Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian Rey 2.0
Yes. A 3.7. From fans. Critic reviews there, shockingly, are saying the same thing on Rotten Tomatoes. But alas, it's not what you want to hear so I guess it need not count.
YouTube? Really? How many trailers on there get countless likes only to be absolutely shitty movies?
The real barometer is going to be box office. Money talks. The positive reviews the film is getting will likely help but moviegoer word of mouth will also play a big role in whether it's going to crash and burn or be a hit.
|
I personally don't value the opinions of critics. I never have. (That's because I'm not a sheep.) The so-called "experts" are merely human beings (who put their pants on one leg at a time like me) screening a flick.
Besides, the photoplays they approve of, I typically find to be garbage. Reviewers are more then likely compensated by producers (and/or other influential figures) to praise their reels, and if they don't get enough cash from a certain company, they proceed to trash it.
The reason why I feel that way is because motion pictures have much more power over all citizens then some people realize. Films influence the world. Thus, they are essentially propaganda tools and they are all advertising something, so they require critical assessment and careful interrogation if we are to understand what they say about the concerns and values of those who favor them.
Some may argue that cinema should not be intensely viewed on a personal level and that they are just stories with little or no public bearing. Without any elaboration, popular opinion overall is that movie-viewing is a leisure activity that should be completed and forgotten until the next showing. This perspective is too casual and cavalier. Since studio executives and their clients do not exist in cultural vacuums, any motion picture should be seen as a commentary that is expressive of the society it's born in and as a form of expression for the audience who enjoys them.
In the case of "Ghostbusters" - More then likely this was created because the Clinton campaign is attempting to promote the notion that women in charge would be better for society and "the professional commentators" are naturally praising this long Democrat commercial.
Well, you know what the majority of the public is saying? We don't desire for females to be anything other then helpers like The Good Lord intended. Why do we feel that way? Besides for biblical reasons, women haven't prove themselves in society. If a chick's honor is insulted, instead of running to a man for protection, more broad's need to start handling things themselves.
They also need to kill more insects and not shriek and ask their boyfriend or husband to handle it. Madams should also check out that strange noise they hear in their living room and not look for a knight in shining armor to do it, and girls should offer to not only buy their own drinks, but insist (angrily if they have to) that they buy the guy's beverage too, and if another 9/11 happens and the ones with penises aren't there quick enough, skirts need to step up and help out, and do other things men have been doing for thousands of years, and they need to do a better job then us.
Then more folks might accept a picture about a team of nothing but dames fighting ghosts or other forms of evil.