Best movie of the year? How about one of the worst.
Just read my review for my take on this turkey. http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/29174/danny-collins/
Goat at Ruthless Reviews
Just read my review for my take on this turkey. http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/29174/danny-collins/
Goat at Ruthless Reviews
Well, it looks like me, 78% of the critics and most of the IMDB users who have rated the movie all disagree with you.
shareWhere do you get your figures? I'm looking at 7.5 from the general population of users, and a 58/100 from Metacritic Reviewers. The jury is still out on this one, with a paltry 52 reviews from professional critics like myself.
Goat at Ruthless Reviews
OK, I did some research. There were 29 reviews tracked by Metacritic with a composite 58/100, which is not very good. The breakdown is:
1-88
1-80
4-75
1-70
1-68
1-67
7-63
4-60
1-58
3-50
5-40
Not exactly what you would expect of movie where people are talking Oscar.
Goat at Ruthless Reviews
Where are you hearing Oscar from? From what I can see, everyone is just saying its a charming, moving, funny film with a great performance from Pacino. Which is spot on.
And look at Rotten Tomatoes. There's a ton more professional critic reviews on there than Metacritic and it has a 78% score. Not sure why Metacritic stopped taking reviews on this film so early on, but I would say RT has a much better feel for the pulse of this movie as it has 3 times as many critic reviews.
I see the Rotten Tomato reviews now, they were not showing up yesterday when I checked. You are correct in your 78%, and we will see after the movie has had more exposure. I'm not infallible, but I just did not like the presentation at all. The Oscar talk was, of course, within this message base. I'm not likely to change my mind on this one, but I appreciate your comments.
Goat at Ruthless Reviews
I enjoyed the film but of course respect your right to your own opinion, I would just mention 1 thing about these review aggregator sites like RT and Metacritic. Both of those sites can at times provide wildly (or mildly) skewed assessments of the reception to a film - especially the ones which are neither univerally acclaimed or universally loathed - so the huge majority.
It's because each traffic in a certain selection process - RT often including not really "professional" critics or at least not very important ones and Metacritic being very selective in who they sample to the point of being exclusonary to some extent.
I recently watched a film, a documentary named Cropsey which is 90% on RT, 73% Metacritic and 6.4 on IMDB - wildly divergent ratings that are affected by the type of film it is (documentaries often get a free pass), the available sample of reviews (not every media outlet would review a documentary), the cross section of the two (larger media outlets may hold such a film to the standard of other documentaries rather than its own merits).
Just wanted to mention that, I think people often use RT or Metacritic as a sort of shorthand "guide" which it sometimes can be, but each can be deceptive too.
I use the Metacritic rating almost exclusively to help me decide if I want to see a movie or not. If I'm planning on reviewing, I usually do not even read any of the reviews. Sometimes there is a divergence between the User ratings and the professional, or published critics. I generally want to know as little as possible about the opinion of others before I write a review. With Danny Collins, the conclusion to give it a negative review was an easy one. I can understand the appeal, but based on what I saw, the movie missed its mark.
Goat at Ruthless Reviews
I haven't read your review yet, as I can't open the link on this computer, but I agree - it's a dreadful, lousy flick, one of the worst I've seen in my life.
In the interests of fairness, I saw it in a cinema with a very poor sound system - it was almost drowned out by While We're Young from next door, which we had seen the night before and had complained about the low volume!
But even allowing for that, this struck me as a music movie made by people who knew nothing about music (and very little about movies). The unrealistic gig/"crowd" scenes, the fading star with only ONE song (like Kris Kristofferson in A Star Is Born, and the only song he seems to perform, Watch Closely Now!), the actual confusion over who is he exactly supposed to be like? A Sixties protest-type singer who ends up as a Barry Manilow lounge act (albeit playing enormodomes)? Maybe, we opined, Neil Diamond, but Diamond in the main has stayed true to his "rock" roots and never went as "cabaret" as Collins does in this movie. Whoever it was, would EVERYONE recognise him, from the valet parker to the middle-aged hotel manager? I bet an awful lot of people under 25 wouldn't recognise Neil Diamond or Road Stewart if they bumped into them.
Which megastar plays his biggest (and, it would appear, only) song as his opening number every night? And if Collins is as self-obsessed an a-hole as we're led to believe, would a couple of catcalls put him off unveiling his new magnum opus and cause him to revert to his Greatest Hit so quickly? Any singer I know, were they showing us their "New Direction" (thank you Spinal Tap) would just say "OK, shut up now, we'll get to those songs later, I want you to hear this new song" - and the audience WOULD shut up (not that they'd be shouting for Baby Doll during the first song just because he was opening with a number they didn't recognise!) It was a bar with a couple of dozen people, he wasn't being shouted down by a 10,000 crowd!
The music aside (and Pacino didn't convince as a performer, much as I love him), it ticked every clichéd box - doting, pregnant wife, terminal illness, estranged family healing the wounds, annoyingly cute kid, will they/won't they romance, loyal servant/friend (Gielgud in Arthur, anyone?) - if you enjoyed it, great, I'm honestly not judging anyone and can see how a lot of people might see it as sentimental, entertaining fare, but as a music fanatic, gig-goer and movie lover, to me it was like hearing nails on a blackboard.
I'm a Prick With a Fork.
I like your insight. I hope you can read my review at some point.
Goat at Ruthless Reviews
"Just read my review"...at which point I stopped reading your post.
shareOh, does that make you hard core? My review contained my take on the movie and I didn't see any sense in just typing it out again. If you are too lazy or stupid to click a link, then I have no hope for you.
Goat at Ruthless Reviews
These days every amateur blogger seem to think they are big time movie critics.. I read your review, what a yawner - to use one of your phrases.. Your lazy half-baked complaints include Plummers hat and that Pacino didn't act like a mobster... Great film criticism indeed.Yawn..
shareThanks for reading it, that is all I can ask.
Goat at Ruthless Reviews
You sound like pretentious prick, the movie is okay, nothing groundbreaking, no garbage neither.
shareAgreed and if this is the worst movie of the year it will be a good year for movies...
shareYes this movie was disapointing. Poor directing, and just groan worthy for big chunks of it.
Bobby Cannavale was the best thing in it, Pacino was a let down, he just seems like a shadow of his former acting self, hell, he's more like a bad parady of himself nowdays, he wasn't funny or interesting, just tiresome as Danny Collins. I can't remember the last decent film he was in....I only watched it due to a good review that said this was a return to form for Pacino, turns out not to be the case. I think we've long seen the best of Al.
Christopher Plummer's a good actor, but i wasn't buying his performance here. Overall I felt disengaged watching this film, and was glad when it had finished.
This is maybe a long way of saying i agree with the op's review of this film, crap!