This is one I believe it said in a video/DVD ad for this. Now let's see, it was not released in the summer, I believe it got pretty bad reviews, and did horrible box office. So, this is the wrong name to declare heading for this movie.
"Perfect!"-Johnny Depp, Ed Wood
Well, if all you read is IMDB then you might think all it got was bad reviews. The movie opened at No2 in the UK (up against the first LOTR and Harry Potter), stayed in the top 10 for 6 weeks. Got great reviews (excpet for The Sun, whoopdeedo, one bad one) Did great box office was either number 1 or Number 2 across the rest of the world. Top 10 highest rented films on DVD in the UK that year, number three most rented on sky box office. Then when it turned up in America, suddenly it was a slew of bad reviews and it did poorly. All of these stats are out on the interweb if you can be bothered to look.
But if all you read is IMDB or RT all you'll see are links to bad mostly US reviews, which is a complete distortaion of reality.
[deleted]
Your argument makes sense if you are retarded. It's budget was at 28 million, and only pulled in approximately 10 million worldwide. I even got these stats directly from imdb, so where did you get your stats? As for reviews, of the 96 major critics cited, only 22 gave it a passing grade. So it is true, this piece of ass was a bomb, both critically and in the box office. What has me confused is how you managed to skew such black and white statistics to prove your argument. Oh wait, already covered that in my opening.
shareYour reply shows you know a lot about retardation, you're incapable or reading a sentence properly and comprehending it - it did great in the UK, it was the US where it bombed, and most great UK reviews were not posted on IMDB. Dickhead.
shareI am sorry giantkiller but I am from the UK and at the time this was released I was a great reader of UK movie mags, I remember being forced to go and watch this and being so angry as EVERYTHING I had read had explained how it was truly diabolical.
I would be very interested in reading any articles which could rediculously proclaim it as having any redeemable traits whatsoever as to me it is the worst film I have watched at the cinema.
As for box office figures, it had Mr. Jackson and Mr. Carlyle in it. As such I would not expect anything less than a decent turnover, however.. The screening room I viewed it in was completely empty apart from me and my girlfriend and one other couple and this was just after release! Although this was only one cinema it does cast doubt on your beliefs.
Well then quite frankly you're incapable of reading. No movie opens at No2 and stays in the top ten 6 weeks without an audience.
Off the top of my head (and there were many more than this)
Empire Magazine gave the film 4 stars out of 5
Loaded gave it 5 out of 5
Film review gave it 4 stars out of 5
News of the World gave it 9 out of 10
Daily Mirror gave it 4 stars out of 5
Jonathan Ross made it movie of the month.
Channel 5 movie chart show put it at number 5 in top 5 movies of the entire year.
That's all verifiable. Go look it up.
You know what, I won't look it up as I am sure you are right.
Sight and Sound though said it was terrible, I respect their opinions and those of various other film mags I was reading at that time. I do not read any of what you listed, I do listen to Ross though and if he really said that then he has gone down in my eyes.
Congratulations on naming this big pile of trash as quality cinema.
I have the Sight and Sount review right here and they didn't trash it either. They didn't rave about it, but they did not call it terrible. In fact that rated it over Guy Ritchie's movies for having subtext. Try again.
You may not like the film, but that number of votes on this site show it's very far from the worst movie ever made. It was never going to win oscars, it's not that type of movie, but the blasting it's gotten from some people is disproportionate comapred to the absolute torrents of *beep* that is out there.