They are people with no opinions of their own and follow the crowd.
The problem with the movie is that it's an art house film made by a big studio, had a big budget, and marketed to mainstream audiences. If it were directed by Jim Jarmusch and starred art house actors, no one would have a problem with it.
i agree.
shareNot, it is not. Oh my, it is not.
It's a pale imitation of what 'art house' is supposed to look and sound like. It is horrifically written altogether; its characters have no depth at all but are still given little 'twists' here and there to 'escape' convention. It just makes it all more crappy. This is a film this is ABOUT nothing, not even a riff on gender differences-- it's snappy and eccentric for the sake of being snappy and eccentric. It's bad filmmaking at its most self-indulgent-- it's just unwatchable.
Please don't defend this film anymore. It's kind of embarassing.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
http://www.panorama-cinema.com
Maybe so, but it does not deserve the low rating it got. I first saw it years after the whole J Lo and Ben Affleck hype was over. And I couldn't figure out why people hated it so much. Was it the best movie ever? Of course not. It's just another movie I wouldn't mind watching if it came on the CW weekend movies.
I am embarrassed in no shape or form to defend this movie. Because it's not as bad as people are making it out to be. I would give it a 4-6 rating.
4 is below average and 6 is above so which is it?...at least make up your mind before forming an opinion
shareThere are three ratings, below average, average, and above average. Since there are three rating 1-3 is below average, 4-6 is average and 7-10 is above average.
shareum no, there are 10 ratings...5 is average bcus it is in the middle...anything below that is under average and anything higher than that is above average
shareThere are two ways of looking at this obviously. I choose to believe that more than ONE number can be considered average. Neither one of us is really wrong, and honestly I am not really sure why you are nitpicking.
But have a nice day !
i'm not nitpicking, there IS only ONE way...that's the great thing about math...ten divided by two will NEVER be 4, it will NEVER be 6...by definition 5 is average, i really don't get how you don't see that
shareAnd 10 divided by 3 options, "below average, average, and above average" would result in a three number range for each possible option. If you've ever taken statistics you know that many times one lone number is not nearly as accurate as a range of numbers. I like the range of numbers option and you like the single number option. Again, neither one of is wrong, we just have different ways of thinking. It's really not that big of a deal.
"I really don't get how you don't see that." lmao
true its not really a big deal, but we are getting so close in these back and forth exchanges...i feel like i know you so much better now that i know the strategy in which u rate movies jk...
share[deleted]
i'm not nitpicking, there IS only ONE way...that's the great thing about math...ten divided by two will NEVER be 4, it will NEVER be 6...by definition 5 is average, i really don't get how you don't see that
Context...plus you're two years late...
shareLol, you're being a real nitpicky prick.
sharethere are 10 ratings...5 is average bcus it is in the middle...anything below that is under average and anything higher than that is above average
Ehh perhaps I misspoke as I rate fairly close to your way, only 6-4 the average zone with 6 being "okay" and 4 "not preferred" and 5 as "average/mediocre"...only by way of Ebert's star to metacritic score translation (i.e. 88) I round some things up 7.5 as 8 and 8.8 as 9.
shareI agree with you. That's pretty much my take on the imdb rating scale.
9-10: MASTERPIECE, going straight to my Top 100
8: Great, memorable stuff
7: Pretty good
6: Average
5: Not so good
1-4: Bad
Agreed. Very very self-indulgent film making
shareSorry, anyone who thinks it's ok to defend this movie needs to go back and watch J Lo say "It's turkey time", then watching her spread her legs, and say "gobble gobble". I literally cringe when I hear that, it's maybe one of the worst lines ever, and you'd better believe I'm counting all 80's action films.
This movie is terrible, it's not people jumping on a bandwagon. It's been universally panned for a reason, just because you like it doesn't mean it's good.
watch J Lo say "It's turkey time", then watching her spread her legs, and say "gobble gobble". I literally cringe when I hear that,Why? What's wrong with it?
It has so many lines of dialogue that is so much crap I couldn't believe it, just a horrible painful movie to sit through!
sharePlease don't defend this film anymore. It's kind of embarassing.
There are many aspects of this movie that simply don't work, but it is far from the worst movie ever made. Just a sub-par Hollywood offering that happened to have two overexposed stars who also happened to be dating each other. Without the backlash against "Bennifer" it likely would have come and gone largely unnoticed. I bet that most of the people who rate it the worst have never even seen it.
"I don't want any Commies in my car. No Christians, either."
[deleted]
so if this crap was an art house film it'd be ok? you're insulting art house films BIG TIME. also i'm sick of *beep* saying "sheep" and "follow the crowd".
this movie sucks, it's a fact. why do you have to be so different and like the crap that everybody hates, just so ya don't "fit in"? or so you can be different?
[deleted]
This movie does NOT suck. It's actually hilarious at some points. It's not a movie for everyone, tho. It's a romantic comedy desguised with a little crime genre. It's not about the crime... it's about the romance! And that's for a very specific audience.
shareAll in all, I didn't think the film was horrible. There were definitely aspects of it that were sh!t like that god awful ending, but other parts were quite good, like the Pacino scene. It is no worse than a lot of the crud that passes under the radar, and at least it feels like a film directed by Martin Brest, who I think is a dude.
shareI just watched this today and couldn't for the life of me figure out why people hated it so much! I loved the chemistry between the 2 leads. Affleck reminded me of Warren Beatty a tad. Lopez was competent bordering on good. Walken and Pacino seemed out of place though. But, Walken did make me laugh when he was leaving Gigli's apartment. His final look was very funny to me.
Bottom line, I have seen much worse than this even those that got rave reviews. I think one or both of them p!ssed someone off really badly and gave it terrible reviews and you're right. People can be sheep. The movie had some problems, no doubt, but is was far less terrible than some folks would have you believe.
"Hey, I should be mad at YOU . . . now turn around"
I gave it a 10. J-Lo is hot.
shareThis film sucks, period
shareI agree with the op it really isn't that bad of a film. IF J-lo and Affleck weren't in it ppl wouldn't have complained so much.
shareits a pretty decent flick, i really dont understand why it got so much hate for real? its really not that bad at all, id say for imdb i would think it would have around a high 6 but a 2.3 realy? wth? now thats just rediculous.
the way.. of the future.. the WAY.. of the future.
[deleted]
Personally I didn't think it was too bad.
share