Actor's Affect

I will not be seeing "The Lucky One" purely due to the fact that Zac Efron is in it. I am not saying that this is a good way of deciding which movies you will see because despite the fact that a certain actor is in it that you don't like doesn't mean that the movie can't be good. Regardless I am guilty of using this type of discrimination. The fact that it has gotten rather bad reviews and a 21% on Rotten Tomatoes doesn't exactly make this movie the most appealing either. This review does a good job I think of taking everything that went on in this movie into account.

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/movies/index.ssf/2012/04/the_lucky_one_review.html

Who doesn't love Pirates?

"The Pirates! Band of Misfits" has gotten fantastic reviews and an 86% on Rotten Tomatoes. This type of movie has always fascinated me because of the immense amount of time it must take to create. To maneuver each character in each scene just that fraction of an inch. This review I believe is a rather good at taking the context into consideration.

http://antagonie.blogspot.com/2012/05/arrr-dman.html

Surprising...

Is anyone else surprised by how much of a mega hit "The Avengers" has become? I am blown away for one. I don't really remember hearing that much about this movie before it came out, people weren't talking about it the way they went on and on about "Avatar" before it hit the theaters, but for some reason "The Avengers" is coming close to being as big a success as "Avatar" was. It has set a new opening weekend record at $200.3 million knocking "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows" off it's mark at $169.2 million. It such a short time it has even wiped "The Hunger" games from everyones memory, and so soon after it came out. I am just flabbergasted, and now I have to see it.

The Raven: The critics won out!

Okay I think I mentioned "The Raven" in an earlier blog post, if I didn't I meant to. But I was planning on going to see this movie but once I was at the theater it kept going through my head what horrible reviews it got, and what a horrendously bad rating it got on Rotten Tomatoes. So as I am standing there in line, looking up at the big board with all of the movies and their showtimes listed on it, I made a spur of the moment decision and jumped shipped and went and saw "The Five Year Engagement" instead.

I just thought that that was so amazing. Before I would read reviews and not really take it to heart. If I had already had my heart set on seeing the movie before I read the review, I would see it. But as I have immersed myself into this world of criticism more and more, I find it harder and harder to ignore what a critic has said, and especially hard to ignore the general consensus on Rotten Tomatoes.

So there you have it critics, you do have an influence.

I have avoided this one like the plague.

Yes, I am a complete and total hater of the "American Pie" movies. I think they represent most of everything that's wrong with peoples sense of humor today. (Sorry). I have seen all of the past movies, due to a sleep-over gone horribly array, but I can most certainly say that I will not be seeing this one. Regardless I thought I would read some reviews of it. It received a 42% on Rotten Tomatos, which pleases me to no end, if it had been lower, I would have been happier. Here is a review that endorses the movie, just to offset my bad mouthing it, and this critic puts the movie into perspective.

http://www.denverpost.com/movies/ci_20327755/american-reunion-saved-by-stifler-but-did-they

The Five Year Engagement

I thought "The Five Year Engagement" was a fantastic movie, a breath of fresh, feel good, air. Unlike what I usually do, I did not read any reviews of the movie before I went to see it, but that was mostly due to the fact that none were out yet. I thought that I would link to a review that did not like the movie in this post due to the fact that I am endorsing the movie myself. Here is what I think is a pretty well written bad review.

 http://www.cinemalogue.com/2012/05/02/the-five-year-engagement/

A Critic's Influence

It amazes every time it happens, how much influence a well written and supported review can change my mind about going to see a movie. Usually once I have seen it, I have my own opinion and a review will have little effect on me. For instance, I was really excited to see "The Raven" and thought it was going to be such a fun movie to see. Come on! Edgar Allen Poe is cool and I don't care what anyone says. But after reading Eric D. Snider's review on Film.com I am extremely deflated. (Also it has a 21% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which is just sad.) Despite his killing my buzz about seeing this movie, which I am already committed to see, I think his review is extremely well crafted and supported.

http://www.film.com/movies/review-the-raven-fails-to-take-flight#fbid=IOJ-CHziGu-

Comic Based Movies: What's not to Love?

I admit, I am a comic book movie fan, the Spiderman's, the Batman's, the Iron Man's, and so on. I think they are fantastic, entertaining and dramatic without having to be taken too seriously. (I have to say though, the Hulk's kind of blew.) And now I am super excited to see "The Avengers" because it has a mega mosh pit of super heros. It has also gotten a spectacular rating on Rotten Tomatoes, 96% fresh.

Here is a link to a review that I think does something kind of cool. It uses a word that people do not hear everyday and most people, are probably not even aware that it exists.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/marvels_the_avengers/

Hey, this guy is really good!

I figured I would take a look at the reviews for "Cabin in the Woods" even though I am still on the fence about seeing it. (I just know I will get nightmares so I tend to only watch horror movies once every couple  of months.) After reading the reviews and seeing the rating it got on Rotten Tomatoes (a whopping 92% out of 162 reviews, impressive right?) I am thinking that I should probably make this one the one I see as my bi-monthly dose of horror. The tipping block for me though is this review by Christopher Orr on The Atlantic. A critic that I previously have never read, but one that I intend to follow closely now, because of the way he writes. I think this review is fantastic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/04/the-cabin-in-the-woods-disembowels-the-slasher-film/255810/

Okay, I had to...

I know, I know, its "Twilight" and it so overdone, and overplayed by this point, but once it crossed my mind I had to go look at some reviews since I didn't even think of looking at any before I watched my mom's copy of the most recent "Twilight" movie, "Breaking Dawn: Part 1."I don't know if I was shocked per say by the rating it got on Rotten Tomatoes (a lowly 25%), but I also can't say that I expected that. As far as my thinking on the movie goes, and that's not very far, it was certainly the best "Twilight" movie they have made so far. (I'm sorry, but the cinematography at the end with Bella's body morphing into that of a vampire and her shockingly red eyes as they opened suckered me in. I really did think that was pretty good.) My thoughts on this movie are rather in sync with Bruce Diones from The New Yorker who was one of the few on Rotten Tomatoes to rate this movie as fresh.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/reviews/film/the_twilight_saga_breaking_dawnpart_1_condon

"The Secret World of Arrietty"

I watched a movie when I was a child, I don't remember the name of it, I am inclined to think that it was titled simply, "The Borrowers", but I cannot find it online or at least none of the movies strike me the way I remember the movie. My memory could just be faulty and my imagination may have added images that aren't correct but the movie I remember involved mice. Perhaps it was just too long ago, but I do remember the basic storyline from the movie was about little people living in a house and borrowing what they needed to survive from the normal size human inhabitants, so I was very intrigued when I learned "The Secret World of Arrietty" was based upon this idea originally crafted in Mary Norton's novel "The Borrowers." Despite my foggy memory I still feel it is a fond one. This is the only thing that really intrigued me about this Japanese animation film, since it is not my favorite thing to watch.
This review by Roger Moore on The State makes me want to watch the movie and not want to watch the movie at the same time.

http://www.thestate.com/2012/02/17/2156268/movie-review-the-secret-world.html

A Very Original Approach

"Lockout" has accrued a 31% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, indicating its a really, really rotten movie, but this one critic out of the few that did give this movie a fresh tomato briefly mentions a really interesting idea, whether or not the amount of money the movie makes is the best determinate of whether or not it is good. Nick Rogers's ending line in his review is this, "In the end, this is pass-fail territory — no more, no less. Consider “Lockout” a success by way of social promotion." Typically critics unanimously will say that this is bull. Things that are truly god awful can still make money, and have tons of views for one reason. Promotion. But the masses cannot be denied from having a say either, and this movie did not get black listed enough to go straight to dvd.
I wanted and maybe still even do want to go see "Lockout" just because it looks like a good time. Sure it hasn't swept the box office off its feet, but it has made a modest (if that's what you can call it) $6.2  million which isn't even a third of what "The Hunger Games." Here is the review on "Lockout" from Nick Rogers on The Film Yap website.

http://www.thefilmyap.com/2012/04/14/lockout/

Time Stands Still Reviews

I just went to" Time Stands Still" last night at the Guthrie Theater and was for the most part, engaged and entertained. This lasted throughout most of the first act, but as soon as Richard (the main focus of the play's editor) and Mandy (Richard's much younger girlfriend) left the stage I was less and less interested. I couldn't connect with Sarah, a war correspondent photographer who has returned injured by a road side bomb from the Middle East. I thought that her character was a little too unbelievable. This review from the Pioneer Press I think is pretty much dead on for how I felt about the play.

http://www.twincities.com/entertainment/ci_20402924/review-guthrie-theaters-time-stands-still-reveals-itself

The Old Ways Re-emerge

I have mentioned Peter Travers many times now especially considering how few posts I have written, but I always keep coming back to him because of the way he writes and also because I usually agree with what he has to say. His writing is captivating to me in the way it changes and morphs depending on the way he is reviewing. In this review he did on "Titanic 3D" he encompasses some ways of criticism that are all but dead in critiques today, especially in movie reviews. His review is long. It's not nearly as long as what it could be or what it would have been fifty, thirty, or even ten years ago, before, as the media and everything else keeps telling us, our attentions spans were reduced by the Internet. I don't know exactly how I feel about this review, I will have to see the movie first, so I can fully understand what he is talking about in some parts, but I do believe that he did a wonderful job in keeping my attention.

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/titanic-3d-20120405

This next review is also uncharacteristically long for a movie review and breaks the rule of keeping "I" out of your reviews (or at least that is a rule in my opinion and my professors), but it also is captivating. I do like the way Dana Stevens writes. It flows very well and reads more as a story then a review while still giving the reader good fodder as they go along to base their decision of whether or not to go see the movie on (which is the whole reason I think most people read reviews today).

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/movies/2012/04/james_cameron_s_titanic_starring_leonardo_dicaprio_and_kate_winslet_now_in_3d_reviewed.html

I must admit that I am partial to these longer reviews, I think they have a deeper and longer lasting effect on the reader by having that extra time with that reader. The extra space inside the reader's head as they substantiate their views or opinions in a more concrete manner is crucial for the critic. Quick and dirty reviews have their advantage as well, but they are mainly only advantageous to a viewer who is making a fly-by-the-seat of their pants decision as they stand in line waiting to buy a ticket to a movie. They really haven't had enough commercials of any of the movies up on the board thrown at them to make them remember any as worth seeing, so they turn to their IPhone and start clicking through Rotten Tomatoes to make a quick decision. If they came across a review as long as either Travers's or Stevens's they would have double backed and tried to find one that was shorter. This is a shame I think because they would not understand nearly as much as they would by reading these if they had found a review that was 250 words and just got to the punch of whether or not that reviewer liked the movie.

Mirror Mirror: The Idiocy

I saw Mirror Mirror this weekend and literally the only thing that kept my brother, his wife, and I in our seats was the popcorn. It really was that bad. Here is a review from Peter Travers, one of my favorite reviewers and a long time critc for Rolling Stone. He hits this movie right where it counts and highlights just exactly what was wrong with it.

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/mirror-mirror-20120330

Do you know what this guy is saying?

Music reviews are especially hard to do. The words and phrases that some music critics come up with to describe different music are just awe-inspiring, but with this review something is missing. Perhaps, sense?

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/amaryllis-20120326

Beautifully Written Review, combining modern day slang with poetic language

Check out this review written by Peter Travers for Rolling Stone. I love following Travers because of his chameleon like qualities when he reviews. For some pieces he writes like how you think a critic should write with eloquent language, and draws from previous works to support his views, and other times, such as with his review of Project X, he writes for his audience and uses swear words and down and dirty language that gives that particular audience what they are looking for, which is completely different from anyone who wants to watch The Deep Blue Sea.


http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/the-deep-blue-sea-20120322

The Hunger Games Review: Assumptions are a peril especially when they are unfounded.

For all of those who read the books and not just saw the movie, The Hunger Games, I hope you will realize how false this review is. When I was reading I couldn't believe that he got this impression from The Hunger Games and then decided to project that impression as the norm, which I certainly hope it is not. Did he not see the anguish in Katnis and Prim's faces, and in all of the other children's faces, as they were hoping they would not be the ones chosen to die at the reaping? Did he not see the scene between Katnis and Gale discussing how they could stop the games from being watched? The worst part about this  review is he assumes that this is the norm for most viewers, that they all worship the games and would love to be the ones chosen to DIE. All of the children die except for one, in usual circumstances, the districts don't glorify this event except for the Capitol, and I do not believe that the readers or the viewers see this as some great exhalation of reality TV in general, and certainly not of the Hunger Games themselves inside the world this author has created. Read yourself and see what you think.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/charmageddon_LexlErZlPi2iiSI5WH5QEP?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=Oped%20Columnists