WTF are crtics thinking


Ok I am starting to think critics are big phonies. This was one of the bet films I have seen this year and it gets a 48% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Honestly i think critics are being paid by movie companies to praise their film and then when they review other films they put it down. This movie was shot beautifully and had great acting and great directing. If films like Forrest Gump and American Hustle are are in the 90 percent range why is this not.
The secret life of walter mitty is on my best movies of 2013 list.

reply

The Critics also gave "The Third Man" and "2001" bad reviews when they came out. So Who Cares. Overall Walter Mitty wasn't that Bad. I mean if you want to see how bad a movie can be. Check Out "Troll 2".

reply

Totally with ya. I was actually stunned by how good the film actually was, after seeing a couple of mildly-to-moderately negative reviews. I absolutely loved it -- screamingly funny at times without being mean-spirited or vulgar, with decent people, true-to-life observations (like the whole downsizing thing and the people involved in it), absolutely gorgeous cinematography, really a great updating of Thurber's story with a lot of elements that really made sense, and a very human sort of feel to the whole thing. Just could not recommend it more strongly.

reply

Monaghan, I agree with you completely. I gave this movie a 8 out of 10 stars and almost gave a 9. That's why I try to look at all reviews (critics and users) and then I just trust my gut.

My only disappointment is that if it had gotten better reviews, more people may have gone out to see it. It is such a nice, inspiring movie. Wish I had checked it out earlier.



Follow me on twitter @sydsmoviepicks

reply

I agree with you. So many people are short sighted these days.

reply

I agree, well put.

Smile, you're on camera

reply

This movie was terrible, the critics had it right with this one. It was boring and was very predictable (spoiler alert: he ends up with the girl!) I also agree with some of the critics that under a different director it may have been a better movie but with Stiller directing it just fails

reply

I don't know how people can apologize for the product placement or have it not bother them. It is put in there ONLY to promote a product, the brands were not essential to the story, and is so glaringly obvious in this move it jars you out of the story. Generic equivalents of all the companies could have been used. The Cinnabon was the absolute worst and had no place being in there whatsoever, at least the others had some involvement in forwarding the plot so some small consolation could be given.

(comment brought to you by Carl's Junior)

reply

I will just copy/paste what I said in another thread :

All the people saying "omg how can this be only 7.4 etc..." are wrong. This is a movie a bit better than average imo, but definitely not a must see, definitely not a very good or great movie. The movie that comes to mind when you see this is Forrest Gump, and unfortunately for tSLoWT it pales in comparison to Forrest Gump cause one is a classical movie and the other one is (just) an okay movie. (I won't even talk about the Truman Show).
Watching tSLoWM once you've seen Forrest Gump is like watching Carlito's Way once you've seen the Godfather, or watching Air Force One once you've seen Die Hard. You know you have watched a decent movie, but you also know that you have seen far better years ago.

PS: Product placement was not an issue for me, this doesn't make this movie better or worse.

reply