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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

  goes into very little detail about THIS film

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?

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Can I direct you to the start of Dead Poets Society?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b
You have a nice face, Shifty. A face I would have a cup of tea with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper
Shifty said it best

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.

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.

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

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.

quote:


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

quote:


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

quote:


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

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.

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.