| binary solo said: @ selnor: apologies for not writing clearly. At no time did I intend to suggest either that BHD or We Were Soldiers were great movies. In fact I don't believe I used the word great in connection to those movies. I merely said a G(e)oW movie would never rise to their level. Greatness was attributed to to Starship troopers by someone else and I was refuting that particular claim by laying some foundations to what constitutes a great movie. Sorry for any confusion. @ slowmo: If you have to qualify a term such as "good" when describing the quality of a movie then the movie is not good. At best it is passably entertaining. And as a zombie flick it really isn't that good for even by the standards of that the genre. You have to go to the level of sub-genre to give it the descriptor "good for it's genre". Yo-John: Yes plenty of people would go see a Halo movie. But that doesn't guarantee commercial success. You better hope this Halo: the Fall of Reach movie project gets decent treatment, because if it is made on the cheap it's goodnight nurse for any movie based on the story from the games. |
No I was merely highlighting that certain genres get panned by the critics regardless of their quality. You will not see many films from the horror genre at the oscars, you rarely see big blockbuster action films nominated either, an example of this is the fact Jackson had to release a entire trilogy of epic films just to get his best director award. If you want to judge movies by critics with an agenda standards I'm fine but don't have the nerve to say my opinion is wrong.
Resident Evil is a good film, it's obviously not got the dialogue or the budget of a epic modern film like Gladiator but it didn't need it. The term good for it's genre was to highlight that if you enjoy the genre then you'd enjoy that film. I don't expect fans of romantic comedies to like the film and vice versa in some cases.
