It's from OscarWatch's forum. I think "on wire" means some type of inside information from Chicago.

Metacritic's 56/100 is much more like it. I've always maintained Metacritic reflects much more accurately the reviews the public are ACTUALLY reading. They do not include swathes of unread critics.

Xiayun, I'd point out that people do not simply "agree" with critics. Their opinions on a movie are moulded BY the critics before they go in, and it takes quite a show for them to change that mindframe.

I do hope it's reviews improve because

1. Im rooting for it to be the biggest movie of the year
2. I really, really want to be entertained.

Plan C

Lol, yep, just like kong, remember? i think kong got to plan Y before people stopped the excuses for its not uber boxoffice.

The difference between Kong and the Da Vinci Code is

The Da Vinci Code has probably already outsold Kongs entire opening weekend in presales alone

That's actually probably true.

I certainly hope its reviews improve too, just as I did with Memoirs of a Geisha.

People's expectations may be set or influenced by critics beforehand, but in general, when each individual forms his/her own opinion, I found the majority of time, if you poll enough people (like at KJ), the percentage of people who like the film tend to converge to a certain percentage. It's more true for certain types of films than others (oscar baits vs. comedy). It's part of the reason that each of us will have different top 10 list by the end of the year, but once you add everybody's up, the same cream of the crop tends to rise to the top.

a cream of the crop that is HEAVILY influenced by critics. We like to think of ourselves as smart people
And by liking a critically acclaimed, intelligent movie, we are complimenting that notion.

The amount of oscar drivel I've seen being called fantastic and wonderful and then just being plain bored through I can't even count.

The English Patient and A Beautiful Mind comes to mind, although there are an array of movies that were acclaimed far beyond their actual achievements

1 and 15 now. Not looking too good at all.

Ya know, first off:
DO CRITICS WANT TO KILL THE SUMMER BOX OFFICE SEASON AND END UP BEING THE REASON THEIR OWN JOBS AREN'T NEEDED ANYMORE???

First you have Poseiden, which many here are calling a solid action flick, which was trashed. I mean trashed! Then there's Da Vinci...As of now I'm going to give the critics the benefit of the doubt though, because even I had doubts to whether or not this film would be good after I saw the trailer. I was not very impressed, and still am not. I have a bad feeling coupled with its not-very 'GRAB YOU BY THE THROAT AND PULL YOU IN' look/approach, bad reviews could kill this movie's BO, to the point of maybe under 200 million, maybe even 175 million. I don't think Ron Howard was the right choice for this type of film...The guy is a solid director, and HAS made good films in the past, but this just doesn't seem like the right fit for him. Same goes for Hanks! I never could have pictured him in a film like this. And the rest of the cast is talented, but possibly not flashy enough to attract viewers. This would not be a problem to me if the film came out outstanding, but not as flashy, but obviously this does not seem to be the case. It is neither popcorn blockbuster fun (which I know this wasn't meant to be, but in the hands of some could have been made this way) nor smart controversial thriller. It just fails. I definitely need to see it for myself, many of these assumptions are just based on its reviews, but I think bad reviews=death for this. Since when was a Tom Hanks film disliked so much???

I never really expected this to be panned. Even though critics did pan the book, sort of, I thought it'd have an effective transition to the screen despite the source material's supposed shortcomings.

I liked the book, though, so...

Yeah. I still want to see it.

Bonfire?

as one critic cleverly said:

"the secrets out on da vinci code : it sucks".

I think people want to see this regardless. MEMOIRS is a good comparison. Even though I didn't enjoy it, it brang in the crowds.

Also it's weird that Sony highest RT score for a movie this year is SILENT HILL.

Bonfire - 23%
Burbs - 33%
Punchline - 43%
Ladykillers - 55%
Joe Vs the Volcano - 57%
Terminal - 61%

Wow I'm very surprised about this, I thought it would score in 60-70% range. I'm gonna pass on seeing it now, not being a big fan of the book or Tom Hanks and only a fan of Ron Howard now and then, my interest in this movie depended solely on the reviews.

double post

and not a single good movie among those six. Terminal is the best of them, but was underwhelming. 61% seems about right

My stance has always been that I don't care what the critics think. I never use RT when it supports a film I support or is negative for a film I'm against (whether at the BO, or otherwise).

I don't think you give people enough credit.

That's not clever.

I'll always jump on them in any thread like this.



I disagree. There are too many examples, just at the top of my head, of there being a significant difference between the reception from audiences and critics even among adult skewing films. Sure there is a correlation, but that merely proves that reactions are not entirely random, and there are some things we all look for in films.

That list: Cold Mountain, A History of Violence, The Aviator, GONY, The English Patient, Lost in Translation, Closer, Syriana, Sideways, Memiors of a Geisha, Crash, Gladiator, Braveheart, The Green Mile, Walk the Line, Ray and many others.

That's just the oscar films; if I go with mainstream movies, the longer list, with bigger discrepancies, starts with, of course, National Treasure and Man on Fire.

I agree with this. It's funny, but people actually don't listen to critics! Not even kidding. And I'm not talking about films like AVP and When a Stranger Calls, where teens obviously don't listen to critics.

Audiences, in general, think for themselves these days, or listen to word of mouth.

I posted this in the BO forum, but I suppose it's even more relevant here. I think it shows that the reviews for National Treasure were misleading as an indicator of WOM. Same for the Da Vinci Code?

I'd argue in a lot of these cases, the general opinions are quite similar between critics and general public, unless you restrict the general public to be a particular small circle of people or the vocal voices in a forum. Out of those, I'd only pick A History of Violence, The English Patient, Syriana, and Memoirs of a Geisha to call them different on a bigger scale.