No bashing the score of others, please, but....what did YOU rate it?


I gave it a 3.



The flat-brimmed baseball cap is the modern-day dunce cap.

reply

A 2 for some of the costuming and some of the sets, plus its rocky horror but pretty much everything sucked.

reply

I gave it a 4 for several performances and the unique opening. Not a barn burner, and several mis-casts, but not a total disaster either for a TV broadcast. Should have ponied up the money for an R rated feature or an HBO or Showtime special to stay closer to the spirit, edge and raunch of the original.

reply

I'd give it a 6.5 or a 7, mainly for Laverne Cox, she was so good and carried the show, Her singing impressed me, and her voice was pretty deep that if you use your imagination, you can believe that she is a man underneath a very convincing women's costume.

The original really wasn't THAT raunchy. The naughty stuff was all done in shadows and soft camera angles. I've seen a lot raunchier.

Don't say anything bad about Jojo
If she's a disciplinarian, I'm the Queen Of England!- Stella

reply

The rating bar isn't up at the moment it seems, maybe IMDB has decided that it needed to add negative stars to the rating system after this thing made it to exhibition.

"Man without relatives is man without troubles." Charlie Chan

reply

The rating bar isn't up at the moment it seems, maybe IMDB has decided that it needed to add negative stars to the rating system after this thing made it to exhibition.


The main page for the movie still has it listed as being in post production. Because of that, the rating bar is not up. After IMDb updates the movie's page and takes out the "in post production" status for the film, the rating bar will start appearing on the page.


Criminals:
The stupid ones get arrested,
The smart ones get re-elected.

reply

I couldn't give it a 0, so I gave it a 1.

reply

2 for effort. P.U.

reply

I gave it a 4 at first, because I was mildly entertained during some of the musical numbers and I sort of liked Reeve Carney's portrayal of Riff Raff, but after having had a few days to think about it, I'm left with a bad taste in my mouth, so I will probably go back and lower my vote one or two points. Some slightly not-awful song renditions and a few fair to middling acting performances don't really merit a 4 in my opinion. Especially when there were more aggravating factors than mitigating ones.

The fact that they not only cast a woman in Frank's role, but had the audacity to turn the actual character into a female, really annoys me and I know I'm far from the only one. I have some additional problems with the casting of Laverne Cox, but that'll take this post off on a tangent, so I'll leave my reasons about that for another time.

I think I was initially trying too hard to give this movie a chance because I knew it had some very big shoes to fill, but then I realized that nobody forced the producers to make this film, so it shouldn't get a pass simply because the original is so hard to live up to. At the end of the day, it was just a bad movie with some bad casting choices and directing decisions and my score should reflect what it was, not what it was trying to be.

reply

3.

I would also give unsweetened, unspiced Cream of Wheat a 3. Its edible, won't kill you, is blandly unpleasant going down, and you really don't want to repeat the experience.

Oh, and you're not likely to finish the whole bowl.

reply