MovieChat Forums > 47 Ronin (2013) Discussion > A 6.3 rating. It says more than people ...

A 6.3 rating. It says more than people may realize....


I truly find it interesting that this film is given, as of today, a 6.3 average rating. I find it interesting because, as many of you have noted, this movie is drivel. A preposterous script, terrible editing, ridiculous effects, poorly written characters and some very hammy acting. One of these alone doesn't doom a film, but all of them pretty much spells out exactly what this film is: a ludicrous attempt at cashing in on what, in reality, is a great story from Japanese history.

The comment I made in the title about the score saying more than people may realize goes to the simple fact of the viewing audience either expecting dumber fare, or simply getting used to it, or perhaps even wanting it.

I see the slowly growing rift between the scores of IMDB, the scores from the populace, and Rotten Tomatoes, the scores from the professional movie critics. It never used to be so different.

Years ago critics and filmgoers would, for the most part, agree on most films. Usually the ones that critics thought were good, so did the patrons, and the same with bad films. Now, with that rift growing, I am trying to decipher why.

The aforementioned reasons could be to blame, and I think the one that is to blame most is the third one I mentioned. I say this without the intention of putting anyone down, but I think that the viewing audience has basically gotten dumber over the past couple of decades. Why else would drivel like this be as liked as it is? I'm not talking about true popularity, as the masses will pretty much go to a theater and pick a film if they don't already have plans to see a specific one. They just want to get out, which I totally understand. No one wants to strictly work and then be stuck at home all of the time. We all have to have activities away from those two things.

With that being said, like I mentioned, I think that much of the reason for this is that the film going audience is simply getting dumber. I'm not saying everyone. There are still many people out there that like truly good films and know very well what a bad one is. I'm simply stating that the demographic of the dumb, if you will, has grown. Quite a bit, I might add. How else could a TV show like Honey Boo Boo or Duck Dynasty, or pretty much any other reality TV show have gotten so popular? Twenty years ago this would have NEVER been the case. People wouldn't have bothered watching it because they would have seen it for what it is...garbage. But today, it invades just about every facet of life. Games, the popularity of the individual people, products with the names of these shows on them, and made in such a way to make people think of these shows.

I can just imagine vacationers from other countries coming to America for either the first time, or maybe a trip after many years, and thinking to themselves..."What happened? I didn't expect it to be this stupid."

Eh, I don't know, perhaps I am just ranting and need to accept the dumbing down of society, but it just bugs me to see the direction we are going. Dumber films and TV shows shouldn't be more popular...the more intelligent films and TV shows should be. What is happening?

And again, it all goes back to being able to see it in the differences between the professional critics' ratings and the masses' ratings.

And tonight, while so many are watching "My 600-Lb. Life", I'll be doing a crossword puzzle with words of more than two syllables. Odd? I wish it weren't so.



"Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too."

reply

I think with too many critics, it comes down to "different is good." Many of them see so many movies, many of which they would not choose to see on their own, that the same plot devices, flat characters and other cliches over and over again give them fatigue. So any time a movie is daring or new, the majority of critics like it.

As for general audiences getting dumber, I agree and I am one of them. My viewing tastes have certainly shifted over the years away from heavy depressing Oscar-bait or man vs himself indie films to popcorn movies. I no longer watch movies to provoke thought. Instead, just entertain me. In fact, whether I like a movie often hinges on my three-pronged criteria: Big. Dumb. Fun. That being said, there are plenty of summer tent-pole movies that could have been way better if the makers had only read through the script a few more times and closed some plot holes.

I went in to 47 Ronin hoping for a big dumb fun movie (I mean it has Keanu Reeves as a Samurai fighting demons and witches), but I was bored out of my mind. The movie just took itself too seriously. It should have been more reverent to the actual legend (which perhaps would have earned a higher critic score), or it should have been more fun. It was neither and I didn't like it. 6.3 seems way too high. So maybe I'm not quite yet in the dumb majority.

reply

Actually, no, I don't think you are in the dumb majority, because you seem to see exactly what is going on. You watched this, expecting it to be popcorn, and there is nothing wrong with popcorn, as many summer blockbusters are, and saw the flaws in it. And choosing to watch popcorn movies doesn't put you in the majority either. The fact is that many people choose dumbed down movies (A perfect example would be the new Paul Blart film) because they probably wouldn't understand much of the more intricate fare in theaters today.

And you are absolutely correct about the critics seeing the same plot devices, flat characters and clichés. The theaters are flooded with films that employ the same things over and over and over again. The old standard, if you will.

No, I don't think you are in the dumbed down majority at all. Choosing to watch this instead of other films is one thing, but watching films like this instead of other films because you just don't get the other films is another.

And, of course, not all movies types appeal to everyone. Everyone has their favorite types. With that being said, there are even rifts in those types. There are stupid horror movies and intelligent ones. There are stupid comedies and intelligent ones. The list goes on.

What's even sort of funnier is that 20 years ago all there really was for certain types of people was Jerry Springer, and that is quite possibly the dumbest television program every created, but boy was it popular, and still is. But now, of course, it's five gazillion of shows that cater to that demographic and many movies to boot. Ugh. I'm very happy that they still make good movies, as I think I would just stop watching films altogether if they didn't.



"Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too."

reply

I agree with you. One thing very funny about this.. for a samurai movie, there is almost no blood, even when they do a Sepukku LMAO, to find out that a movie about a boy playing drums has 10x more blood than this movie.

reply

All of your drivel ignores the fact that entertaining dross has be a successful part of the movie industry since it was created.

Stop being an elitist wank.

I haven't even seen this and I myself DO appreciate good film, but I acknowledge the existence of and place for popular, guilty pleasure crap in film. My collection ranges from masterpieces to some of the crappiest (and most enjoyable) films of all time.

reply

Maybe the score just reflects a more democratic process? Personally I can't tolerate anything that comes with the tag "reality" and there are whole genres (starting with gross out comedy) I can't watch - but I know some perfectly intelligent people who do enjoy it. Also critics, especially in the past, could be elitist twats who just got it wrong and damaged careers in the process - I can think of a few instances where decades later they've conceded thier mistake but by then of course it's too late.
Depending on my mood I like most kinds of films and for me this falls in to the dissapointing but watchable category, which makes it a 5/6 on my personal scale.

reply

The comment I made in the title about the score saying more than people may realize goes to the simple fact of the viewing audience either expecting dumber fare, or simply getting used to it, or perhaps even wanting it.

It seems there is a disappointingly large group of people who have very, very low standards of what constitutes as good entertainment.

Zardoz (1974) has spoken!
My top 100 http://www.imdb.com/list/ls079512886/

reply

I couldn't agree more.



Why aren't cookies called bakies?

reply

It's kinda sad to think how great movies could be if people didn't have such low expectations.

Micheal Bay wouldn't have a career, or would actually have to step up his game to make something that is genuinely good.

Zardoz (1974) has spoken!
My top 100 http://www.imdb.com/list/ls079512886/

reply

Michael Bay is a perfect example. His films do a lot of business, but are they really any good? Not very. A couple of his films were marginally decent, but his films as of late have been awful. Nothing more than fluff wrapped around CGI.

I think he has the potential to step up that game, but I'm not so sure he wants to abandon those box office hits for genuinely intelligent fare.

I have dreamed a dream, but now that dream has gone from me.

reply

I think he has the potential to step up that game, but I'm not so sure he wants to abandon those box office hits for genuinely intelligent fare.

In all honesty, in the scenario we painted, I don't see it being very likely. I like Tony Zhou's video essay on Bay's visual style. A key point he makes is that Bay has a gifted visual eye, but he himself is not aware of this talent enough to develop it further. In an interview Bay gave examples of shots that he thought were great because they were
"visually dynamic" but he was not able to further explain what makes those images great.

Actually all of Bay's visual vocabulary in terms of shot direction is borrowed from classic Hollywood blockbusters, just speeded up to make it "even more dynamic" (which is why his Transformers films feel like such a visual mess).

I think the low expectations of audiences is what keeps cinema from being taken more serious as an artform, like literature.

Zardoz (1974) has spoken!
My top 100 http://www.imdb.com/list/ls079512886/

reply