Dr Mabuse

Mel Gibson's 'Apocalypto' is the GREATEST film ever made in the history of cinema...

i... uhhhh... you know couldn't resist and stuff...

jiggawhat

We know it's an opinion, but the opinion should be related to the movie not related to the director's antics off the set and how the reviewers feels about it.

DVD Josh

RockStrongo

So true...The work should stand on its own.

jiggawhat

If I posted about hating a review and said that, for example, "I found Josh Z's review reprehensible and stupid because he hates chocolate and loves bunnies" I think everyone would say that I am totally wrong.

Supermallet

It's a shame, then, jigga, that I based my review of the film on the things I found to be wrong with the film itself.

Not to derail the thread even further, but The Hulk is the only Ang Lee film I like. I loved the sense of experimentation Lee brought to the picture. It elevated it beyond a standard comic book movie. I could watch the editing in it endlessly. And I enjoyed Bana as Banner. Should be interesting to see where the new one goes, since it's a complete reboot.

Shannon Nutt

Hmmm, I wonder how he'd feel about a chocolate bunny.

darkside

Wow, watching people defend Apocalypto is like watching people defend cancer. Glad some of you liked it, but I wish it could have gotten negative stars. Terrible film from a terrible director. If I had to choose between watching this or Norbit and death wasn't an option I would probably watch Norbit. That is just how awful Apocalypto is.

Gondor

So what´s wrong with running and killing all of a sudden. Don´t take it so seriously. Bring out a six-pack of beer or two like I did and have a good time with it.

Josh Z

So if Roman Polanski decides to direct the most artistic and beautiful film ever made about older men drugging and having sex with 13 year old girls, you'd be fine with that?

Houstondon

I like a bit of background in the opening of a movie review and what a reviewer chooses to comment about is a good guide to their biases (like Josh's HD DVD review of We Were Soldiers comes to mind). I'm also no fan of the "star rating" system since some people jump on that more than the text based rating, both appealing to the LCD crowd more than I care for.

With seven reviews of the movie, DVD Talk has balanced coverage ranging from Skip It to Recommended; each coming with a different take on the movie. That alone should consider it worth checking out but some of the comments in the thread make me wonder how narrowly some of you either view the reviews ("I never read them"; making me wonder why that type feels the need to comment at all on them) or what they should contain.

Attacking the reviewer isn't going to foster a willingness for them to change their ways nearly as well as constructive criticism written in a thoughtful manner. As others have said, they are just opinions so don't get so wrapped up in them as though they were the end of civilization as we know it.

ResIpsa

I dunno, giving a film a "zero star" rating seems less like an opinion and more like an attack simply because the reviewer dislikes the director and what he has done in his personal life. Apocalypto was no Lawrence of Arabia but neither was it a Goodburger.

As for the introductory bio-stuff, it pertains not a whit to the movie and appears to have been inserted purely to slam on Gibson.

Paul Mavis

Welcome to Goodburger, home of the Goodburger, may I ask you to leave me out of this thread, please?

ResIpsa

I love playing the straight man...

blindzero

Well I can see the hoopla over giving Hulk 0 Stars. It is after all an intelligent super hero film (even if it degrades into a pile of poo in the end).

I think the hoopla here is because the review just didnt sound THAT bad. I can think of 0 star reviews elsewhere where the film is just ripped on and you can see what the reviewer didn't like. I can't here. This just looks like an attack disguised as a 0 star review.

Tarantino

What?

I think he meant that what the director does off screen shouldn't pertain to the the actual review. If the opinion was based on the film itself, it'd be different. Not sure where you were going with that one, Josh Z.

He's saying that if Mel made a movie about drunk driving and calling Jewish people names, he'd be fine with the review. Alas, Apolcolypto wasn't about that, but hey, it came up in the review anyway.

= J

Josh H

Exactly. Something about the talent's personal life is fine in a review when it is directly related to the content of the review.

The Gibson stuff isn't related to Apocalypto, and even more blatantly the libelous Costner drug shit certainly has nothing to do with Mr. Brooks.

Josh Z

I think it's pretty clear where I'm going with it. Maybe it's possible for someone to make a really good movie about adult men having sex with underage girls. But Roman Polanski, as talented a filmmaker as he is, should never make that movie, because the personal baggage he brings would overshadow the movie he's trying to make.

Likewise, this is simply not a good time for Mel Gibson to be making movies about non-Christian "savages".

If you don't think that the personal lives of filmmakers or actors have any affect on the public perceptions of the movies they make, look at the disappointing box office for Mission Impossible III that resulted because the audience was fed up with Tom Cruise's wacko behavior on the Today Show and other places. Was that fair? Maybe not. Nonetheless, it happened and it's relevant to discuss in a review of the movie.

Movies are a product. They're put together using elements designed to best sell that product: the right star, the right director, the right subject matter. If one of those elements goes bad and the public turns against it, that very much affects the final outcome of the movie.

Here's another analogy. Suppose Jerry Bruckheimer decided to make a new summer action movie starring OJ Simpson. He put together a great supporting cast, a great director and a great script, and technically OJ's performance in the movie is fine. Do you think that movie would sell? Do you think it would be possible for a film critic to write a review of that movie without mentioning the elephant in the room, that it's incredibly creepy to watch OJ Simpson on screen shooting guns and killing people? Think about that.

Josh H

What is your proof that the box office was disappointing mainly because of his antics and not that the fact that it was the third installment in a series (with series almost always drawing less and less with each sequel) that followed up a critically and generally loathed M:I-2?

Many people assumed it was to do with Cruise, and I'm sure some stayed away. But I imagine it was more just that it was pretty much a dead franchise and would have been disappointing at the Box Office regardless of Cruise's actions.

As for Gibson, I don't think the bad time to make a movie about non-christian savage's bit is very valid, and getting at the other review discussed here the Costner drug bit certainly isn't relevant to the content of Mr. Brooks. In a similar reign, notice how M:I 3 got fairly good reviews, despite Cruise's antics--his antics were not related to the movie and most decent reviewers thus didn't hold that against the film.

And again, with the OJ example that is somewhat related to the film given his murderous past, and the film shows him shooting and killing. Again a far cry from the Costner drug bit, and IMO the Gibson non-Christian spiel. As I said, personal stuff can come into play when it is directly related to the content of the movie.

Adam Tyner

How does someone go about proving that? Personally, I do think his behavior had a very significant impact on the box office.

For what it's worth, Mission: Impossible II outgrossed the first one, and it's not unusual for a series to rake in more cash as it goes along either. (Pirates of the Caribbean -- at least for the first sequel, Lord of the Rings, Austin Powers, etc.)

Josh H

I agree, it's worthless conjecture either way, which is my point. Neither of us can prove the point, as we have no way of knowing which had more impact on the box office.

Yet he was tossing out as fact that it was Cruise's antics.

Spiderbite

Just read this review of Apocalypto and wondered who pissed in this guy's cornflakes?

This is probably one of the worst, most biased reviews I have ever read of a movie here on DVDTalk. Hope Geoff didn't pay for it.

Brent L

I wasn't going to post in this thread but after I actually read the two main reviews in question, Apocalypto and Mr. Brooks, I finally decided to comment. I haven't really complained about the reviews here at DVDTalk, other than poking fun at some of the reviews of Paul Mavis (again, even that was just in fun). But now, well, I must say that in my opinion, the reviews here at DVDTalk have really went downhill. I'm not quite sure what happened, or what this is, but it's something I've started to notice more and more. I'd say that I first started to notice it about 6-8 months ago or so.

When I first joined this site, I really enjoyed all of the reviews for the most part. Even when I didn't actually agree with the review at all, I felt that I could trust the opinions. To simply put it, I felt that I was reading an honest, non-biased, review of a DVD/film. Now, however, I don't feel that at all. I've seen more and more bias revealed in more and more reviews posted here. I do not feel that I can trust the reviews as I once did. I'm not talking about all of the reviews here, there's a few reviewers here who I still fell the same way about, that I can trust their opinion, even when I don't agree with them.

I feel that some of the reviewers not only allow their personal opinion on certain actors and directors to totally sway their opinion on the actual film they are reviewing, and even if it isn't true, I also feel that some reviewers have started to post controversial reviews and give certain films very bad scores, just for the sake of doing so. Have it be to get more hits for the site or the individual review, I don't know. I just know that I have noticed a huge drop in quality and professionalism here in the review section of the site.

I should also mention that I've always considered a DVD/film review just that, a review of the DVD and/or film in question, and not a review of the personal lives and opinions of all of the filmmakers involved in the production. The only time I find it acceptable for the personal lives and opinions of the filmmakers to be mentioned in such reviews is when it directly affects the finished product of the film itself. Other than that, it's best to leave that sort of thing to the trash mags like Us Weekly.

Anyway, I'm just trying to say that I don't feel as confident trusting many of the reviews posted here anymore, not how I used to be. I know that I'm not the only one that feels like this as well, so it most certainly isn't just me.

Paul Mavis

That's funny. Brent only mentioned my name here.

And I started writing here at DVDTalk a little over 8 months ago.














HEY!

Brent L

I wouldn't have made a cartoon about you if I didn't enjoy your reviews at least a little bit.