quite match up to the first 2). New cast are decent, especially Roberts and Panetierre (hope she comes back if there is a 5, is she really dead?? - corpse never shown). However, for some reason I just couldn't care a great deal this time about Sidney, Gale and Dewey - certainly not in comparison to the first 2 films. The emotional involvement just wasn't there. Not helped by the fact that Cox just looks weird now with her odd plastic face, and Campbell seems to be sleepwalking through her part.

Is it just me, or would a better ending have been the scene where Jill was being carried to the ambulance, leaving behind (an actually dead) Sidney, with Gale getting killed off also. Could then have the scene with the reporters that actually ended the film (eulogising Jill, saying she's a hero etc) straight after this - would have been much cooler in my opinion (and would also be a better set-up for a possible 5, especially if Pantierre comes back as the alternative 'new Sidney' to Jill). But then would probably have upset people that wanted to see the 3 main characters survive. Anyone like this alt ending?




Drooch -> RE: That's it!! (17/4/2011 11:21:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

I was just about to say 'is it to much to ask that people grow some balls and stop crying like little girls because someone gave a film they like a bad review?' but unfortunately, it appears it is.
I liked Scream 4. The reviewer didn't. That's about it, really.



It's one thing to like or dislike a film, it's another to determine whether a film is good or bad, and this reviewer has proved himself unable to judge the quality of the film. Scream 4 is a very good film - it balances horror, humour, 'meta' analysis and tells a thrilling story with characters we care about. We SHOULD attack reviews like this because they hurt good filmmaking, and positive reviews of empirically bad films (like Indy 4) are a win for bad filmmaking.





NunianVonFuch -> So much fun! (17/4/2011 11:53:44 PM)

Went into this with really low expectations, partly because of this review and also because it's number 4 in a franchise long thought dead and buried. Completely blown away! So fresh and funny throughout, riffing on the original and other episodes in the series. Some tense scarey scenes too, constantly keeping you guessing throughout. Really hope it does well at the box office and we get some more smart horror films into production! [:)]

@Drooch: Completely correct and phrased in a way I never considered before. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/david-hughes/ Looking through the reviewer's previous work it's clear that this is his first modern horror review so should be taken with a pinch of salt. Why Kim Newman didn't review it instead is beyond me. He's always reliable when it comes to horror.




CORLEONE -> RE: That's it!! (18/4/2011 12:45:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

We SHOULD attack reviews like this because they hurt good filmmaking, and positive reviews of empirically bad films (like Indy 4) are a win for bad filmmaking.



Great point this.




elab49 -> RE: That's it!! (18/4/2011 12:49:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

I was just about to say 'is it to much to ask that people grow some balls and stop crying like little girls because someone gave a film they like a bad review?' but unfortunately, it appears it is.
I liked Scream 4. The reviewer didn't. That's about it, really.



It's one thing to like or dislike a film, it's another to determine whether a film is good or bad, and this reviewer has proved himself unable to judge the quality of the film. Scream 4 is a very good film - it balances horror, humour, 'meta' analysis and tells a thrilling story with characters we care about. We SHOULD attack reviews like this because they hurt good filmmaking, and positive reviews of empirically bad films (like Indy 4) are a win for bad filmmaking.




No, he just has an opinion that differs from yours and happens to match a lot of other reviewers and viewers - including people in this thread who have also seen this film. Their opinion is just as valid as yours. That your differs doesn't give you the right to attack any of them, or say they can't judge films. It just means, in the mature world we live in, that you disagree, and are completely free to do so. Based on what is, of course, only your opinion.

While it is lovely to see some praise for Mr Newman for once, you might want to take a gander at some of the threads following films he has reviewed. Then you get tedious pages of comments like these. Every time.




dyan!?! -> Couldn't disagree more...... (18/4/2011 1:05:21 AM)

I'm not going to rant angrily at how this reviewer has evidently watched the wrong film but it seems they must have. Scream 4 is without a doubt a must see for fans of the series or new comers looking for a great funny film with good thrills and twists along the way.The plotline , although the standard scream plot , feels refeshing after a ten year brake and a very dissapointing and weak Scream 3 . This is due in part to the excellent cast of new teens combined with the old trio who deliver good performances and a good twist which is neither predictable nor unbelievable. Another thing which is refreshing to see is the orignal scream humour and jokes , 10 years of horror remakes and films revolving around gore and tortue have gave Scream 4 a lot to make fun of, the opening scene which mocks unnesercary sequels and throws in a few Saw references to boot is almost as good as the infamous original opening of Scream. To keep it brief that is what Scream 4 is , a great sequel which even rivals the original. Scream 4 is certainly whats needed to revive the franchise from its poor third outing and show a new generation that horror films can be funny and intelligent. I highly recomend




Drooch -> RE: That's it!! (18/4/2011 2:22:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

I was just about to say 'is it to much to ask that people grow some balls and stop crying like little girls because someone gave a film they like a bad review?' but unfortunately, it appears it is.
I liked Scream 4. The reviewer didn't. That's about it, really.



It's one thing to like or dislike a film, it's another to determine whether a film is good or bad, and this reviewer has proved himself unable to judge the quality of the film. Scream 4 is a very good film - it balances horror, humour, 'meta' analysis and tells a thrilling story with characters we care about. We SHOULD attack reviews like this because they hurt good filmmaking, and positive reviews of empirically bad films (like Indy 4) are a win for bad filmmaking.




No, he just has an opinion that differs from yours and happens to match a lot of other reviewers and viewers - including people in this thread who have also seen this film. Their opinion is just as valid as yours. That your differs doesn't give you the right to attack any of them, or say they can't judge films. It just means, in the mature world we live in, that you disagree, and are completely free to do so. Based on what is, of course, only your opinion.

While it is lovely to see some praise for Mr Newman for once, you might want to take a gander at some of the threads following films he has reviewed. Then you get tedious pages of comments like these. Every time.



Filmmaking is a craft and the quality of the craftsmanship displayed in a film can be measured. The Godfather exhibits a good quality of craftsmanship and can therefore be called a good film, whereas Die Hard 4 is a bad film because the quality of the filmmaking is very poor. One can dislike and have a low opinion of The Godfather, and a high opinion of Die Hard 4, but should still seperately be able to determine the quality of the films.

The reviewer may have disliked Scream 4, but should have had the professionalism to detect it's many merits as an example of the filmmaking craft, and given it more than two stars. Four stars would be more appropriate for this fine example of a slasher film, which is clearly a stronger example of the craft than Scream 3 (which earned 3 stars). Judging quality comes down to more than mere opinion.

In addition to being wrong, the reviewer is lazy and goes into very little detail about THIS film, he comes across as tired and disinterested when he should have been paying more attention to this excellent follow-up to the modern classic, Scream. It's no wonder that cinema standards are dropping when good films, like this, get crapped on.




horribleives -> RE: That's it!! (18/4/2011 6:47:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

I was just about to say 'is it to much to ask that people grow some balls and stop crying like little girls because someone gave a film they like a bad review?' but unfortunately, it appears it is.
I liked Scream 4. The reviewer didn't. That's about it, really.



It's one thing to like or dislike a film, it's another to determine whether a film is good or bad, and this reviewer has proved himself unable to judge the quality of the film. Scream 4 is a very good film - it balances horror, humour, 'meta' analysis and tells a thrilling story with characters we care about. We SHOULD attack reviews like this because they hurt good filmmaking, and positive reviews of empirically bad films (like Indy 4) are a win for bad filmmaking.




No, he just has an opinion that differs from yours and happens to match a lot of other reviewers and viewers - including people in this thread who have also seen this film. Their opinion is just as valid as yours. That your differs doesn't give you the right to attack any of them, or say they can't judge films. It just means, in the mature world we live in, that you disagree, and are completely free to do so. Based on what is, of course, only your opinion.

While it is lovely to see some praise for Mr Newman for once, you might want to take a gander at some of the threads following films he has reviewed. Then you get tedious pages of comments like these. Every time.



Filmmaking is a craft and the quality of the craftsmanship displayed in a film can be measured. The Godfather exhibits a good quality of craftsmanship and can therefore be called a good film, whereas Die Hard 4 is a bad film because the quality of the filmmaking is very poor. One can dislike and have a low opinion of The Godfather, and a high opinion of Die Hard 4, but should still seperately be able to determine the quality of the films.

The reviewer may have disliked Scream 4, but should have had the professionalism to detect it's many merits as an example of the filmmaking craft, and given it more than two stars. Four stars would be more appropriate for this fine example of a slasher film, which is clearly a stronger example of the craft than Scream 3 (which earned 3 stars). Judging quality comes down to more than mere opinion.

In addition to being wrong, the reviewer is lazy and goes into very little detail about THIS film, he comes across as tired and disinterested when he should have been paying more attention to this excellent follow-up to the modern classic, Scream. It's no wonder that cinema standards are dropping when good films, like this, get crapped on.


Surely you're taking the piss now?




elab49 -> RE: That's it!! (18/4/2011 6:56:11 AM)

Can I direct you to the start of Dead Poets Society?[:D]

If assessment of a film was objective, everyone would have the same opinion. You need to apprise yourself of what a 'review' actually is. I may have missed it, but that's one thing you haven't actually bothered bringing to the thread.

Let's put it another way. Die Hard 4 is great fun. The writing understands the nature of the film and the two stars are excellent in achieving exactly the right tone to make the film a highly amusing watch. Ergo - you are wrong in your judgement of the film and the quality of its making. Absolutely. Because, apparently, this can be an absolute discussion.

Which is rubbish - that's just my opinion just as anything else is just yours.

quote:

  goes into very little detail about THIS film


A good review isn't just a litany of plot detail. Quite the opposite IMO. I want to know if there is a point to me spending my money on a film, not what's going to happen scene by scene up front. The review places the film in a context. It comments on areas that have changed in the world since the original and gives an opinion how it incorporates those. More importantly, for a viewer of the other films, it places the current one in relation to them.

If you wish to discuss the quality of the writing and scoring in reviews then Empire Online is the appropriate forum for it and threads exist there. This is for discussion of the actual film. And please don't go on to play semantics with the poor auto-wording that opens the thread. That happens a lot too.




HughesRoss -> RE: A better ending?... CONTAINS SPOILERS (18/4/2011 8:42:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jamie_vet

Loved Scream and Scream 2 back when I was a teenager, thought Scream 3 was OK - has an unfairly bad reputation I think.

Scream 4 is a solid effort, consistently entertaining, some jump moments, some great lines and defintely better than 2 stars (I'd give it 3.5 if the Empire review system would let me - doesn't quite match up to the first 2). New cast are decent, especially Roberts and Panetierre (hope she comes back if there is a 5, is she really dead?? - corpse never shown). However, for some reason I just couldn't care a great deal this time about Sidney, Gale and Dewey - certainly not in comparison to the first 2 films. The emotional involvement just wasn't there. Not helped by the fact that Cox just looks weird now with her odd plastic face, and Campbell seems to be sleepwalking through her part.

Is it just me, or would a better ending have been the scene where Jill was being carried to the ambulance, leaving behind (an actually dead) Sidney, with Gale getting killed off also. Could then have the scene with the reporters that actually ended the film (eulogising Jill, saying she's a hero etc) straight after this - would have been much cooler in my opinion (and would also be a better set-up for a possible 5, especially if Pantierre comes back as the alternative 'new Sidney' to Jill). But then would probably have upset people that wanted to see the 3 main characters survive. Anyone like this alt ending?


From what I gather...this was how the film was supposed to end!  But the Studio shit out and Kruger (Scream 3) done a quick re-write!  Craven himself admitted in an interview before the release that he signed up to direct a Williamson film, but it has been taken out of his hands!

People forget that Williamson wrote pts 4,5 and 6......so this ending would have set off a new chain of events....there was a strong possibilty that only Dewey would be left standing, but thanks to the annoynace of the film studio, Scream 5 has no where to go now....




CORLEONE -> RE: A better ending?... CONTAINS SPOILERS (18/4/2011 10:40:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jamie_vet

Is it just me, or would a better ending have been the scene where Jill was being carried to the ambulance, leaving behind (an actually dead) Sidney, with Gale getting killed off also. Could then have the scene with the reporters that actually ended the film (eulogising Jill, saying she's a hero etc) straight after this - would have been much cooler in my opinion (and would also be a better set-up for a possible 5, especially if Pantierre comes back as the alternative 'new Sidney' to Jill). But then would probably have upset people that wanted to see the 3 main characters survive. Anyone like this alt ending?


I fully endorse more Panettiere.




RoarB -> Scream 4 (18/4/2011 11:14:27 AM)

overall it was genuinely entertaining, and only slightly let down by the tacked on ending!




Jasper_29 -> RE: A better ending?... CONTAINS SPOILERS (18/4/2011 11:22:35 AM)

If you can get over the pretty lame concept of Sidney Prescott choosing to go back to Woodsboro to promote her book, then you're in for a bloody, funny and very entertaining ride. The old gang is back and as good as ever and we're introduced to a bunch of new characters -- best of all Emma Roberts as Sidney's cousin Jill. There's killing and killer jokes in equal measure, but the violence is upgraded as far as I can remember from the first 3 films and the postmodern self-referencing is funny before it becomes tiresome.

3 stars.




AboyNamedSue -> Overly harsh review (18/4/2011 11:24:31 AM)

It was flawed (Emma Roberts) but a lot of fun. Good thing I don't pay much attention to Empires reviews anymore. Credibility was shot a long time ago,




ajwyer -> Better than Scream 3 ?! (18/4/2011 1:23:34 PM)

I was extremely looking forward to this movie, and I wasn't completely disappointed............Interesting concept for the opening scene............slow middle recycling old ideas and situations..........but great ending which was also quite fun ( which I didn't see coming )
Not good enough a chapter to launch a new trilogy though !!





Drooch -> RE: That's it!! (18/4/2011 3:50:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Can I direct you to the start of Dead Poets Society?[:D]

If assessment of a film was subjective, everyone would have the same opinion. You need to apprise yourself of what a 'review' actually is. I may have missed it, but that's one thing you haven't actually bothered bringing to the thread.


Assessment of a film should be both subjective and objective. A good review will contain the reviewer's subjective opinion of the piece, while also providing an objective critique of it's merits (and demerits) as an example of the craft. Scream 4 is a top-rate slasher film - not the best, but a strong entry into the canon, and the review should have reflected that, even if the reviewer didn't particularly enjoy it. I didn't like Pan's Labyrinth, but I can still detect that it is a good film and I'm glad it exists. I love Commando, but I know it's shit. 'Opinions' are for the imdb 'THIS FILM SUCKS!' kids, not proper critical publications like Empire. Two stars is simply inaccurate and, as I mentioned, only serves to punish good filmmaking, while Indy 4's four stars will only encourage the trend of low-quality blockbusters.


quote:

Let's put it another way. Die Hard 4 is great fun. The writing understands the nature of the film and the two stars are excellent in achieving exactly the right tone to make the film a highly amusing watch. Ergo - you are wrong in your judgement of the film and the quality of its making. Absolutely. Because, apparently, this can be an absolute discussion.

Which is rubbish - that's just my opinion just as anything else is just yours.



Die Hard 4 is an example of a film which I hated, and was also dreadfully bad - especially when compared to the original. Seeing a mature, witty, impeccably-crafted thriller franchise reduced to the worst kind of lowest-common-denominator, teen-pandering dross was a new low for Hollywood.


quote:

  goes into very little detail about THIS film


quote:

A good review isn't just a litany of plot detail. Quite the opposite IMO. I want to know if there is a point to me spending my money on a film, not what's going to happen scene by scene up front. The review places the film in a context. It comments on areas that have changed in the world since the original and gives an opinion how it incorporates those. More importantly, for a viewer of the other films, it places the current one in relation to them.

If you wish to discuss the quality of the writing and scoring in reviews then Empire Online is the appropriate forum for it and threads exist there. This is for discussion of the actual film. And please don't go on to play semantics with the poor auto-wording that opens the thread. That happens a lot too.



I never suggested that I wanted to see this review contain 'a litany of plot details', I wanted to see an appraisal of it's qualities - storytelling, characterisation, mood, etc. I saw a clever, funny, riveting horror which outclassed any other that I have seen for a while, certainly the likes of Paranormal Activity and Saw. The review avoided talking about these details for the most part, and was lazy and misjudged.





ElephantBoy -> RE: That's it!! (18/4/2011 4:14:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

I was just about to say 'is it to much to ask that people grow some balls and stop crying like little girls because someone gave a film they like a bad review?' but unfortunately, it appears it is.
I liked Scream 4. The reviewer didn't. That's about it, really.



It's one thing to like or dislike a film, it's another to determine whether a film is good or bad, and this reviewer has proved himself unable to judge the quality of the film. Scream 4 is a very good film - it balances horror, humour, 'meta' analysis and tells a thrilling story with characters we care about. We SHOULD attack reviews like this because they hurt good filmmaking, and positive reviews of empirically bad films (like Indy 4) are a win for bad filmmaking.




No, he just has an opinion that differs from yours and happens to match a lot of other reviewers and viewers - including people in this thread who have also seen this film. Their opinion is just as valid as yours. That your differs doesn't give you the right to attack any of them, or say they can't judge films. It just means, in the mature world we live in, that you disagree, and are completely free to do so. Based on what is, of course, only your opinion.

While it is lovely to see some praise for Mr Newman for once, you might want to take a gander at some of the threads following films he has reviewed. Then you get tedious pages of comments like these. Every time.



Filmmaking is a craft and the quality of the craftsmanship displayed in a film can be measured. The Godfather exhibits a good quality of craftsmanship and can therefore be called a good film, whereas Die Hard 4 is a bad film because the quality of the filmmaking is very poor. One can dislike and have a low opinion of The Godfather, and a high opinion of Die Hard 4, but should still seperately be able to determine the quality of the films.

The reviewer may have disliked Scream 4, but should have had the professionalism to detect it's many merits as an example of the filmmaking craft, and given it more than two stars. Four stars would be more appropriate for this fine example of a slasher film, which is clearly a stronger example of the craft than Scream 3 (which earned 3 stars). Judging quality comes down to more than mere opinion.

In addition to being wrong, the reviewer is lazy and goes into very little detail about THIS film, he comes across as tired and disinterested when he should have been paying more attention to this excellent follow-up to the modern classic, Scream. It's no wonder that cinema standards are dropping when good films, like this, get crapped on.

No sorry this is wrong, a reviewer should base his or her review on how they feel about the film personally, not if they think it will appeal to a core audenice, yes that person can take note that it might work on some levels for horror fans, but it still should not effect his or her overall impression of the film.

I think the last review found the right middle ground. Yes the opening was quite a novel twist, and the middle boring and lame, before slightly redeeming itself at the end. And no it was not terrible like I was dreading, but still not good enough.

1. I don't actually agree that it gives the core audience what it wants. There are only really two or three good jump moments, the blood is way over done to the point than it means very little, and as a satire on horror films it mostly just repeats the same set pieces and jokes from the first two Scream films, and shoehorns in the references to torture porn and face book which just felt lazy to me.

2. I was not impressed with the new characters or the actors playing them, they just seemed like 90210 cast offs, and I did think the girl playing Gill was very bland. As for older names, only Cox as weathers made that much of a impact, Arquette was going though the mortions and Campball just couldn't be bothered by the looks of it.

3. It is intresting to hear about that origanal ending, because I did get a feeling that it might end with her on the stratcher and the flashing lights, then again I also suspected that they wouldn't have the guts to kill of Sidney. My main problem with the ending was that it was too drawn out.

4/10




Dr Lenera -> RE: That's it!! (18/4/2011 8:37:57 PM)

God how times have changed!  Upon its release in 1996, the original Scream had to be cut in the US to get an ‘R’ rating and received an ‘18’, as did it’s tamer sequels, in the UK.   This long –awaited [or not, the series was originally going to finish with the third film] fourth instalment, despite being easily the bloodiest and most brutal of the films,  gets it’s ‘R’ rating with no trouble and then a ‘15’ over here!   With loads of murders, gallons of the red stuff splashing around and a killer who seems especially vicious, Scre4m has a nastier edge to it than the other films and even a slight old-school slasher feel.  Director Wes Craven has clearly got his mojo back and delivers a tremendous series of stalk and slash sequences, while presenting just the right about of plot in-between.  Things build to two tremendous climaxes in a barn converted to a cinema and a house, but sadly, just when it should have rightfully ended, we are presented with another climax, in a hospital which doesn’t quite work, though apparently it was the studio that was mainly responsible for this.  The mystery is fairly well done [I didn’t guess much at all], though scriptwriter Kevin Williamson does seem to copy lots of things from the first three movies.  What really lets Scre4m down for me though is one of the things that many people love about these films-the plethora of ‘post-modernist’ references to horror films, which annoy the hell out of me and almost take me out of the films,while not being anywhere near as clever as they think they are.  This one opens with a dissing of torture porn, has lots of tedious dialogue about reboots and the like, and ends with an incredibly cheesy cry of “you know what the first rule of a remake is-don’t f*** with the original”.  Yuck!  Nonetheless, for the most part Scre4m is so enjoyable that it’s possible to ignore much of that [or at least cover your ears] and even I admit I loved the brilliant sequence involving two police men that combines humour and gory horror in a really great way.   I was surprised by how much I enjoyed Scre4m, which generally delivers a great audience-pleasing ride of thrills and spills, and may very well be the best of the series.
7.5/10




The REAL Bozz -> RE: That's it!! (18/4/2011 9:07:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ElephantBoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

I was just about to say 'is it to much to ask that people grow some balls and stop crying like little girls because someone gave a film they like a bad review?' but unfortunately, it appears it is.
I liked Scream 4. The reviewer didn't. That's about it, really.



It's one thing to like or dislike a film, it's another to determine whether a film is good or bad, and this reviewer has proved himself unable to judge the quality of the film. Scream 4 is a very good film - it balances horror, humour, 'meta' analysis and tells a thrilling story with characters we care about. We SHOULD attack reviews like this because they hurt good filmmaking, and positive reviews of empirically bad films (like Indy 4) are a win for bad filmmaking.




No, he just has an opinion that differs from yours and happens to match a lot of other reviewers and viewers - including people in this thread who have also seen this film. Their opinion is just as valid as yours. That your differs doesn't give you the right to attack any of them, or say they can't judge films. It just means, in the mature world we live in, that you disagree, and are completely free to do so. Based on what is, of course, only your opinion.

While it is lovely to see some praise for Mr Newman for once, you might want to take a gander at some of the threads following films he has reviewed. Then you get tedious pages of comments like these. Every time.



Filmmaking is a craft and the quality of the craftsmanship displayed in a film can be measured. The Godfather exhibits a good quality of craftsmanship and can therefore be called a good film, whereas Die Hard 4 is a bad film because the quality of the filmmaking is very poor. One can dislike and have a low opinion of The Godfather, and a high opinion of Die Hard 4, but should still seperately be able to determine the quality of the films.

The reviewer may have disliked Scream 4, but should have had the professionalism to detect it's many merits as an example of the filmmaking craft, and given it more than two stars. Four stars would be more appropriate for this fine example of a slasher film, which is clearly a stronger example of the craft than Scream 3 (which earned 3 stars). Judging quality comes down to more than mere opinion.

In addition to being wrong, the reviewer is lazy and goes into very little detail about THIS film, he comes across as tired and disinterested when he should have been paying more attention to this excellent follow-up to the modern classic, Scream. It's no wonder that cinema standards are dropping when good films, like this, get crapped on.

No sorry this is wrong, a reviewer should base his or her review on how they feel about the film personally, not if they think it will appeal to a core audenice, yes that person can take note that it might work on some levels for horror fans, but it still should not effect his or her overall impression of the film.

I think the last review found the right middle ground. Yes the opening was quite a novel twist, and the middle boring and lame, before slightly redeeming itself at the end. And no it was not terrible like I was dreading, but still not good enough.

1. I don't actually agree that it gives the core audience what it wants. There are only really two or three good jump moments, the blood is way over done to the point than it means very little, and as a satire on horror films it mostly just repeats the same set pieces and jokes from the first two Scream films, and shoehorns in the references to torture porn and face book which just felt lazy to me.

2. I was not impressed with the new characters or the actors playing them, they just seemed like 90210 cast offs, and I did think the girl playing Gill was very bland. As for older names, only Cox as weathers made that much of a impact, Arquette was going though the mortions and Campball just couldn't be bothered by the looks of it.

3. It is intresting to hear about that origanal ending, because I did get a feeling that it might end with her on the stratcher and the flashing lights, then again I also suspected that they wouldn't have the guts to kill of Sidney. My main problem with the ending was that it was too drawn out.

4/10


There was no 'original' ending. I'm not calling anyone a liar but if you check out such sites as scream-trilogey.net and Wes and Kevin's Twitter (Even Entertainment Tonight) there is a ton of info about what actually happened and it's no where near as dramatic as it's being made out to be.

Basically Kevin did Scream 4 on the go, he came up with an idea and ran with it but he had to be comitted 100% to Vampire Diares. Therefore as deadlines loomed Williamson had still not finished the script, meanwhile the WB were calling asking where he was and why he wasn't at the VD offices. So he jumped ship. He had to. He and Bob Weinstien got into a fight over the aspects of the scripts but Wes is quoted saying the structure, scenes, characters, who lives/ dies etc where all Kevin. All the other guy did was flesh out some dialogue and added to some scenes. The opening was altered quite a bit.

Check out the sites I mentioned, you even get to see some of the alternate scenes. Quite cool. But make no mistake this was still very much a Kevin Williamson Scream and he has by no means disowned the series. in fact it quotes him stating it was blown out of proportion and if the audiance takes to Scream 4 he's willing to provide more twists and turns!




HughesRoss -> RE: That's it!! (18/4/2011 10:42:33 PM)

Bozz mate I take your word, I know much you love the films!  I did read it on two websites but somehow can't find it now, so that probably sums up that it was taken down[:D].....

Anyway, it should have ended that like[:D].....glad you enjoyed it me, I think you were looking forward to it more than me!




Shifty Bench -> RE: That's it!! (19/4/2011 3:26:04 AM)

I liked it. It has it's problems (boy, does it) and I guessed the twist a mile away (a line from a reviewer on the radio got me thinking) but it's better than Scream 3.

3/5




horribleives -> RE: That's it!! (19/4/2011 6:33:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch
1. I saw a clever, funny, riveting horror which outclassed any other that I have seen for a while, certainly the likes of Paranormal Activity and Saw. 2. The review avoided talking about these details for the most part, and was lazy and misjudged.


1. You may well have done. The reviewer, however, didn't.

2. Why would the reviewer talk about details that you saw? He didn't think it was clever, funny or riveting, hence the two star review.

You're clearly not stupid so it's quite baffling that you seem unable to grasp the simple concept of differing viewpoints.









Drooch -> RE: That's it!! (19/4/2011 11:19:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch
1. I saw a clever, funny, riveting horror which outclassed any other that I have seen for a while, certainly the likes of Paranormal Activity and Saw. 2. The review avoided talking about these details for the most part, and was lazy and misjudged.


1. You may well have done. The reviewer, however, didn't.

2. Why would the reviewer talk about details that you saw? He didn't think it was clever, funny or riveting, hence the two star review.

You're clearly not stupid so it's quite baffling that you seem unable to grasp the simple concept of differing viewpoints.



If the reviewer didn't see these qualities then he isn't fit to review, because they're there whether one likes the film or not - are you starting to get it now? Subjective response PLUS objective critique. You're getting the subjective part, now you just need to wrap your head around the objective part and you won't be baffled anymore.









Drooch -> RE: That's it!! (19/4/2011 11:26:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ElephantBoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

I was just about to say 'is it to much to ask that people grow some balls and stop crying like little girls because someone gave a film they like a bad review?' but unfortunately, it appears it is.
I liked Scream 4. The reviewer didn't. That's about it, really.



It's one thing to like or dislike a film, it's another to determine whether a film is good or bad, and this reviewer has proved himself unable to judge the quality of the film. Scream 4 is a very good film - it balances horror, humour, 'meta' analysis and tells a thrilling story with characters we care about. We SHOULD attack reviews like this because they hurt good filmmaking, and positive reviews of empirically bad films (like Indy 4) are a win for bad filmmaking.




No, he just has an opinion that differs from yours and happens to match a lot of other reviewers and viewers - including people in this thread who have also seen this film. Their opinion is just as valid as yours. That your differs doesn't give you the right to attack any of them, or say they can't judge films. It just means, in the mature world we live in, that you disagree, and are completely free to do so. Based on what is, of course, only your opinion.

While it is lovely to see some praise for Mr Newman for once, you might want to take a gander at some of the threads following films he has reviewed. Then you get tedious pages of comments like these. Every time.



Filmmaking is a craft and the quality of the craftsmanship displayed in a film can be measured. The Godfather exhibits a good quality of craftsmanship and can therefore be called a good film, whereas Die Hard 4 is a bad film because the quality of the filmmaking is very poor. One can dislike and have a low opinion of The Godfather, and a high opinion of Die Hard 4, but should still seperately be able to determine the quality of the films.

The reviewer may have disliked Scream 4, but should have had the professionalism to detect it's many merits as an example of the filmmaking craft, and given it more than two stars. Four stars would be more appropriate for this fine example of a slasher film, which is clearly a stronger example of the craft than Scream 3 (which earned 3 stars). Judging quality comes down to more than mere opinion.

In addition to being wrong, the reviewer is lazy and goes into very little detail about THIS film, he comes across as tired and disinterested when he should have been paying more attention to this excellent follow-up to the modern classic, Scream. It's no wonder that cinema standards are dropping when good films, like this, get crapped on.

No sorry this is wrong, a reviewer should base his or her review on how they feel about the film personally, not if they think it will appeal to a core audenice, yes that person can take note that it might work on some levels for horror fans, but it still should not effect his or her overall impression of the film.

I think the last review found the right middle ground. Yes the opening was quite a novel twist, and the middle boring and lame, before slightly redeeming itself at the end. And no it was not terrible like I was dreading, but still not good enough.

1. I don't actually agree that it gives the core audience what it wants. There are only really two or three good jump moments, the blood is way over done to the point than it means very little, and as a satire on horror films it mostly just repeats the same set pieces and jokes from the first two Scream films, and shoehorns in the references to torture porn and face book which just felt lazy to me.

2. I was not impressed with the new characters or the actors playing them, they just seemed like 90210 cast offs, and I did think the girl playing Gill was very bland. As for older names, only Cox as weathers made that much of a impact, Arquette was going though the mortions and Campball just couldn't be bothered by the looks of it.

3. It is intresting to hear about that origanal ending, because I did get a feeling that it might end with her on the stratcher and the flashing lights, then again I also suspected that they wouldn't have the guts to kill of Sidney. My main problem with the ending was that it was too drawn out.

4/10


Never mentioned 'appeal to a core audience' so you're arguing against a point I never made. I agree that the reviewer should offer his/her subjective feelings on the film, but should also provide an objective critique based on an understanding of what empirically constitutes good and bad filmmaking. Objective criticism is what separates professional reviews from mindless imdb chat-board ramblings.




superdan -> RE: That's it!! (19/4/2011 11:40:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch
Scream 4 is a very good film - it balances horror, humour, 'meta' analysis and tells a thrilling story with characters we care about.

Opinion.

quote:


whereas Die Hard 4 is a bad film because the quality of the filmmaking is very poor

Opinion

quote:


Four stars would be more appropriate for this fine example of a slasher film

Opinion.

quote:


Scream 4 is a top-rate slasher film - not the best, but a strong entry into the canon

Opinion.

quote:


'Opinions' are for the imdb 'THIS FILM SUCKS!' kids, not proper critical publications like Empire. Two stars is simply inaccurate and, as I mentioned, only serves to punish good filmmaking, while Indy 4's four stars will only encourage the trend of low-quality blockbusters.

Outside of easily observed factors, such as special effects, cinematography and so on, opinion has to define a review. It is what will move someone to say a film is funny, or scary, or upsetting when another person might not. In the end a reviewer can only rely on what they thought of the film, otherwise every single review would be the same and would rely almost exclusively on the technical merits and achievements of a movie.


By the way, I thought Scream 4 was distinctly average. Well-worn ground. 2/3 stars.




Drooch -> RE: That's it!! (19/4/2011 12:15:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch
Scream 4 is a very good film - it balances horror, humour, 'meta' analysis and tells a thrilling story with characters we care about.

Opinion.

quote:


whereas Die Hard 4 is a bad film because the quality of the filmmaking is very poor

Opinion

quote:


Four stars would be more appropriate for this fine example of a slasher film

Opinion.

quote:


Scream 4 is a top-rate slasher film - not the best, but a strong entry into the canon

Opinion.

quote:


'Opinions' are for the imdb 'THIS FILM SUCKS!' kids, not proper critical publications like Empire. Two stars is simply inaccurate and, as I mentioned, only serves to punish good filmmaking, while Indy 4's four stars will only encourage the trend of low-quality blockbusters.

Outside of easily observed factors, such as special effects, cinematography and so on, opinion has to define a review. It is what will move someone to say a film is funny, or scary, or upsetting when another person might not. In the end a reviewer can only rely on what they thought of the film, otherwise every single review would be the same and would rely almost exclusively on the technical merits and achievements of a movie.


By the way, I thought Scream 4 was distinctly average. Well-worn ground. 2/3 stars.



Not opinions, JUDGEMENTS. Judgements based on an awareness of what constitutes good and bad filmmaking, and triangulating a film's position on that spectrum. There is plenty of room for subjective opinions, and I want to hear them, but I also expect objective judgements from the supposed professionals at Empire. Whether one likes Die Hard 4 or not, it is, empirically, a poorly crafted film. Whether one likes The Godfather or not, it is, empirically, a well crafted film. Scream 4 is NOT a two star film, especially on a scale that gives Scream 3 three stars.





Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.171875