KotCS reviews in media

The Golden Idol said:
This doesn't make sense. Jaws has a 100% rating on RT but it's not "certified":

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jaws/


*sigh*


The lost art of reading...


From Rotten Tomatoes:


What is Certified Fresh?

Rotten Tomatoes awards the Certified Fresh accolade to theater releases reviewed by 40 or more Approved Tomatometer Critics (including 5 critics from the Cream of the Crop) that score at least 75% or higher on the Tomatometer. A film remains Certified Fresh unless its Tomatometer falls below 60%. Reserved for the best-reviewed films, the Certified Fresh accolade constitutes a seal of approval, synonymous with quality.

Rotten Tomatoes encourages use of the Certified Fresh accolade for editorial and marketing purposes. For rules and details, consult the media kit below. If you plan to use the Certified Fresh accolade to promote your product or if you have any questions regarding its use, let us know thru our online email form.








Jaws only has 33 reviews, thus not Certified.
 

The Golden Idol

New member
ResidentAlien said:
*sigh*


The lost art of reading...


From Rotten Tomatoes:


What is Certified Fresh?

Rotten Tomatoes awards the Certified Fresh accolade to theater releases reviewed by 40 or more Approved Tomatometer Critics (including 5 critics from the Cream of the Crop) that score at least 75% or higher on the Tomatometer. A film remains Certified Fresh unless its Tomatometer falls below 60%. Reserved for the best-reviewed films, the Certified Fresh accolade constitutes a seal of approval, synonymous with quality.

Rotten Tomatoes encourages use of the Certified Fresh accolade for editorial and marketing purposes. For rules and details, consult the media kit below. If you plan to use the Certified Fresh accolade to promote your product or if you have any questions regarding its use, let us know thru our online email form.








Jaws only has 33 reviews, thus not Certified.

Thank you, Mr. Alien.
 

otto rahn

New member
As usual an excellent review from Ebert. While I fully expect to not be able to see "KOTCS" for a while I WILL see it as soon as I can !
 

Skipper

New member
Honestly, Ebert's opinion is the main one I cared about. The positive reviews from other critics are just a bonus.
 

commontone

New member
I love Ebert's perspective and sensibilities about movies. Yeah, occasionally he seems to totally love a movie that virtually everyone else acknowledges as garbage (Garfield 2 for one). But even then, he presents his reasoning so well you can't fault the guy; he loves what he loves and explains it articulately.

What he described, about the waterfall scene, is the kind of "improbable" stuff I love about Indy. It reminds me of the Peru ship scene in Last Crusade, when he jumps off the boat, it blows up, and a life preserver casually floats within his reach. Or when he almost goes over the cliff in the desert, and his hat rolls to his feet once he gets back up.

I have a feeling that the Indy 4 critics who cite "patently ridiculous" moments in the action scenes "that strain credulity", are talking about stuff like this. What kind of movie did they think they were going to see?
 

Vendetta08

New member
I do not always agree with Ebert but most of the time he is right on the money. It's good to see he really enjoyed Crystal Skull(y)
 

Blue Jay

Member
me too, i think it is great that he "defended" his opinion in kotcs (y)

i love the part about the waterfall, too-

Rear projection is really old school! That is why it looks a lot like ToDs beginning.

Spielberg is great in his idea! Very nostalgic ;)
 

Mike Dowswell

New member
What I don?t understand is why Spielberg in several interviews says that he wanted...that he WANTED, to do the old style matte paintings composting like that of the first three films, but DIDN'T do it like the first three films...why would a director not fight for what he wanted to do?...that makes no sense what so ever.
 

MagicStick

New member
Mike Dowswell said:
What I don?t understand is why Spielberg in several interviews says that he wanted...that he WANTED, to do the old style matte paintings composting like that of the first three films, but DIDN'T do it like the first three films...why would a director not fight for what he wanted to do?...that makes no sense what so ever.

Four reasons: Money, Money, money and flexibility in post production.
 

gallandro

New member
Skipper said:
It's official: the media just WANTS Indy 4 to be bad. Today's "American voices" on the Onion says, "Following a screening of the long-awaited Indiana Jones movie at the Cannes Film Festival, reviews have been lukewarm at best. What do you think?"

I know it's The Onion and it just tries to be funny, but come on!

http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/indy_not_so_hot

I guess you didn't read the captions under the reviews... they are hilarious:

Greg Morris,
Bartender
"No worries. George Lucas will fix it 20 years from now."

Kira Pettibon,
Cabinet-Maker
"Uh-oh. Could this spell the end for Steven Spielberg?"

Chuck Migdol,
Private Detective
"Let's not jump to conclusions. How are the reviews of the Crystal Skull ancillary merchandising?"
 

Skipper

New member
gallandro said:
I guess you didn't read the captions under the reviews... they are hilarious
Yeah, I read the captions. I just think the premise of the question is flawed. The whole idea of "American Voices" is you take an actual news story and then have people give funny comments. The problem is, it's not true that Indy is a critical failure. I know it's just the Onion, and it's not a big deal, but there will be some people who see that and think, "Oh, Indy 4 must be getting bad reviews."
 
Skipper said:
Yeah, I read the captions. I just think the premise of the question is flawed. The whole idea of "American Voices" is you take an actual news story and then have people give funny comments. The problem is, it's not true that Indy is a critical failure. I know it's just the Onion, and it's not a big deal, but there will be some people who see that and think, "Oh, Indy 4 must be getting bad reviews."

I'm not sure how much you all understand about the Onion but this article is no way shape or form a reflection of the film. I don't even need to look at this because I read it so often. The pictures of the people you see are the same pictures they have been using for their polls since 2001.

It's a joke people...it's the Onion for Christ sakes, lol.

Next...you fanboys are going to be getting pissed off about what MADD magazine says about the film.
 

Munpa

New member
mindy muffles said:
Next...you fanboys are going to be getting pissed off about what MADD magazine says about the film.

That magazine is more credible than 48 positive reviews? ..mmh..
 

davejames

New member
Mike Dowswell said:
What I don?t understand is why Spielberg in several interviews says that he wanted...that he WANTED, to do the old style matte paintings composting like that of the first three films, but DIDN'T do it like the first three films...why would a director not fight for what he wanted to do?...that makes no sense what so ever.

I saw that quote too, but I don't think he was really serious about bringing back the matte paintings. It was an early idea, but I'm sure even he realized it might be too much for a 2008 film, Indy or no.

He said many times he would film the rest of the movie old-style though. Apparently that's something he DID cave in on a bit, at least from what I'm reading in the reviews.
 

Skipper

New member
mindy muffles said:
I'm not sure how much you all understand about the Onion but this article is no way shape or form a reflection of the film. I don't even need to look at this because I read it so often. The pictures of the people you see are the same pictures they have been using for their polls since 2001.

It's a joke people...it's the Onion for Christ sakes, lol.

Next...you fanboys are going to be getting pissed off about what MADD magazine says about the film.
I've been reading The Onion since 1997.
 

blueseattle

New member
Munpa said:
That magazine is more credible than 48 positive reviews? ..mmh..


The way we work in this world... you could have 80 positive reviews and as long as ten people hated it first, its going to be slammed.
 

Salacious

New member
Mike Dowswell said:
What I don?t understand is why Spielberg in several interviews says that he wanted...that he WANTED, to do the old style matte paintings composting like that of the first three films, but DIDN'T do it like the first three films...why would a director not fight for what he wanted to do?...that makes no sense what so ever.

Yeah, from what I've heard, the CG stands out like a sore thumb unfortunately. But I guess the Matte paintings did as well...so its a coin toss really.

But I prefer the old way with the actual people doing the stuntwork. You just dont get that through an entire movie these days...which makes it less enthralling IMO.
 

commontone

New member
Salacious said:
Yeah, from what I've heard, the CG stands out like a sore thumb unfortunately. But I guess the Matte paintings did as well...so its a coin toss really.

But I prefer the old way with the actual people doing the stuntwork. You just dont get that through an entire movie these days...which makes it less enthralling IMO.

I thought Harrison did as much stunt work on this as the other movies? And that they did most of it the old-fashioned way? That's what everyone has said.

And I'll believe it when I see it, but how is it that the CGI is bad or sticks out? Spielberg should know what he's doing. The CGI in War of the Worlds was breathtaking and basically indistinguishable from the real thing (like the brick church or highway overpass being destroyed).

Unless it was purposely made a little kitschy, it's really odd that the CGI would be subpar with these people involved (Spielberg, ILM). Maybe they ended up being rushed to finish it.
 
Top