Shite, what a BUST!!!!

Every year at Cannes theres the same complaint about long movies. Hell even typing "Cannes 100 Minutes" into google news brings up two articles which underline that fact straight away.
http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=na ... a=N&tab=wn

By the way, Since your okay to make sweeping statements like that, I'm sure you'll also be cool to make me a list of all the things I've made up.
Because generally I like someone to provide me with some basis for calling me a liar.

Then how do you explain "long" movies winning the Palm d'Or on a fairly consistent basis?

Sounds like a bunch of hyperbole to me.

If you make a good movie, it doesn't matter how long it is. They complain about crap that's over 100 minutes long. And frankly, who wouldn't?

What's interesting is that almost all reviews said the movie turned for better as soon as Teabing (Ian McMcKellen) appeared on screen, and he cherished every moment. So I definitely sense Howard missed something out with the two main characters.



Most reviews I read actually pointed out the book is a good read and entertainment and, on surface, appeared to be an easy adaptation into a movie. So I don't buy into the argument that the critics who are critical of the movie must have hated the book.

I guess Howard messed things up then. This should have been an easy book-to-film adaptation. I suppose he made it too long, since Teabing shows up just before halfway into the book.

I wonder how he showed them solving the puzzles from the book. Did he do it visually, or just have the characters say how they solved it?

Times didnt like it, Post liked it.

The only reviews that matter are those of the people. If they like the movie, the reviews won't mean Jack.

This movie will fail only if the audiences don't like it.

Wonder what Rex Reed and Peter Travers will give it.

Ebert bumped his grade down to a 3-star.

Holy crap, now critics didnt like Kong? When did that happen? A Movie needs 99.9999% to be liked?

I think what magnus meant was the critics liked Kong but it didn't turn Kong in to a UBER 300 million Blockbuster.

Doubt it.

Who cares what critics who don't know what it's like to go to a movie because they want to think? They've been going to movies for so long because they have to, not because they want to which does make a big difference.

But people liked the movie and it did have good drops. Theres no real point to this statement.

Code will still have it's great OW, but from the looks of things might not have such great wom like most people thought it would have and result in a 300m total.

Yeah, I really don't care so much what the critics think of this movie.

I'll decide how it is when I see it, y'know?

I agree with you here - I'm off to see it this weekend, come hell or high water...

Critics blasted National Treasure and most people here thought it would bomb, but did very well OW with adults, and had excellent WOM and legs. Then after it was a huge hit the RT score magically increased somewhat.

I think this is similar to Memoirs of a Geisha, where I think alot of the complaints have more to do with the source material then the movie.

I don;t think Howard was a good choice to adapt this, oh well,t he bad reviews are actually making me more inclined to see it. I just don't think the film is bad enough to warrant a 0%

Or, perhaps they don't like the film for what it is in the first place. So, as they often do, their review tries to nail it for whatever they think audiences would care about. Of course they have no idea what audiences want. Listening to them is like taking directions from a blind man.

Didn't critics also pan Sydney Pollack's adaptation of The Firm with Tom Cruise from (I think) 1992? I remember thinking that was a decent movie.

That was also a massively popular novel.

I don't care what critics think but my mouth dropped when I saw that number. This is supposed to be a huge movie. I just wasn't expecting it.

its my turn to act like Roid.

The movie isn't even out and people are now looking at plan B. all of a sudden, a film that most regarded a critical darling is now being called "oh .. but no one expected it to do well with the critics."

i see why roid has so much fun with it.

Thats so true baba . My favorites lines are "who care what the critic thinks. didnt so and so film also get panned by the critics" then ofcourse its the reverse when a film you dislike is supported by the rt rating. This is going to be an interesting weekend. Now lets all wait for bkb ronnie parking lot report. The man is on fire

Well the critics don't know anything. I generally only listen to a few like Ebert and the USA Today person. It is nice to be liked by critics but there are plenty of movies that critics hated that became huge hits.

What about The Butterfly Effect? RT's rating is now 33% (54 fresh, 108 rotten), but it was moderately successful--$57 mil at least--and the rentals went to about the same amount as its box office gross, which was great to well with.

Ebert and Roeper will give it two thumbs down since they panned National Treasure but they also have mentioned how they NT took its source from DVC and how DVC was vastly overated and boring