|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
#11
01-12-2005, 11:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hold on...the guy just found fault with the film...he was not stupidly nasty about it, or even completely negative.
It was better than some of the shit on message boards along the lines of "this movie is gay dude", or "this movie raaawks"! You just don't agree with his views...big deal. if he said the exact same things about a film you all dislike you would either be saying nothing or praising him. I for one think "The Frighteners" has some great ideas and visuals but it's not a patch on the vibrant creations that are "Bad Taste" and "Meet the Feebles"...it's a big budget mainstream horror film which is simply average as a whole. Now flame me. IMDB has it's many faults...but some of the reviews are pretty good (some are excellent) and the links to external reviews can be very helpful. Yes i have many external reviews linked...no, i am nothing to do with IMDB and no i am not this guy you are all slamming. Last edited by 42ndStreetFreak; 01-12-2005 at 11:50 PM. 
|
|
#12
01-13-2005, 02:23 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
you have to admit ... IMDB isn't what it used to be .. unfortunately this 'voice' that we have all been given is a double sided coin and there are lot of sub par contributions on IMDB as a result ... (let alone the forums - they have gone completely ape-shit) True that The Frighteners was a bit of a departure for Jackson and flawed in places but at least the review gave way to a bit of a movie discussion here ...which is getting to be a rare thing. And it was a fun movie...
|
|
#13
01-13-2005, 04:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It was enjoyable and not retarded, that makes it a modern masterpiece.
My esteem of the average review in IMDB is that they are mostly crap. However, just submitting it doesnt garuntee it gets posted. it gets reviewed first, although not very well. i'v ewritten a few, namely for some Alien movies, Dungeons and Dragons, and Marilyn's Man (which was a piece of shit, even for a cheap-ass documentary.....)
__________________
Some misguided people decided I was funny enough to pay. See if they're right: http://www.cracked.com/members/Vodstok/ (I tweet pretty hardcore, too)
|
|
#14
01-13-2005, 05:35 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I wasn't really slamming HIM, or slamming at all. He had his p.o.v, I found fault with IT (just like he clearly did with the movie), and I said MY peice also - hey, I agreed with him on SOME points.
However, I think that if I were to have gone into imdb and stumbled across this film without having seen it, and read THAT - actually, no...not me...I don't go on reviews, but I'm sure a lot of people do...so, I'd say a lot of people might read that review and be convinced that it was a shit film with a good concept. Was it Underworld? NO. Yeah yeah, I'm dissing Underworld...but I'm not writing reviews for the imdb about it...eg: Ok, for the record, I didn't TOTALLY hate Underworld, but I thought that the majority of the characters were very 2 dimensional, and the acting was simply shithouse. I found that it had an overly convoluted plot for this kind of film and too much uneccesary conversation, seemingly both in an attempt to "smarten" what was clearly just another "clone" action film - this made the non action sequences boring, and a chore to sit through. IMO, it also had an anticlimatic ending, tailor made only to say "here comes a sequel"...however, I guess the female was nice to look at, and the film had some interesting transformations, and nice weapon/combat effects, borrowed as they were. (SEE? piling shit on a film and saying one or two good things doesn't make it come off as great...) You're right 42, I don't agree with all of his views - nor do I agree with yours. I wasn't telling him he didn't have the right to say those things...if I wanted to do that, MY review would be up there too, intentionally ripping into his. But for all intents and purposes, he made a GOOD film look like shit...and he can do that, and SOME people will agree with him, you're walking proof. All I'm saying is that since imdb is such a huge resource for films, I think that if someone submits a review like this, fine - but they should at least wait for a more posetive review to be posted also, for more objectivity...no doubt some Underworld fans would have liked the same...However, I DO think the majority of people that have seen the movie would agree that this was a rather poor review, I guess the only way to actually prove this though would be to have somebody that hasn't SEEN the film to read the review, then see the film. (hey, if anyone can get THAT happening, let me know...maybe I can ask my abovementioned friend that I was initially getting the review FOR) urgeok, I agree...it's nice to have a film discussion going on for once...
|
|
#15
01-13-2005, 01:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well, the guy who wrote that review is obviously a flamboyant retarded homosexual who sux and is gay.
Best thing about The Frighteners is it put the frighteners up those kids expecting a fun comedy horror - it's quite bloody nasty in places. It was cut in the UK & USA - including blood splashes to Jeffrey Combs' face and a rumoured "rectal worm" (don't ask) sequence. And the film was temporarily banned in Tasmania in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre, which the film apparently echoes...
|
|
#16
01-14-2005, 08:22 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Not my favourite but.......its more like comedy than horror.....like Ghostbusters...
__________________
  
|
 |
|
|
