I liked bright. 7 out of 10. I think netflix has something cooking with these straight to screen movies. Ham handed metaphor (racial relations) flat beginning and ending, but middle of movie is great The gap between RT critic and audience ratings for the movie is massive Edit: sequel greenlit by netflix
"There’s boring, there’s bad, and then there’s “Bright,” a movie so profoundly awful that Republicans will probably try to pass it into law over Christmas break. "
Beasts of No Nation - 91% Mudbound - 97% I Don't Feel at Home in this World Anymore - 89% Maybe, and I'm just throwing this out here, MAYBE they just think it sucks because it might suck.
Critical response[edit] "What makes the Star Wars experience unique, though, is that it happens on such an innocent and often funny level. It's usually violence that draws me so deeply into a movie — violence ranging from the psychological torment of a Bergman character to the mindless crunch of a shark's jaws. Maybe movies that scare us find the most direct route to our imaginations. But there's hardly any violence at all in Star Wars (and even then it's presented as essentially bloodless swashbuckling). Instead, there's entertainment so direct and simple that all of the complications of the modern movie seem to vaporize." —Roger Ebert, in his review for the Chicago Sun-Times[159] The film was met with critical acclaim upon its release. In his 1977 review, Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Timescalled the film "an out-of-body experience", compared its special effects to those of 2001: A Space Odyssey, and opined that the true strength of the film was its "pure narrative".[159] Vincent Canby of The New York Times called the film "the movie that's going to entertain a lot of contemporary folk who have a soft spot for the virtually ritualized manners of comic-book adventure" and "the most elaborate, most expensive, most beautiful movie serial ever made."[160] A.D. Murphy of Variety described the film as "magnificent" and claimed George Lucas had succeeded in his attempt to create the "biggest possible adventure fantasy" based on the serials and older action epics from his childhood.[161] Writing for The Washington Post, Gary Arnold gave the film a positive review, writing that the film "is a new classic in a rousing movie tradition: a space swashbuckler."[162] However, the film was not without its detractors: Pauline Kael of The New Yorker criticized Star Wars, stating that "there's no breather in the picture, no lyricism", and that it had no "emotional grip".[163] John Simon of New York magazine also panned the film and wrote, "Strip Star Wars of its often striking images and its highfalutin scientific jargon, and you get a story, characters, and dialogue of overwhelming banality."[164] Stanley Kauffmann, reviewing the film in The New Republic, opined that it "was made for those (particularly males) who carry a portable shrine within them of their adolescence, a chalice of a Self that was Better Then, before the world's affairs or—in any complex way—sex intruded."[165]
Didnt hear it, but wouldn't put it past will to add his standard, cheesy rap Movie has flaws but mostly enjoyed it
I’m an hour in and this movie is pretty bad. Bad storyline and bad dialogue. There have been some action scenes that have been alright, but the story is just so bad.
this couldn't be further from the truth. Yeah people like Ebert are schmucks, but the general audience absolutely adores steamy piles of shit. As an example, there's no contest between IMDb's top 250 (which is hilariously awful) and, say, the top 250 from tspdt's list of 1000.
God you're such a cunt. Looking at imdbs top 100 almost every movie on there was well received critically. It has a lot of the same movies as AFIs top 100 plus movies from popular directors like Nolan, Tarantino, and fincher and Pixar movies
A mass conspiracy among critics is much more likely than a 2017 Will Smith movie about orcs and fairies in law enforcement sucking dick...
Uh huh. Did you compare either list to tspdt's in order to see what the difference is? And I'm asking because the list I'm referencing was compiled after polling thousands of critics and directors.
No, I didn't, but what you implied with your original post was that the movies on the IMDB top 250 were not well received critically, which is completely false.
Seems like the reviews are more entertaining than the movie. From one film critic on letterboxd "At one point, I stopped taking notes and just wrote "Holy shit." More in a review on RE tomorrow."
I somewhat misspoke and I understand what you're saying. IMDb's list itself isn't hilariously awful so much as the actual rankings are. IMDb's list is audience driven. Tspdt's is not. If you compare the two lists, there is a night and day contrast. IMDb's list does feature an extensive list of films that were well received critically, but there isn't much crossover into what critics and filmmakers alike consider canon. I guess my argument is still that, for me at least, my tastes fall way more in line with the critics than they ever will with the audience. If the audience love some shit and criticis hate it, chances are I'm not going to like it. If critics love it and the audience hates it, chances are I will enjoy it. Hence why I don't think the critics are worthless.