By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Why is the Metacritic Film section full of crap?

colonelstubbs on 18 December 2008
Onyxmeth said:
bugrimmar said:
i'm also seeing gladiator and braveheart in the 60's. i mean come on. how do you win best picture, best actor, best director, and best whatever in the oscars and then get a 60 something rating in metacritic?

Regarding Before Sunset, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "nothing an 8 year old can't figure out". Should romantic movies be complicated or something? Personally I don't think an 8 year old would sit through a movie taken as a single scene full of nothing but dialogue and underlying emotions bubbling under the surface for 90 minutes. Personally, I think that movie has some of the best pacing I've ever seen.

Now about Gladiator and Braveheart, I know a lot of people like them, so I'm going to take my own comments as utter blasphemy, but I don't think either movie deserved Best Picture. Also understand the Academy will always favor Fall movies and ones with good awards consideration campaigns. That's how Shakespeare in Love beat out Saving Private Ryan. Superior awards campaign.

Also when you refer to one of the movies as having won "best picture, best actor, best director, and best whatever", which one are you talking about? Braveheart never won Best Actor and Gladiator never won Best Director.

 

That decision was an absolute disgrace if you ask me

 



I hope my 360 doesn't RRoD
         "Suck my balls!" - Tag courtesy of Fkusmot

Around the Network
konnichiwa on 18 December 2008

Memory of a Killer,  73

Oh that is nice! Go Erik Van looy!

And WTF no La vita e' bella ?






Onyxmeth on 18 December 2008
bugrimmar said:
meh, a movie that doesn't offer anything new isn't worth high praise.

on the note of the oscars, well i've disagreed with the academy a fair share of times as well. but they don't give awards for no reason. they aren't completely idiotic. so i will tend to give them the nod of trust over critics, because critics have messed up more times than i can remember over movies i love.

the examples i gave, groundhog day, the godfather 2 and 3, braveheart, gladiator, are masterpieces in my eyes. critics trash them for some reason, so i put my stake with the academy, and say the critics are insane. i just think that the critics are trying hard to find flaws in those movies because of some weird bias. i dunno.

You aren't trusting the Academy over the critics at all. They are basically one and the same. Those same reviewers get together at the end of the year and vote on these Awards, same as the actors, directors, techs, editors, etc. It's just a pool of Hollywood people voting. I'd rather trust the possibly less biased reviewer than the actor voting in his own movie for Best Picture. My point still stands though. You can't say the reviewers are wrong and use the Academy as an example, because the reviews come before them.

Do note that Godfather Part 3 didn't win Best Picture and Groundhogs Day wasn't nominated for anything, so how exactly does the Academy agree with you there? Plus Godfather 3 actually won two Razzies. That should tell you something.

 

 



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



super_etecoon on 18 December 2008

Are you looking at the user reviews? That's probably not the best place to look.



bugrimmar on 18 December 2008

well just tell me how gladiator and braveheart can possibly score that low. i just cannot fathom it. sure, leave the oscars out of it.



Around the Network
Onyxmeth on 18 December 2008
colonelstubbs said:
Onyxmeth said:
bugrimmar said:
i'm also seeing gladiator and braveheart in the 60's. i mean come on. how do you win best picture, best actor, best director, and best whatever in the oscars and then get a 60 something rating in metacritic?

Regarding Before Sunset, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "nothing an 8 year old can't figure out". Should romantic movies be complicated or something? Personally I don't think an 8 year old would sit through a movie taken as a single scene full of nothing but dialogue and underlying emotions bubbling under the surface for 90 minutes. Personally, I think that movie has some of the best pacing I've ever seen.

Now about Gladiator and Braveheart, I know a lot of people like them, so I'm going to take my own comments as utter blasphemy, but I don't think either movie deserved Best Picture. Also understand the Academy will always favor Fall movies and ones with good awards consideration campaigns. That's how Shakespeare in Love beat out Saving Private Ryan. Superior awards campaign.

Also when you refer to one of the movies as having won "best picture, best actor, best director, and best whatever", which one are you talking about? Braveheart never won Best Actor and Gladiator never won Best Director.

 

That decision was an absolute disgrace if you ask me

 

I was going to use the Brokeback Mountain losing to Crash example, but I figured there were too many homophobes for that to ring as profoundly in the head's of readers.

 



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



bugrimmar on 18 December 2008

speaking of crash, it only got a 69 in meta. i personally loved crash. that's another example



Onyxmeth on 18 December 2008
bugrimmar said:
well just tell me how gladiator and braveheart can possibly score that low. i just cannot fathom it. sure, leave the oscars out of it.

Anything can score that low. Frankly, I agree with both scores. I don't think either movie is all that great, and I think big budget war-like epics get a free pass come Oscar time. Then again so do big budget ship sinking movies too.

 



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



bugrimmar on 18 December 2008

and then tripe like before sunset (90) and knocked up (85) get better ratings? come on.



super_etecoon on 18 December 2008

Have you compared the results to Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB?