#Reviews on after earth movie movie
But judging by potential means I would have to investigate each movie, try to imagine what reviewers expected out of it, then try to guess at how much wasted potential there was and if that wasted potential would have pushed a even a good movie to such ratings.Ī score of 11 is suggests it is a worse movie than almost every movie in theatres right now, which it simply isn't. If I see one movie that receives 80, one that receives 50 and one that receives 30 I expect them to roughly descend in quality from the first to the last. I couldn't care less what the potential of a movie was, when I look at reviews it's to try to decide what to see. Personally I think that is a useless ranking system. If wasted potential is such a significant category that movies should be judged by, then movies that we expect to be terrible should receive high ratings and movies that we expect to be phenomenal should receive low ratings when they are merely great. B-Movies stopped being about subject matter back when Lucas and Spielberg took B movie storylines and making billions off of them. The movie stopped being a B movie with those factors. The movie cost 100 million to produce and stars Will Smith. What gives them the right to do that? The same thing that gives you the right to not like their assessment of it.Īnd, B Movie refers to budget, caliber of the actors, and director. They are paid to give an opinion on something and that's it. Maybe those movies that you get upset for being better received are simply better made movies. People hate things for pettier reasons than that. Here in the real world, it's perfectly valid. To you, Wasted potential is not a good enough excuse to dislike something. Why is that? Because critics are rendering their opinion of the project and nothing else. The critics are not wrong because you disagree with their assessment of the movie. Judging any of those low scoring movies against this one would call into question RT as a reliable system.
It's not the best, but it's much better than many other shitty titles that have received much more positive reviews.Īnyways, it just made me mad that things like The Expendables, Olympus Has Fallen, Texas Chainsaw all got better RT scores because people went in expecting shit. However, I feel like being disappointed for so much wasted potential is fine, but saying the movie is terrible because it didn't live up to expectations isn't.
Others commented that Shyamalan should have been able to do better. He is much better in other roles but I don't think his acting in After Earth ruined the movie. Many commented that it was the wrong role for Will Smith, while this is true. Some complained about its pacing (not an unfair gripe) and others about its predictability (also quite true) but the majority of the feel I got from the reviews was disappointment rather than harsh dislike of the movie. I went on to Rotten Tomatoes to check out what the reviews actually said. But it was not bad enough to warrant reviews worse than any Fast and the Furious movie. After the movie ended I was decidedly confused as to why it received such piss poor reviews. I just went and saw After Earth despite its shockingly low 11% on Rotten Tomatoes.
0 kommentar(er)
