Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: That's it!!

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: That's it!! Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: That's it!! - 28/4/2011 2:58:24 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Go away. 


Hey Rgirvan44, how about you contribute to the debate instead of spewing smug little comments to impress your new friends, or fuck off to imdb where that kind of behaviour is the norm.



(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 211
RE: That's it!! - 28/4/2011 3:07:05 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Go away. 


Hey Rgirvan44, how about you contribute to the debate instead of spewing smug little comments to impress your new friends, or fuck off to imdb where that kind of behaviour is the norm.





Yeah Girv, do that, you annoying IMdb tit.



_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 212
RE: That's it!! - 28/4/2011 3:09:44 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Go away. 


Hey Rgirvan44, how about you contribute to the debate instead of spewing smug little comments to impress your new friends, or fuck off to imdb where that kind of behaviour is the norm.





No, please.

Go away.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 213
RE: That's it!! - 28/4/2011 3:16:26 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
And it isn't a debate. It is you saying stupid things, insulting people who put a lot of time into responding to your nonesense, and then continuing to say the same stuff. That isn't a debate. That is bashing your head against the wall. Nothing has been achieved here. Best to move onto pastures new.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 214
RE: That's it!! - 28/4/2011 3:33:43 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

And it isn't a debate. It is you saying stupid things, insulting people who put a lot of time into responding to your nonesense, and then continuing to say the same stuff. That isn't a debate. That is bashing your head against the wall. Nothing has been achieved here. Best to move onto pastures new.


'nonsense' - fuck off. I've explained my point clearly and defended it when it was challenged. Some people came back with personal attacks so they were repaid in kind. If someone says that objective judgement is impossible then they will get a headache - it's like trying to tell the world roses are blue - expect feedback.

There's been plenty of debate here, you've just avoided it and occasionally jumped in with a pathetic personal jab. Grow up and contribute or piss off.

quote:


Yeah Girv, do that, you annoying IMdb tit.


Seems I'm not the only one who feels this way.



(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 215
RE: That's it!! - 28/4/2011 3:36:14 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
Erm....eh....

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 216
RE: That's it!! - 28/4/2011 3:36:22 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54596
Joined: 1/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Go away. 


Hey Rgirvan44, how about you contribute to the debate instead of spewing smug little comments to impress your new friends, or fuck off to imdb where that kind of behaviour is the norm.



The Moderation Team will tell posters when it's time to go. If you have a concern to raise, please use the report post button and avoid this type of abuse.


_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 217
RE: That's it!! - 28/4/2011 3:45:16 PM   
Epiphany Demon


Posts: 6497
Joined: 14/11/2007
Saw it this week; it's incredibly bland, which is the worst crime a film can commit. It's not laughable by being terrible, it's not controversial, it's not fun, it's not good. It's just... there. This thread is a 4/5, Scream 4 is a 2/5.

Go away

_____________________________

THE ALTERNATIVE LOOK AT BOB DYLAN'S DISCOGRAPHY - ONE DAY MAYBE I'LL FINISH IT

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 218
RE: That's it!! - 28/4/2011 4:10:58 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

ORIGINAL: Epiphany Demon


Go away


Coward.


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Epiphany Demon)
Post #: 219
RE: That's it!! - 28/4/2011 4:13:17 PM   
Epiphany Demon


Posts: 6497
Joined: 14/11/2007
If you wanna be a ninja, you get those accusations. Me, I call it stealth.

_____________________________

THE ALTERNATIVE LOOK AT BOB DYLAN'S DISCOGRAPHY - ONE DAY MAYBE I'LL FINISH IT

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 220
RE: That's it!! - 28/4/2011 4:38:35 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
Good on you.


Coward


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Epiphany Demon)
Post #: 221
Good, not great, but it's better than 2 and 3 - 28/4/2011 5:47:14 PM   
RandyChimp


Posts: 37
Joined: 24/9/2008
Nuff said

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 222
RE: That's it!! - 28/4/2011 6:42:24 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18265
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch



Yeah, of course it strove to be better - much of the film is a commentary on lazy remakes, reboots, and elaborate idea-starved sequels.

And to be clear, because there seems to be some misconception here - I'm not saying that Scream 4 is a great film, but I am saying that it does not deserve two stars.




And essentially it does it by being all of the above. It is not bad but it fails to offer quality it offers mediocrity which is a shame considering the pedigree of the original. I would agree in my opinion it is not a two starred and just scrapes a 3.


I'd say it transcends mediocrity with opening alone, I'd give the film 4 stars. Three is not unreasonable, though.




But the opening was awful replaying all the old trailer in a trailer schtick which has been done to death in the past. The follow on to that lacked suspense and was highly predictable and unimaginative.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 223
RE: That's it!! - 28/4/2011 6:48:27 PM   
theoriginalcynic

 

Posts: 6521
Joined: 10/4/2007
Loved it - four stars.  The beginning was very clever (I haven't seen the trailer within a trailer that you're talking about)

(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 224
RE: That's it!! - 28/4/2011 7:04:54 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18265
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
To me it came across as a rather poorly constructed pastiche of the whole waking up and it's a dream and then something bad happens and it is another dream which is common in horror films.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to theoriginalcynic)
Post #: 225
RE: That's it!! - 28/4/2011 7:08:24 PM   
theoriginalcynic

 

Posts: 6521
Joined: 10/4/2007
Oh right, I get you now.  Tbh that thought never crossed my mind when I watched it but you have a point. 

(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 226
RE: That's it!! - 28/4/2011 9:11:48 PM   
bobatim


Posts: 5584
Joined: 8/4/2006
From: The Killbot Factory!
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

The key, though, is you'd say - that's the point of this thread, to give your opinion and argue the toss where it conflicts with others. That's part of the fun of the review threads. But at no point does any one opinion get to say it's my way or the highway, thou shalt have no other opinion but mine and any who do are clearly corrupt, incompetent, idiots, frauds, didn't see the film or some other form of nincompoop.


I've repeatedly said that I welcome and want to hear anyone's opinion, including the reviewer's. The problem is that a professional critic should ALSO be able to determine the quality of the film - much like how I said I didn't like Pan's Labyrinth (subjective response) but could detect that it was a good film (objective judgement based on an awareness of what constitutes good and bad filmmaking). To refocus, my point is that Scream 4 does not deserve two stars, and if you REALLY believe that it does, then you need to make a very good case, which this reviewer didn't in his sloppy, unfocused review. Two stars is damaging and this film doesn't deserve it (incidentally, if it continues to under-perform it will kill the franchise). Kim Newman would be better qualified to review this type of film, he's well versed in the genre.


The reviewer determined that the film was of low quality! Awareness of what makes good or bad film making CANNOT and with not ever be objective! IT IS PURELY SUBJECTIVE! The things you have said are good about the film are purely your opinion and the reviewer did not agree that these elements were present in the film, get over it. You can't keep calling the reviewer unprofessional because he deemed the film to be lacking in the things you mentioned. HE GETS PAID TO PRESENT HIS OPINION, nothing more, nothing less. GET OVER IT!!!!



_____________________________

Is he died?


www.penultimateuniverse.blogspot.com




(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 227
RE: That's it!! - 28/4/2011 9:51:42 PM   
film man aidy

 

Posts: 336
Joined: 8/3/2007
What the hell is going on with this thread?! Everyone is getting sooo worked up over this! I didn't entirely agree with the review (*** in my humble opinion), but then life would be pretty dull if there was no debate over anything. For the record, I thought the quality of the review was fine. Guys, the film really isn't worth all this shit. It JUST scraped *** for me. I found it too much of a carbon copy of the others. It didn't really break sufficient new ground to justify coming back after a decade or so.


SPOILER TO FOLLOW


SPOILER TO FOLLOW


SPOILER TO FOLLOW


The movie as a whole needed to raise it's game. It certainly failed to do this by having all three lead actors survive - AGAIN! And to have Neve Campbell battling the killer in the final scenes, after sustaining multiple stab wounds...whatever. She did however, have a very knowing final line "Don't fuck with the original!" Find something else to do Mr Craven, and count me out for Scream 5.

(in reply to bobatim)
Post #: 228
RE: That's it!! - 29/4/2011 2:43:48 AM   
swordsandsandals


Posts: 12571
Joined: 6/1/2006
From: A magical forest
I've just spent a good fourty minutes reading this thread having loads of fun. Drooch, you are gold, you know that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch
empirically


[image]http://unrelated.dexterityunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/inigo2.jpg[/image]

[image]http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/6/13/128893965495183605.jpg[/image]

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rawlinson

Swords is right about everything.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

Swords smells like bum.



(in reply to film man aidy)
Post #: 229
RE: That's it!! - 29/4/2011 8:13:00 AM   
Pigeon Army


Posts: 14612
Joined: 29/1/2006
From: Pixar HQ, George Lucas' Office.
quote:

I've repeatedly said that I welcome and want to hear anyone's opinion, including the reviewer's. The problem is that a professional critic should ALSO be able to determine the quality of the film - much like how I said I didn't like Pan's Labyrinth (subjective response) but could detect that it was a good film (objective judgement based on an awareness of what constitutes good and bad filmmaking). To refocus, my point is that Scream 4 does not deserve two stars, and if you REALLY believe that it does, then you need to make a very good case, which this reviewer didn't in his sloppy, unfocused review. Two stars is damaging and this film doesn't deserve it (incidentally, if it continues to under-perform it will kill the franchise). Kim Newman would be better qualified to review this type of film, he's well versed in the genre.


Here, Drooch, let me fix this post for you.

I've repeatedly said that I welcome and want to hear anyone's opinion, including the reviewer's. The problem is that a professional critic should ALSO be able to justify his opinion - much like how I said I didn't like Pan's Labyrinth but could detect there were some elements that were technically accomplished. To refocus, my point is that I believe Scream 4 does not deserve two stars, and if you REALLY believe that it does, then you need to justify your opinion, which I don't think this reviewer did in his sloppy, unfocused review. Two stars is scathing and this film doesn't deserve it. Kim Newman would be better qualified to review this type of film, he's well versed in the genre.

That's a reasonable post, because there is no such thing as an objective opinion when it comes to assessing the quality of films. This is because how you react to a film is entirely subjective - you may like Pan's Labyrinth's cinematography, whereas another may find it murky and unattractive; I may find Pan's Labyrinth to have an emotionally enriching and captivating story with a sublime twist on fairy tale storytelling, whereas you may find it leaves you cold or whatever. That's fine, because that's your opinion. The 'empirical' things you seek are either dry and add nothing to an assessment of the film (like what kind of camera was used or how many beats there are to a bar in the part of the score played at 1:24:12 of the film) or are based in theory that is built on subjective readings of what gets a positive reaction from audiences (such as framing theory, colour theory, three-act structures and other narrative theories, etc.) and is thus in itself subjective. However, reviewers aren't Film Production Lecturers and for them to say "I disliked this film and thought there were a number of issues but objectively it is good" is to be patently dishonest, particularly because there's no way to objectively measure the quality of a film - they're not measured in megahertz or whatever.

You're allowed to question the review - that's fine, we encourage debate. What you're not allowed to do is shut out debate by arguing that maths and empirical evidence is on your side and then present subjective opinion as said evidence; you're also not allowed to accuse reviewers of having not done their jobs because you disagree with them.

But then, the chances of you grasping this are incredibly small, so vv


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc
She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army
Stop being mean to Deviation

No.

(in reply to swordsandsandals)
Post #: 230
RE: Scream 4 - 29/4/2011 1:59:32 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire
Best thread ever.

This Drooch fella is entertaining. Can we keep him?

< Message edited by MonsterCat -- 29/4/2011 2:00:56 PM >


_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 231
RE: Scream 4 - 29/4/2011 2:08:14 PM   
CORLEONE

 

Posts: 4697
Joined: 2/11/2005
From: Nakatomi Plaza
I want to hear his thoughts on Weekend at Bernie's II.

_____________________________

Al Swearengen: "Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or fucking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back".

(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 232
RE: Scream 4 - 30/4/2011 12:03:24 AM   
swordsandsandals


Posts: 12571
Joined: 6/1/2006
From: A magical forest
My images worked yesterday?

They were of Inigo Montoya, if anyone is wondering.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rawlinson

Swords is right about everything.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

Swords smells like bum.


Post #: 233
RE: Scream 4 - 1/5/2011 12:33:42 AM   
hoohaa1

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 21/9/2006
I loved Scream.

I rewatched it the day before watching Scream 4.

I also love Scream 4.

I thought it was as clever as the originals by embracing the cynical deconstruction of the genre as it stands right now, today, 2011.

To say this was an un-needed sequel and to give Indy 4 more stars is a discredit to Empire.

This sequel knows and admits what it is.

Indy 4 promised to be so much that it wasn't. (Never let George Lucas involved in artistic decisions for future reference).

My mate wasn't going to see this in LA as Empire had only given it 2 stars. That is how important your reviews are. And why a 2 star needds to be argued well, competently and not just half-heartedly.

I felt this was an unconsidered piece of writing and would like to hear a 2nd opinion.


(in reply to swordsandsandals)
Post #: 234
RE: Scream 4 - 1/5/2011 10:16:23 AM   
superdan


Posts: 8287
Joined: 31/7/2008
quote:

ORIGINAL: hoohaa1
To say this was an un-needed sequel and to give Indy 4 more stars is a discredit to Empire.

This sequel knows and admits what it is.

Indy 4 promised to be so much that it wasn't. (Never let George Lucas involved in artistic decisions for future reference).

Scream 4 and Indy 4 were reviewed by different people. Different people reach different conclusions, as any film review thread will demonstrate. Besides, as people often demonstrate on here, picking the odd review you don't agree with is far more common than picking the many you do.

quote:


My mate wasn't going to see this in LA as Empire had only given it 2 stars. That is how important your reviews are. And why a 2 star needds to be argued well, competently and not just half-heartedly.

Why? If they reviewed your favourite film ever and just said "It's absolutely amazing - everyone must watch this film!" I bet you wouldn't be on here moaning that the review wasn't argued well.

quote:


I felt this was an unconsidered piece of writing and would like to hear a 2nd opinion.

You've got the internet, haven't you? Film reviews are pretty easy to find. Failing that, read the rest of this thread.

(in reply to hoohaa1)
Post #: 235
RE: Scream 4 - 1/5/2011 6:08:17 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
Hahahaha,

This freakin' thread.


_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 236
RE: Scream 4 - 1/5/2011 7:07:35 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54596
Joined: 1/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: swordsandsandals

My images worked yesterday?

They were of Inigo Montoya, if anyone is wondering.


You mean they worked in the postbox or preview? I don't think the code permits pics in this subforum unless posted by Empire or Mods.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to swordsandsandals)
Post #: 237
VERY AVERAGE - 5/5/2011 7:35:49 PM   
chrisdagnall

 

Posts: 89
Joined: 10/9/2008
DEFINITE DROP IN QUALITY ON SCREAMS 1 TO 3.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 238
Stab 7 - 7/5/2011 1:38:24 AM   
S1lent B0b


Posts: 375
Joined: 8/9/2009
Two stars?! are you fucking kidding me empire!
I was extremely pleasantly suprised with this. I was afraid it might ruin the original trilogys reputation, that wasn't the case it actuall improved on its predecessors. With it's fourth installment Scream keeps it's consistency going strong.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 239
RE: That's it!! - 7/5/2011 8:29:38 AM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

quote:

I've repeatedly said that I welcome and want to hear anyone's opinion, including the reviewer's. The problem is that a professional critic should ALSO be able to determine the quality of the film - much like how I said I didn't like Pan's Labyrinth (subjective response) but could detect that it was a good film (objective judgement based on an awareness of what constitutes good and bad filmmaking). To refocus, my point is that Scream 4 does not deserve two stars, and if you REALLY believe that it does, then you need to make a very good case, which this reviewer didn't in his sloppy, unfocused review. Two stars is damaging and this film doesn't deserve it (incidentally, if it continues to under-perform it will kill the franchise). Kim Newman would be better qualified to review this type of film, he's well versed in the genre.


Here, Drooch, let me fix this post for you.

I've repeatedly said that I welcome and want to hear anyone's opinion, including the reviewer's. The problem is that a professional critic should ALSO be able to justify his opinion - much like how I said I didn't like Pan's Labyrinth but could detect there were some elements that were technically accomplished. To refocus, my point is that I believe Scream 4 does not deserve two stars, and if you REALLY believe that it does, then you need to justify your opinion, which I don't think this reviewer did in his sloppy, unfocused review. Two stars is scathing and this film doesn't deserve it. Kim Newman would be better qualified to review this type of film, he's well versed in the genre.

That's a reasonable post, because there is no such thing as an objective opinion when it comes to assessing the quality of films. This is because how you react to a film is entirely subjective - you may like Pan's Labyrinth's cinematography, whereas another may find it murky and unattractive; I may find Pan's Labyrinth to have an emotionally enriching and captivating story with a sublime twist on fairy tale storytelling, whereas you may find it leaves you cold or whatever. That's fine, because that's your opinion. The 'empirical' things you seek are either dry and add nothing to an assessment of the film (like what kind of camera was used or how many beats there are to a bar in the part of the score played at 1:24:12 of the film) or are based in theory that is built on subjective readings of what gets a positive reaction from audiences (such as framing theory, colour theory, three-act structures and other narrative theories, etc.) and is thus in itself subjective. However, reviewers aren't Film Production Lecturers and for them to say "I disliked this film and thought there were a number of issues but objectively it is good" is to be patently dishonest, particularly because there's no way to objectively measure the quality of a film - they're not measured in megahertz or whatever.

You're allowed to question the review - that's fine, we encourage debate. What you're not allowed to do is shut out debate by arguing that maths and empirical evidence is on your side and then present subjective opinion as said evidence; you're also not allowed to accuse reviewers of having not done their jobs because you disagree with them.

But then, the chances of you grasping this are incredibly small, so vv


You haven't 'fixed' my post, you've distorted it based on your misguided idea that quality cannot be measured. Your own magazine has a 'Masterpiece' section - what is a masterpiece if not a film that is objectively better than most? Some films stand the test of time and continue to resonate for audiences decades after they were made, others seem to evaporate while you're watching them and are quickly forgotten by culture  - the former are said to be 'good' or even 'great' films and the latter are 'poor'.

There are elements that make a film 'good', and they go beyond the 'technical accomplishments' you mentioned. Artistic integrity on the part of the filmmakers, the extent to which a director elicits a good performance from an actor, three dimensional characterisation - these are also things on which to judge the quality of a film (given it's genre and what it ultimately strives to do). Eraserhead has few of your 'technical accomplishments'  but it is a very good film because it is unique and effectively uses the language of cinema to render the abstract imagery of the subconscious, and is an uncompromised artistic vision. Merit in filmmaking can take many forms (transcending mathematics and 'megahertz') but some films have more merit than others, when one zooms out and holds it up against all other films, or films in it's genre. Professional critics should have this greater awareness and be able to pass judgement on an individual film accordingly (or 'justify their opinion' to use your words - it essentially means the same thing in this case). Readers pay to read professional reviews over amateur ones because professionals are educated enough to make these quality judgements (using a star rating system in Empire's case).

I didn't accuse the reviewer of not doing his job - I said that I was in doubt as to whether he had seen the film or not. If it turns out he had seen it, I wouldn't be surprised, and if it turns out that he hadn't seen it, I also wouldn't be surprised - I haven't made a direct accusation but I am suspicious based on how he curiously avoids talking about Scream 4 in his review of Scream 4, and have every right to express that doubt.



quote:

But then, the chances of you grasping this are incredibly small, so vv 


I grasp what you're saying just fine, it's just that you're mistaken if you think it's impossible to judge the quality of a film, which is odd because you work for a magazine which does just that. How about you get back to your job of moderating these boards instead if abusing it's users.

(in reply to Pigeon Army)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: That's it!! Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125