cerebusboy
Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bbobeckyj quote:
ORIGINAL: Rebel scum quote:
ORIGINAL: bbobeckyj Point being how many of these films deserve the rating they were given and have stood the test of time to be remembered and revered as a classic? - King Kong Cloverfield Attack of the clones Intolerable cruelty Moulin Rouge Or some 4 star - War of the worlds X-men Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull Those ones do, in my opinion. Cloverfield and Intolerable Cruelty onto got 4 stars by the way. Plenty of others are pushing it-I know Moulin Rouge and King Kong still have a vocal fanbase. And everyone gets blinded by hype. Don't tell me you've never seen a film, thought it was awesome, then seen it later and realised it's not as good divorced from the buildup and excitement. I know I have. http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/5star/ Lists all of them, they're on there. The Coens are a good example O Brother, Where Art Thou?, 5, Intolerable cruelty, 5, The ladykillers, 3, Burn after reading, 4, all films with a similar tone, only the first and the last of those probably got the rating they deserve. You can literally see them giving stars based on prior reviews, and not on merit, the middle two films are 2 star or 3 at best. As they actually said in the attack of the clones review- 'we gave the last one 4, so this being better must be a 5...' (which interestingly has now been downgraded to 3 stars) but in this case you can imagine them sitting in the office saying 'we gave the last one a 5 and this is not much worse, so lets give it a 3...' Empire giving the Ladykillers 3 stars proves pro-Coen bias? Why wouldn't they give it five or four stars? It was 10 years ago, and I'm not the memory man, but I thought the original Attack of the Clones was more "the last one sucked but make no mistake...George Lucas is back!" and so on. The reference to the original Phantom Menace was (IIRC) surely more of a "if that got 4 stars, this deserves 20!" playful hyperbole.
|