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: Was this written by a teenager?

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Was this written by a teenager? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Was this written by a teenager? - 13/8/2012 2:37:14 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cletus Van Damme

I prefer my reviews written by an adult.




No offence, but I think you'll find Ian Nathan has been writing first rate journalism for over twenty years.
Post #: 31
RE: Was this written by a teenager? - 13/8/2012 2:40:49 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1264
Joined: 31/3/2010
That's enough to grow hair on a rock.

(Twenty years? You wouldn't get that for robbing a post office and taking a dump on the counter.)

< Message edited by chris kilby -- 13/8/2012 2:43:43 PM >

(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 32
RE: Was this written by a teenager? - 13/8/2012 2:43:48 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

That's enough to grow hair on a rock.



I have to LOL at the notion of a reviewer inventing car knowledge in a bid to "sound intelligent"

"Man, this reviewer sure seems to know a lot about Volvos. His opinions on films must be infallible!"


(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 33
RE: The Bourne Legacy - 13/8/2012 2:45:21 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1264
Joined: 31/3/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

Even with someone as talented as Jeremy Renner in the lead role, my interest in this film has seriously dwindled.


I've liked Renner since 28 Weeks Later which is why I'm still gonna check it out.

(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 34
RE: Was this written by a teenager? - 13/8/2012 2:47:03 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1264
Joined: 31/3/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cletus Van Damme

I prefer my reviews written by an adult. Furthermore, Bourne was never hit by a Trabant. It was a yellow Volga. You just make shit up to sound intelligent. Why should I trust the rest of the poorly written review?



Classic. When I grow up I wanna be just like you.
Post #: 35
RE: Correction - 13/8/2012 2:48:25 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1264
Joined: 31/3/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cletus Van Damme

Bourne was in a Volga, when hit by a black Mercedes.


Really? What was the licence plate number?
Post #: 36
RE: Re-reviewed - 13/8/2012 2:49:41 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1264
Joined: 31/3/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fallen Giant

Attention anyone who said as good as step up 4? As bad as Transformers 2? You can't say oh I'm giving it 3/4 stars because Step up got two and it was way better than that. Because it's a completely different film in a completely different genre. So what an audience and a reviewer too is looking for in a dance flick is going to be different from what they want out of the next Bourne film. So each film has to be reviewed in context. So when Pirahnna gets the same amount of stars as Prometheus it doesn't mean that Pirahna is as good as Prometheus or Prometheus as bad as Pirhana just that Prometheus wasn't the Sci-fi film it should've been and Pirhana was an average horror film that met expectations or proved more watchable than other horror films. -back me up here Empire. Then of course they're personal taste as well and I'm sure some will think Bourne Legacy is a 5 star movie. -but I won't rate it until I've seen it.


That's easy for you to say.
Post #: 37
RE: Close to giving up - 13/8/2012 2:54:28 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1264
Joined: 31/3/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby


quote:

ORIGINAL: waltham1979

So because this film got 2 out of 5...does that mean it is exactly the same film as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen?!

I'll give the review itself 4 out of 5; and even though I haven't seen the film I am going to rate it about 3 out of 5 because I want it to be better than Transformers 2, but not as good as Indiana Jones: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Additionally if anyone disagrees with me I am going to call you 'fan-boy cunts' and cancel my subscription to Empire, not before I throw my issue away at home that had Jeremy Renner on because I cannot believe you were looking forward to a film that ended up shit. You utter utter bastards with your own opinions, principles and editorial integrity...

Thought I'd join in the theme of the thread before I head on back over to The Dark Knight Rises one

Ps: chris kilby you are a fucking legend. I salute you sir!!!

Peace out.



I thought you had to be dead to be a legend? Uh-oh... Do you know something I don't? Why? What have you heard? Did my results come back? It's bad, isn't it...?

(A bell end, mair like! )



A hero can be anyone....even someone who does something as simple as spend all day on the internet





I'm the "hero" t'internet deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So they'll flame me. Because I can take it. Because I'm not a hero. I'm a not-so silent guardian, a bemused observer. The Snark Knight.

< Message edited by chris kilby -- 13/8/2012 2:57:30 PM >

(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 38
RE: The Bourne Legacy - 13/8/2012 2:57:35 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

Even with someone as talented as Jeremy Renner in the lead role, my interest in this film has seriously dwindled.


I've liked Renner since 28 Weeks Later which is why I'm still gonna check it out.




I don't really get the fuss, to be honest. He was ok in MI4, but Hawkeye was a spare part in the Avengers anyway! They should have had the romance subplot be between Scarlett Johansson and Gwyenth Paltrow instead.


(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 39
RE: The Bourne Legacy - 13/8/2012 3:00:08 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1264
Joined: 31/3/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

Even with someone as talented as Jeremy Renner in the lead role, my interest in this film has seriously dwindled.


I've liked Renner since 28 Weeks Later which is why I'm still gonna check it out.




I don't really get the fuss, to be honest. He was ok in MI4, but Hawkeye was a spare part in the Avengers anyway! They should have had the romance subplot be between Scarlett Johansson and Gwyenth Paltrow instead.




What can I say? I'm a sucker for overnight success stories which take twenty years. Clooney's another one.

(I'm a late bloomer, meself... )

(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 40
RE: Shut up Nathan - 13/8/2012 4:30:38 PM   
Wild about Wilder


Posts: 1652
Joined: 9/4/2010
From: Hertfordshire
It was a solid enough action film though thought the hand to hand fight scenes especially in Weiz's house were poorly filmed.
It'd been better off just dropping the Bourne name from the title it just had too much to live up to. Have to say I was slightly dissapointed with Gillroy's effort especially after Michael Clayton.
Solid 3/5
Post #: 41
RE: The Bourne Legacy - 13/8/2012 10:10:45 PM   
spamandham

 

Posts: 520
Joined: 27/11/2008
nice to see a film getting panned for a change

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 42
RE: The Bourne Legacy - 13/8/2012 10:21:06 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: spamandham

nice to see a film getting panned for a change



True dat. Did you know that Empire gave both Attack of the Clones and Superman Returns Five Stars?


(in reply to spamandham)
Post #: 43
RE: Empire wrote "SUMMER'S SMARTEST SEQUEL"... - 14/8/2012 10:26:21 AM   
The Disciple

 

Posts: 1024
Joined: 15/10/2005
'Tony Gilroy replacing the (as swiftly becomes apparent) irreplaceable Paul Greengrass as director'

well... Paul Greengrass didn't direct the first film in the series and that's just as good as the second and third films, so I'm not sure this counts for much. Besides, Greengrass went overboard with his shakycam.

_____________________________

Wake up. Time to die.

(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 44
RE: Once again - Empire has it wrong - 14/8/2012 10:32:10 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1264
Joined: 31/3/2010
Is there really such a thing as a "poor review"? (As opposed to a poorly written review.) Are there not just reviews you disagree with? A review is just an opinion after all. And while opinions can be misinformed or mistaken, they can't be "right" or "wrong." Can they? It all sounds a bit solipsistic, if you ask me.
Post #: 45
RE: The Bourne Legacy - 14/8/2012 10:39:01 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1264
Joined: 31/3/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: spamandham

nice to see a film getting panned for a change



True dat. Did you know that Empire gave both Attack of the Clones and Superman Returns Five Stars?




What, you mean they're as good as The Dark Knight Rises and, er, Braveheart? Get away!

(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 46
RE: The Bourne Legacy - 14/8/2012 8:21:33 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire
Saw this today. Not awful by any stretch of the imagination, but it is rather dull.

There's nothing in this film that hasn't been done in the Damon films. Mr. Nathan was pretty much spot-on with his review.

_____________________________

"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 #: 47
Well, I enjoyed it. - 14/8/2012 11:06:15 PM   
TheMightyBlackout


Posts: 228
Joined: 28/4/2012
From: Oxford, UK
Worth leaving the house for? If you're already a fan, sure. But it's notably different from the earlier entries, and it won't be to everyone's taste. The Bourne Legacy is good. I don't think it's great, but it's certainly a solid thriller in its own right.

_____________________________

More reviews and rambling like that ^^^ at: >>>WorldOfBlackout.co.uk <<<

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 48
RE: Well, I enjoyed it. - 15/8/2012 10:16:56 AM   
Dannybohy


Posts: 1374
Joined: 7/1/2009
 I went to see Bourne Legacy last night, it was a completely pointless movie, exact format of the other Bourne movies but without a decent lead man, dreadful fight scenes ,awful chase scenes and not a single character to be cared about. Did this guy even go hand to hand with any decent foe?.  Not to mention the dreadfully cheesy James Bond ending. Empire got this one spot on, for once....

_____________________________

'Man of Steel!,Man of Shit!' -fairyprincess

(in reply to TheMightyBlackout)
Post #: 49
RE: Well, I enjoyed it. - 16/8/2012 12:18:46 AM   
sligonian

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 8/6/2012
Really enjoyed this movie, actually my favourite in the series, the action was awesome and story was gripping for me anyway, thought renner/norton were excellent and weisz was good, 8.5/10

(in reply to Dannybohy)
Post #: 50
RE: The Bourne Legacy - 16/8/2012 1:07:57 AM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2377
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast
Firstly, I would say Ian Nathan can't really complain about a word like “metastasised” to any readers who have digested his own style over the years. We all know that's precisely the type of term that would have moistened his crotch if only he'd beat Gilroy to the punch.

Anyway...I'm metastasising my point...

If you consider The Bourne Ultimatum you'll see a fairly uninspired, though quintessentially Bourne film that inhabits the recognisable mould of the franchise, but is effectively a film running down the clock until Jason Bourne recovers his memory; it's only this that gives dispensation for the arc to end. I'm a fan of the series and value Ultimatum as much as the others, but it indicates an opportune time for Damon and Greengrass to close the book because there is no apparent means to contrive another outlet for the character. Fair enough.

But...

When you consider there is as much of Tony Gilroy's DNA in the franchise as there is Matt and Paul's it seems to me that the virtue of The Bourne Legacy is to reset the boundaries and dare I say it, extend the playing field for the return of Damon and Greengrass if they so wish. Assured of context they were more than happy to simply fit the mould for the third film, I'm suggesting that Gilroy has worked admirably (and thanklessly) to refit both the principal celebrants of the series with scope to come back. Is this movie really pointless or, to follow a metaphor proposed in the film, has Gilroy been “ate the sin” of sequel contrivance so others can benefit later? Well, I was personally entertained by it so I'm happy to go along with this latter theory.

It's all well and good to sneer that we're “stuck with 006” but Gilroy's entire script purposefully depreciates Aaron Cross at the expense of Bourne. There's a lot of pissy mileage to be made of the “medicated super-soldier” plot but isn't this present to show a falliblilty in Cross that Bourne doesn't have? A dependence Bourne doesn't share? It's also brave for any script to openly cite its hero as having a lower IQ that befits qualification for the job. Cross is far from “super”. You can take that statement and consider what it proposes as interesting to the series. Or you can take it and deride this character as being inferior to Bourne I suppose it depends if you were honestly expecting Aaron Cross to equal our established hero. I wasn't expecting that. He isn't equal. But guess what? No one tried to make him that so I guess we're all square.

In terms of likeability I would say that Jason Bourne was questing for such abstractions as “himself” and the “truth”. Aaron Cross is pursuing a cure for a motor neuron collapse. It's a more practical goal but lacks the poetry and so Renner's character is less likeable. And it's true. He is less likeable, and Legacy does noticeably lack the empathy elicited from Bourne's reset blamelessness. It also lacks the justice principle in so far as Cross does not meet his maker (with audience satisfaction in tow) as Bourne does in each of his films. These are the things that are lacking in Legacy, and these are the things that makes it the “least good” Bourne film. But in my book, the least good Bourne film is still bloody entertaining and it's deeply disingenuous for anyone to yawn and cite de ja vu at the prospect of globe-trotting, or of furrowed brows peering into computer screens since this is the mould that the makers and the viewers who kept coming back beg adherence to. It's also deeply disingenuous for anyone to cite medical enhancements as something cod about this outing in comparison to Bourne's propitious brain damage and I would suggest that Freudian memory triggers can appear just as cod to the lay person as the latest peversions in medicine. It's particularly disingenuous of Ian Nathan's revisionism of the series to have us believe that Paul Greengrass' document heavy approach is laudable over the 3 films. It was the imperfect approach to action movie directing that happily skewed the first film into a more accessible indie vein. The credibility of Greengrass was very welcome but was this regimen also counter to the thing that made Bourne stand out in the first place? Along with Identity and "shaky cam" criticism of the two subsequent outings the precedent surely set for Tony Gilroy is that the series can withstand imperfect action direction, it lacks thrills on the level of what the previous films have offered but it surely piques the viewer with tension aplenty early on. It undeniably inhabits that distinctly Bourne mould we were talking about earlier and only a churl would suggest it either does damage or undoes a previously respected franchise. It does neither and at best, at best it surely creates potential for a regrowth in Bourne-proper.

And what's wrong with a 006 movie anyway?

4/5

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 51
RE: Empire wrote "SUMMER'S SMARTEST SEQUEL"... - 16/8/2012 11:29:19 AM   
st3veebee


Posts: 2353
Joined: 3/9/2006
From: 9303 Lyon Drive
I'm been saying this for a while now: get rid of Star Ratings and let people judge the review itself.



_____________________________

Latest Films:

Two days in New York: 4/5

Prometheus: 3.5/5

Abe Lincoln: VH 3/5

Twin Peaks: FWWM 3.5/5

(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 52
RE: Empire wrote "SUMMER'S SMARTEST SEQUEL"... - 16/8/2012 11:33:02 AM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

I'm been saying this for a while now: get rid of Star Ratings and let people judge the review itself.



If anything, I think that would be worse. People see star ratings and barrel in with BUT ATTACK OF THE CLONES HAS FIVE STARS comments without even reading the review. Instead you'd have people not reading the review and having a pop at Empire for not telling them if the movie sucked or not.


(in reply to st3veebee)
Post #: 53
RE: Empire wrote "SUMMER'S SMARTEST SEQUEL"... - 16/8/2012 11:43:52 AM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
I think rating things out of 5 causes far too many problems though. Rate out of 10 or 100. It gives you a lot more leeway. You'll still get people complaining, but you'll never stop that.

(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 54
RE: Empire wrote "SUMMER'S SMARTEST SEQUEL"... - 16/8/2012 11:54:10 AM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

I think rating things out of 5 causes far too many problems though. Rate out of 10 or 100. It gives you a lot more leeway. You'll still get people complaining, but you'll never stop that.



But the greater scale makes it harder to choose an exact number, surely. Choosing whether a film is 3 star or 4 star is surely a lot easier than deciding if it was 67%, or 85%, or 8 out of ten, and so on.

(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 55
RE: Empire wrote "SUMMER'S SMARTEST SEQUEL"... - 16/8/2012 1:55:49 PM   
UTB


Posts: 9776
Joined: 30/9/2005
Why don't you look at what the rating means instead?

Look at two 3-star movies. Are they exactly as good as each other? No. Are they of equal merit? No. Are they both good films? Yes.

This particular motion picture has been classified as fair. Its not good, but its not shit. It doesn't need a fucking algorithm to figure out the 47.65%/100 score. And it doesn't mean it is EXACTLY THE SAME AS TRANSFORMERS 2.

Deal with it.

(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 56
RE: Empire wrote "SUMMER'S SMARTEST SEQUEL"... - 16/8/2012 8:56:55 PM   
mattdavies86

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 30/4/2006
From: Bath
Was a massive fan of the first 3 in the series, but this was so pointless.

Full of characters who I couldn't give a couple of shiny shites about (it says something when you want to see a threatening truck crush both the good guy and damsel in distress). The whole "Guess what? There's another programme. We're going to burn it to the ground, but we have several other programmes just in case we get to do more sequels and need a threat for the main character" thing really irked me, along with Rachel Weisz and her Basil Exposition role.

In the sequence where Renner was being faced down by the wolves, was anyone else expecting Liam Neeson to jump out of nowhere with glass attached to his knuckles?

Verdict: Concentrated dog shit dressed up as sticky toffee pudding. This takes its place alongside several other sequels that, as far as I'm concerned, never existed, e.g. T3, T4, Alien Resurrection.


(in reply to UTB)
Post #: 57
RE: Empire wrote "SUMMER'S SMARTEST SEQUEL"... - 17/8/2012 1:05:00 PM   
dseys

 

Posts: 176
Joined: 10/8/2012
Sorry but NO, all 3 star movies aren't "good", and all 4 star movies aren't "excellent".

I don't think "Piranha 3D" or "Captain America" or "This Means War" are GOOD movies. They're incredibly bad and stupid, but all of them got 3 stars!!

I don't think that movies like "Thor" or "Antichrist" or "Cosmopolis" or "Puss in Boots" or "Shrek 4" are EXCELLENT ones. But yeah they got 4 stars!!

Plus, maybe the 2-star rating means "Fair", but the fact is that every 2-star review is bashing the movie and saying how bad it is...

(in reply to UTB)
Post #: 58
RE: Empire wrote "SUMMER'S SMARTEST SEQUEL"... - 17/8/2012 2:59:34 PM   
Whistler


Posts: 3079
Joined: 22/11/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: dseys

Sorry but NO, all 3 star movies aren't "good", and all 4 star movies aren't "excellent".

I don't think "Piranha 3D" or "Captain America" or "This Means War" are GOOD movies. They're incredibly bad and stupid, but all of them got 3 stars!!

I don't think that movies like "Thor" or "Antichrist" or "Cosmopolis" or "Puss in Boots" or "Shrek 4" are EXCELLENT ones. But yeah they got 4 stars!!

Plus, maybe the 2-star rating means "Fair", but the fact is that every 2-star review is bashing the movie and saying how bad it is...


And the point of this post is...?

(in reply to dseys)
Post #: 59
RE: Empire wrote "SUMMER'S SMARTEST SEQUEL"... - 17/8/2012 3:44:46 PM   
dseys

 

Posts: 176
Joined: 10/8/2012
I answered to UTB's last post about the definition of the star raking (4-star = excellent, 3-star = good, 2-star = fair), to say that no, all 3-star movies aren't "good", and that the 2-star reviews usually trash a movie instead of saying it's "not good, not shit, but fair".

Thought my post was understandable :)

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Was this written by a teenager? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.109