^ i agrees.
i think its because of the "respect" or "rep" of who makes the movie. if its Disney, expect a high rating, even tho the movie itself could've been better. or Pixar, nothing lower than 7.2, because its "Pixar", even tho that particular movie could've been better too. it used to be a time where a movie was good based on how good it "actually" was, and not who made it. but as i said, it's all about the "rep" of a company, industry, or actor/director/producer.
another note, people today prefer "realism" now. movies were supposed to take you away from "reality", like Toy Story, but whilst conveying a very good message. TODAY?! nope. "this is impossible, therefore, this movie sucks". everyone looks too much into realism and what can actually happen in real life. Fantasy & Sci-Fi's are dying slowly with the occasional "great fictional story". but these days, people want more realism, instead of being taken to another unrealistic world.
The movie "Speed", VERY unrealistic, flawed, and pretty much impossible to jump a bus, but that was the blockbuster of the summer (whenever it came out), and it was a "FUN" movie to watch. Terminator, impossible, but one of the best movies EVER FREAKIN MADE. like i said, people look for too much realism in movies these days. it's a same.
¯\(°_o)/¯ WHY EVEREH BODAY SO CRAZEH?!
reply
share
ccr1633
14 years ago
"Terminator, impossible, but one of the best movies EVER FREAKIN MADE. like i said, people look for too much realism in movies these days. it's a same."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uhh...The Terminator was a HUGE surprise hit upon its release, in direct counter to this absurd theory going around here that sci-fi films can't be big box office draws because the masses are too stupid, or because the bleating masses require too much realism (what, in America...are you f'in kidding me??). Ever heard of Aliens? The Matrix? T2? There are a plethora of other examples of massively popular sci-fi films.
I remember when The Time Machine came out that the word of mouth was that it was kind of boring. I went to see it nonetheless and agreed. They had a real chance here to put a little more science into the science fiction, to improve upon the 1960 realization, but they didn't. It seemed in the first 1/2 hour that they really wanted to deal with the issue of changing the past, and then lost their way in the latter two-thirds, with scenes of our time traveler farting around in the future with no apparent rhyme or reason. This film lost its focus completely, which disqualifies it from being a great or even particularly good film in my book. Further, I just don't find Guy Pearce a very engaging actor in this sort of role. He certainly has the stone-cold stare of the overworked scientist going, but he lacks a certain charismatic versatility that I think this role desperately needed (i.e. Malcolm McDowell from Time After Time).
reply
share
14 years ago
[deleted]
ccr1633
14 years ago
Hey, I didn't say there was anything intrinsically boring about time travel. But I do think that this film, in its stylistic choices, created a very tedious and unexciting experience. Agree to disagree.
reply
share
14 years ago
[deleted]
ccr1633
14 years ago
Sure, slow instead of boring. I love the baseline story, being a fan of the original George Pal version as well as spinoffs like Time After Time. I suppose you could say that I was disappointed with the execution. I was looking for it to captivate me with adventure and sci-fi, and it didn't really deliver either for me. Just lacked that certain magic.
reply
share
14 years ago
[deleted]
shrex007
14 years ago
Does this film really deserve a higher rating, did anyone really think that this was better than the first one from 1960. I loved the 1960 version, i thought this remake was ok but enjoyable. It could have been so much better.
reply
share