Gotta take issue with Kevin Carr's underworld review

[BradleyGibson]

I saw "Underworld" today, and I have to say I somewhat disagree with Kevin's assessment.

It didn't rock my world, but it wasn't bad either. I didn't have any particular problem following the plot, despite some fairly interesting twists and turns.

Would I see it again? Nah.

But I enjoyed it, I love the black leather, and the washed out "blue and white" look. And Kate's just hot in leather...

It was a good solid rock em sock em horror show, which, I gather, is all it was meant to be. Black Leather Brain Candy. My kinda fun!

Nothing wrong with that. Knew that going in ... :)

I enjoyed it the same way I did "Blade."

Now, "Daredevil", and "Blade II", those I had problems with. At least the actors in "Underworld" seemed to be somewhat engaged in the narrative..

B

[El Duderino Diablo]

I too saw Underworld today and my sentiments are pretty much the same as yours, Bradley. It was a good dose of bloody leather and latex fun.
That sounds an awful lot like what I imagine Friday night at the local dungeon would be like.
And I really like Blade, love BLade II and absolutely detest DareDevil, for whatever that's worth.

[KevinCarr]

Thanks for the note about the "Underworld" review. I think the real interesting thing is what we all thought about some of the other similar films, especially Blade II. (I think we can all agree that Daredevil was a piece of crap:D )

I loved Blade (although there was a lot of unnecessary posing in that as well). One of the most innovative and coolest vampire films in a long time. But I hated Blade II. I still thought BII was better than Underworld, though - and I really wanted to like Underworld.

And I loved seeing Kate Beckinsale in leather, but I don't think they really shot her all that well. Every time we'd come to see a nice shot of her, they'd cut to something else. At least when they showed Jennifer Garner in Daredevil, they showed her off in leather. In some ways, it looked like they were trying to hide the best parts of kate in UW.

I will admit that the actors in Underworld were totally committed to their roles (unlike Daredevil where everyone was just collecting a paycheck). Sometimes a little too much, and it was a bit hard to take - for me, at least.

I will say that I do respect Wiseman's choice to not overdo the CGI. It's nice to see a modern director who doesn't want to animate everything (like they did with the werewolves in "An American Werewolf in Paris"). One of my favorite vampire movies is Coppola's "Dracula." Say what you want to about the adaptation and acting, but the way he went back to the old school method of movie making was really awesome.

Thanks for the feedback!

K

[Pete Vonder Haar]

I responded to my viewing "Underworld" this weekend with resounding indifference. Beckinsdale was indeed fetching, but I agree with Kevin that the deadly earnestness of every freaking character got tiresome early on.

And it's good to hear someone else is sick of the pansy vampires made popular by Rice and her ilk (the character of Kraven being the perfect example...and who the hell names anyone "Kraven?" Why not "Chickenshit" or "Yellowbelly?"). Another question; why do the vampires (with the exception of Viktor and the guy with the whips) have to fight with guns? Aren't they super-strong and unnaturally swift?

If there'd been more fight scenes, and more gore (for an R-rated vampire movie, there was suprisingly little blood), I might have liked it better. And maybe if the "Abomination" actually turned into something, I dunno, abominable. As it was, "Underworld" was a diversion that I really wouldn't recommend one way or the other.

Oh, and it's rather difficult to work up any sympathy for the love interest (Scott Speedman) when he looks like the lead singer for Creed. I hated him instantly.

[thorshammer]

Now that my first attempt was canned, let's try it again...

Kevin, did you even watch this movie.

1)Wishy-washy vamps are why Selene awoke Victor. You missed that.
2)Too serious? Are you serious? Well, it wasn't humorous, if that's what you mean.
3)The movie is NOT about a turf was, it's about the fight between two different types of creatures.
4)Why don't lycans attack in daylight? Good question, maybe it'll be answered in the sequal, but it's hardly an unaswerable question.
5)It tries to be the Matrix(CRINGE)? How so? Oh, that's right. Selene jacks into the net and tries to give Micheal the blue pill while agent Victor goes around trying to kill him...Alright, Selene's constume and all of 3 minutes of action sequences. Yeah, definately like the Matrix.....
6)The plot was vacuous if you weren't paying attention. Yes, indeed.

The last paragraph of review is still making me wonder what you were doing through the movie. My guess is this. You had a few prior to going in, had a squabble with your girlfriend through the middle and then passed out before the end.

Underworld ***/****
Kevin's Review */****(Hey, I was nice enough to give a full star)

[KevinCarr]

Wow. I think I've gotten more flack about this review than when I gave high ratings to the new Matrix movies...

To answer your questions, yes. I did watch this movie - every excruciating frame of it (even the credits).

1) I didn't miss anything. The wishy-washy vamp comment was made in context of the now-popular Anne Rice style of vampire: the brooding, angst-filled heroine-chic style vampire. The vampires fell unapologetically into this category - just loafing around, enjoying the pleasures of the flesh. The director admits that he went "more Anne Rice than Blade" in an interview he did on FilmThreat (http://www.filmthreat.com/Interviews.asp?Id=686). I just personally am bored with this kind of vampire.

2) Yes. Too serious. Waaaaaay too serious. The film was so pretentious. Did you go to the web site and see the character descriptions? They were taking themselves seriously waaaaay too seriously the whole time.

3) You're right. This was about a fight between two different types of creatures. But guess what. It was still a turf war. Most battles are about turf, anyway, and who controls it.

4) Why should I have to wait for a sequel to get an answer to such a painfully obvious question. This was just sloppy writing.

5) How does it try to be the Matrix??? Have *you* seen this movie? Hmmm... let me see. Heros running around in long, black trenchcoats firing weapons and leaping with superhuman abilities - all in slow motion to a hard rock underscore (in a lot more than just 3 minutes of action). Naw, this was nothing like the Matrix. Heck, when I saw the trailer, I said to myself, "Looks like a vampire Matrix movie." The story wasn't like the Matrix, but like most action films made after the summer of 1999, they've all adopted their own Matrix-style. Look, I'm not the first person to make this comparison. In fact, I started out my review by saying "I've also heard it called a horror version of The Matrix."

6) Yes, I was paying attention. And the plot was vacuous. Oh, it had stuff going on, but nothing original or new - yet it was presented as if it was the most creative, worthwhile piece of art around. The plot twists were trite and predictable, and the characters were deplorable.

Finally, I'd like to thank you for your last paragraph. Thanks for not stooping to raw insults. Why not call me fat as well? I guess everyone who doesn't like "Underworld" must be a fall-down drunk who just had a fight with his girlfriend.

Thanks for your feedback.

Kevin "sober, happily married and not sleeping" Carr

[thorshammer]

Originally posted by KevinCarr
Wow. I think I've gotten more flack about this review than when I gave high ratings to the new Matrix movies...

To answer your questions, yes. I did watch this movie - every excruciating frame of it (even the credits).

1) I didn't miss anything. The wishy-washy vamp comment was made in context of the now-popular Anne Rice style of vampire: the brooding, angst-filled heroine-chic style vampire. The vampires fell unapologetically into this category - just loafing around, enjoying the pleasures of the flesh. The director admits that he went "more Anne Rice than Blade" in an interview he did on FilmThreat (http://www.filmthreat.com/Interviews.asp?Id=686). I just personally am bored with this kind of vampire.

2) Yes. Too serious. Waaaaaay too serious. The film was so pretentious. Did you go to the web site and see the character descriptions? They were taking themselves seriously waaaaay too seriously the whole time.

3) You're right. This was about a fight between two different types of creatures. But guess what. It was still a turf war. Most battles are about turf, anyway, and who controls it.

4) Why should I have to wait for a sequel to get an answer to such a painfully obvious question. This was just sloppy writing.

5) How does it try to be the Matrix??? Have *you* seen this movie? Hmmm... let me see. Heros running around in long, black trenchcoats firing weapons and leaping with superhuman abilities - all in slow motion to a hard rock underscore (in a lot more than just 3 minutes of action). Naw, this was nothing like the Matrix. Heck, when I saw the trailer, I said to myself, "Looks like a vampire Matrix movie." The story wasn't like the Matrix, but like most action films made after the summer of 1999, they've all adopted their own Matrix-style. Look, I'm not the first person to make this comparison. In fact, I started out my review by saying "I've also heard it called a horror version of The Matrix."

6) Yes, I was paying attention. And the plot was vacuous. Oh, it had stuff going on, but nothing original or new - yet it was presented as if it was the most creative, worthwhile piece of art around. The plot twists were trite and predictable, and the characters were deplorable.

Finally, I'd like to thank you for your last paragraph. Thanks for not stooping to raw insults. Why not call me fat as well? I guess everyone who doesn't like "Underworld" must be a fall-down drunk who just had a fight with his girlfriend.

Thanks for your feedback.

Kevin "sober, happily married and not sleeping" Carr

Well, you and every critic that gave it less than 2 out of 4 stars deserves flack(although I had no big problems with either of the new Matrix movies). There is scant reason to dislike it that much.

1) So? Movies before hers have always shown vampires to be of an aristocratic nature. Even Dracula was an aritocrat. Bela played the part very intensely, but Victor was played similar to that. Very similar.

2) Yes. I actually had no problem with it and it did make me feel there would be more fighting than there actually was. I'd rather see that than the pun-laden style of a "Commando".

3) No, the vamps took the fight to the lycans' home. If by "turf" you refer to "existence"(which I coubt), than you're right. Neither group really cares to have the other around(excpet for their own self-serving purposes).

4) Can't answer that unless I was a writer for the movie. And I never said it was perfect. But the same could, and has, been said of Matrix: Revolutions or even the Matrix.....or many others. I had no problem with the Matrix doing it either.

5) Let's see, the trechcoats look more from Dune or Hellraiser than Matrix(both movies came out prior to Matrix). Selene's was the only blatant carry-over. Dialogue was completely different. Story line(outside of two-sides with a conflict) was completely different, the werewolves were as non-matrix as one can get, shall I continue? Unfortunately you're not the first person and I've cringed everytime I've heard it. It seems like people want to compare it to something else and the Matrix wins 3 out of 4 times.

6) I guess I completely disagree. What was predictable, and when-if it was, about Viktor being at fault for killing Selene's family? About Lucian ending up being the "good" guy and having married Victor's daughter? Outside of Brolly's performance of grossly over-acting, I had little problem with anyone else's performance and felt at least three did a good job(Viktor, Selene, Lucian). I could go on, but your comment was vacuous.

The comparison was my only way to figure out how someone could misinterpret so much in any movie. I could have been nice and said you fell asleep before it started, after a long night of bashing some other movie and wrote this review while thinking of that other movie. But that would have left too many plot holes. Don't worry, I've said the same to other critics and you've overdramatized the comments more than a bit(they were hardly personal since I don't know you from Adam). Wait a minute, you ragged on Underworld for taking itself too seriously.....

[Peter_Lowry]

Kate is super hot in leather... GROWL!

Peter

[El Duderino Diablo]

Originally posted by Peter_Lowry
Kate is super hot in leather... GROWL!

Peter

Yep. When Underworld hits the five dollar bin I'll pick it up just to enjoy Beckinsale in her leather and latex wardrobe.

[thorshammer]

Man, I was happy with $15........:D

[El Duderino Diablo]

I can't justify purchasing Underworld for more than five dollars. I didn't completely hate it but I just didn't find it to be all that good.

[thorshammer]

It was a blast to watch in many parts, but most movies on DVD go for $23, so $15 to me was fine......

Also had to show some support for the genre. There's just been way too few decent werewolf movies in the last twenty years. And, yes, this was decent.

[El Duderino Diablo]

I don't know about that. With the exception of Dog Soldiers (which I thoroughly enjoyed though NOT so as much a werewolf movie) and Ginger Snaps (which I also quite enjoyed) there haven't been many decent werewolf movies to compare Underworld to.
The most recent werewolf movie of note (aside from Dog Soldiers and Ginger Snaps) was 94's Wolf with Jack Nicholson. Before that we have early 80's entries An American Werewolf... and The Howling. Wolfen was great but it wasn't a werewolf movie.
:shrug:

Oh well, there's always Ginger Snaps II which will be out next Friday (in Canada, any way).

[thorshammer]

Dog Soldiers was a great surprise, Ginger Snaps was good story wise, but the effects were attrocious. The Howling is still my favorite. Why they couldn't duplicate the effects of that movie is beyond me.

[El Duderino Diablo]

I think the active effects (y'know, the transitions) of Ginger Snaps were far better (newer, better technology and materials) than those in The Howling (bladder work with condoms) but the end result werewolves of The Howling were better looking. Rob Bottin's werewolves are my favourite and I was glad to see similar looking werewolves rendered for Dog Soldiers.
That's one thing that I liked about Underworld, good use of practical effects combined with a little cgi to smooth things out.

[KevinCarr]

Originally posted by thorshammer
Well, you and every critic that gave it less than 2 out of 4 stars deserves flack(although I had no big problems with either of the new Matrix movies). There is scant reason to dislike it that much.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. Movies are a matter of taste, and I just didn't like this one. At all. Sorry if it offends or bothers you that I had a problem with it. But, hey, that's your prerogative.

Seriously, though. I'd rather not get into a war over this film. I've already wasted too much thought on it as it is.

[thorshammer]

Of course it's a matter of opinion. I doubt if there is such a thing as pure objectivity in reviewing movies. But I love accuracy, and I still feel most, not just yours, criticisms of Undreworld are not accurate enough. Lowry is getting blasted for his review of ROTK, and should be. As a critic you get to take flack. Your paid for your opinion and can't rely on scientific research to back it up. Only when movies hit the extremes are you safe from criticism, unless your Peter Lowry.......

[KevinCarr]

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Seriously, all of your complaints fall in the realm of interpretation and opinion - like how much the film resembled "The Matrix" or if it was delivered too seriously or whether I thought the plot was decent or the characters solid. These things have nothing to do with accuracy. These are my opinions.

Look, I'm sorry that I didn't like the movie better. I'm sorry you are so upset if someone disagrees with you. There's no objectivity in reviews because it *is* all about opinion.

I have no problem with criticism. Fire away, dude.

In my opinion, Underworld was one of those extremely bad movies. And I'm currently in contact withy my local university to have the physics department provide me with some scientific research to back it up.

:D

[Bongwater]

Kevin, the entire vampire and werewolf community is ready to boycott Film Threat now. Hope it was worth it. :D

[The Baron]

Hey, someone tell Carr he has a phone call from the- uh- "Hemophagic and Lupine Americans Anti-Defamation League"...

Seriously, though... I didn't mind Underworld, but this thread is far scarier than that movie was. With the price of theatre tickets at an average of $9 a pop, I'll just use the club courtesy I get in the L.A. Goth Scene when I want to see Industrial fashion plates. (And believe me, Goths are far more nasty than anyone was in Underworld. "Oh-my-Gawd... Did you see what she's wearing... Again?")

[thorshammer]

I think it's silly to degrade a movie as good as Underworld(again, I'm not saying it's a masterpiece) when I rent Darkwolf and see what a truly bad werewolf movie looks like(or was it truly horrendous?). What truly bad acting really looks like as well. I also think giving it the same score a movie as bad as Jeepers Creepers 2 has gotten is just as bad. You may not like Underworld, but it was many times better than Jeepers Crappers or Darkwolf.

As to the physics portion, you may want to say it's impossible for lycan to exist because of energy demands from the mitochondria being well above what one 's body handle could handle as well as the amount of body heat created being extremely high for the process to occur and difficult to achieve getting rid of that heat quickly enough to not cause permanent brain damage and/or death. But then there would be no movies about them.......:confused:

[KevinCarr]

Originally posted by Bongwater
Kevin, the entire vampire and werewolf community is ready to boycott Film Threat now. Hope it was worth it. :D

LOL!

[thorshammer]

Originally posted by The Baron
Hey, someone tell Carr he has a phone call from the- uh- "Hemophagic and Lupine Americans Anti-Defamation League"...

Seriously, though... I didn't mind Underworld, but this thread is far scarier than that movie was. With the price of theatre tickets at an average of $9 a pop, I'll just use the club courtesy I get in the L.A. Goth Scene when I want to see Industrial fashion plates. (And believe me, Goths are far more nasty than anyone was in Underworld. "Oh-my-Gawd... Did you see what she's wearing... Again?")

I'm not sure anything is scarier than paying $9 for any movie, much less all of them...makes me more happy to pay $6.50 here in the midwest....

[KevinCarr]

Originally posted by thorshammer
I'm not sure anything is scarier than paying $9 for any movie, much less all of them...makes me more happy to pay $6.50 here in the midwest....

I'm actually in agreement with you, thorshammer. While I was in Southern CA this summer, I paid $9 a pop to see both "Bad Boys II" and "Lara Croft 2". Boy, did I feel screwed.

:D

[Seedy Edgewick]

Okay, I've polled all my vampire and lycanthrope friends, and we've reached the following consensus:

(1) AB negative blood tastes the worst -- brassy and sour.

(2) A werewolf should completely kill his victim -- we don't need any more Lon Chaney Jr.'s running around.

(3) Any skinny actress looks hot in skin-tight leather.

(4) Too many producers are re-hashing old stories/plot elements/characters by recombining them in "new" and "different" ways. It's a cop-out.

(5) A "lycanthrope" is someone who can turn into an animal -- a werewolf is a type of lycanthrope, as is a werebear, wereboar, werejackrabbit, and weremarmoset.

(6) People should realize IT'S ONLY A MOVIE!!

[thorshammer]

Originally posted by KevinCarr
I'm actually in agreement with you, thorshammer. While I was in Southern CA this summer, I paid $9 a pop to see both "Bad Boys II" and "Lara Croft 2". Boy, did I feel screwed.

:D

My God! Can you walk? LC2 was my free rental and I thought I got screwed....:D

[The Baron]

Originally posted by Seedy Edgewick

(5) A "lycanthrope" is someone who can turn into an animal -- a werewolf is a type of lycanthrope, as is a werebear, wereboar, werejackrabbit, and weremarmoset.

Didn't they do a werebear movie a few years back? You know, the one where all the bears had strange mystical sigils on their bellies, and-

Oops. Sorry. That was Care Bears.

Oh, look... the nurses are here with the medicine cart...

;)

[thorshammer]

Originally posted by Seedy Edgewick
Okay, I've polled all my vampire and lycanthrope friends, and we've reached the following consensus:

(1) AB negative blood tastes the worst -- brassy and sour.

(2) A werewolf should completely kill his victim -- we don't need any more Lon Chaney Jr.'s running around.

(3) Any skinny actress looks hot in skin-tight leather.

(4) Too many producers are re-hashing old stories/plot elements/characters by recombining them in "new" and "different" ways. It's a cop-out.

(5) A "lycanthrope" is someone who can turn into an animal -- a werewolf is a type of lycanthrope, as is a werebear, wereboar, werejackrabbit, and weremarmoset.

(6) People should realize IT'S ONLY A MOVIE!!

1) Luckily it's also the hardest to find.
2) You bet. Unless she's really hot....
3) I'm not sure about that one. When their legs are small than my wrists......Kate Moss never looked good in leather(or at all).
4) Also, too many re-makes and useless sequals.
5) Right.
6) Who says we don't? Can you imagine every movie review ending with...."..but, it's only a movie"? And I want to see no more Darkwolf movies which is pretty likely what hollywood will likely do if movies like Underworld aren't a little successful. Hell, the dark horse success of Dog Soldiers did very little to stimulate movie makers. Sad really. Instead we get Lara Croft 2, Charlies Angels 2, Bad Boys 2, Suck Fest 2......

[Bongwater]

Originally posted by thorshammer
I think it's silly to degrade a movie as good as Underworld(again, I'm not saying it's a masterpiece) when I rent Darkwolf and see what a truly bad werewolf movie looks like(or was it truly horrendous?). What truly bad acting really looks like as well. I also think giving it the same score a movie as bad as Jeepers Creepers 2 has gotten is just as bad. You may not like Underworld, but it was many times better than Jeepers Crappers or Darkwolf.


Just because some other movie was utter dreck doesn't mean you should recommend another film because it manages to not permanently damage you. :D

[Seedy Edgewick]

Originally posted by The Baron
Didn't they do a werebear movie a few years back? You know, the one where all the bears had strange mystical sigils on their bellies, and-

Actually, those were Sneetches.

Originally posted by thorshammer
Kate Moss never looked good in leather

Kate Moss isn't an actress.

Originally posted by thorshammer
6) Who says we don't?

It wasn't MY opinion; I was just relating the results of my opinion poll. Plus, when confronted with supernatural predators, you tend not to argue very much. Unless you're talking to Pete, the aforementioned weremarmoset. You see, each type of lycan is vulnerable to a particular elemental metal -- werewolves & silver being the most famous example. It turns out that a weremarmoset is vulnerable to zinc, which means if you snap a penny at his head hard enough, you'll take him out. He tends not to hang out with people very much because of that.

[thorshammer]

Originally posted by Bongwater
Just because some other movie was utter dreck doesn't mean you should recommend another film because it manages to not permanently damage you. :D

While I agree, I wouldn't give a crap movie a D- and a decent, yet not great movie, a D+. In some cases, a critic or two even gave the same score to Underworld as they did to JC2. Those critics need to find a new line of work, like being a lab test subject.....

Mr. Carr, however, must have thought many terrible movies were better than Underworld, judging by his top ten worst list(I'm still shaking my head).

[thorshammer]

"It wasn't MY opinion; I was just relating the results of my opinion poll. Plus, when confronted with supernatural predators, you tend not to argue very much. Unless you're talking to Pete, the aforementioned weremarmoset. You see, each type of lycan is vulnerable to a particular elemental metal -- werewolves & silver being the most famous example. It turns out that a weremarmoset is vulnerable to zinc, which means if you snap a penny at his head hard enough, you'll take him out. He tends not to hang out with people very much because of that."

That's pretty good. It's a bit reminiscent of D&D as well. Especially the part of the penny to the head(something like 4-12 damage on a weremarmoset-who doesn't have a high HP value to begin with....):D . I've seen that happen at a party or two.

[KevinCarr]

Originally posted by thorshammer
Mr. Carr, however, must have thought many terrible movies were better than Underworld, judging by his top ten worst list(I'm still shaking my head).

You bet. The list was only for 10, after all. :p

[thorshammer]

Which should have put Underworld thirty-eight places away from making the list:D .

[KevinCarr]

Originally posted by thorshammer
My God! Can you walk? LC2 was my free rental and I thought I got screwed....:D

I do have a confession to make. I did doze off for about 5 minutes in LC2, but my buddy woke me up when I started to snore. But I was far enough into to film to realize it sucked by then.

Other movies I fell asleep during:

Gods and Generals - I fell asleep 3 times in that one, and it still never ended.

Red Planet - This time, my buddy didn't wake me up and let me snore. No one seemed to care in the theater.

[KevinCarr]

Originally posted by thorshammer
Which should have put Underworld thirty-eight places away from making the list:D .

There's only one way to decide who's right here...

INDIAN WRESTLING!

(what can I say... I'm a big fan of "The Great Brain")

[Peter_Lowry]

Originally posted by thorshammer
Of course it's a matter of opinion. I doubt if there is such a thing as pure objectivity in reviewing movies. But I love accuracy, and I still feel most, not just yours, criticisms of Undreworld are not accurate enough.

Not accurate? I disagree. I think it was accurate... for Kevin that is. The movie didn't do anything for him, and he's entitled to express his opinion about it. While I liked the movie a bit more than he did, that doesn't mean Kevin is wrong... and I respect his review and the work he put into it. While I had some problems with Underworld as well, I still enjoyed the film. While it's nowhere near the worst I've seen this year, Kevin is right to post it on his list if he hated it that much. He's merely telling us what he liked and disliked, nothing more. No where in that piece did he convey that his was right and everyone else was wrong if they disagreed with him... did you?

Lowry is getting blasted for his review of ROTK, and should be.

Personally, I don't think anyone should be blasted for having an opinion. Last time I checked, we both live in countries that grant their citizens the right to free speech, or freedom of expression as they call it up here. I think you need to realize that not everyone is going to like the same movie, whether it be Underworld or Return of the King... if you like those movies its okay but just because myself and Kevin didn't doesn't mean you're wrong, but it doesn't mean you're right either.

As a critic you get to take flack.

I agree, if you can't handle the flack... don't post reviews. Personally, I've enjoyed reading every post that has been written about my reviews... both the good and negative posts. While I respect everyone for taking the time to stand up for their opinions, you're wasting your time if you think that any of us are going to alter how we feel just because it doesn't coincide with how you feel.

Your paid for your opinion and can't rely on scientific research to back it up.

We get paid to do this?

Only when movies hit the extremes are you safe from criticism, unless your Peter Lowry.......

No review is safe from criticism... ever. But I think some of you are being a tad unreasonable by harping on us for merely expressing how we honestly felt. Do you prefer that critics lie in order to make themselves popular with the masses? How would you be able to trust that they're being honest if they shift to make themselves more pleaseable with the general public instead of judging a film based on the material itself, not what everyone else thinks of it.

Thorshammer, if you want to read reviews by someone who will agree with everything you like and will say want you to hear... then I would recommend going to a fansite where you can talk and interact with those who will never argue with what you say. But if you want to read honest reviews and opinions from people who will speak their mind regardless of what kind of response or harassment comes as a result of it... you know where to find us.

Peter

[thorshammer]

[B]Not accurate? I disagree. I think it was accurate... for Kevin that is. The movie didn't do anything for him, and he's entitled to express his opinion about it. While I liked the movie a bit more than he did, that doesn't mean Kevin is wrong... and I respect his review and the work he put into it. While I had some problems with Underworld as well, I still enjoyed the film. While it's nowhere near the worst I've seen this year, Kevin is right to post it on his list if he hated it that much. He's merely telling us what he liked and disliked, nothing more. No where in that piece did he convey that his was right and everyone else was wrong if they disagreed with him... did you?" No, I cited points in which the criticism seemed contrived/incorrect. Strongly. And why would I say a movie critic DOESN'T have the right to give his opinion. If someone tells me he doesn't like a movie because it doesn't have any women in it, yet it clearly has one or even two-I will call them on it(that would be an example).



"Personally, I don't think anyone should be blasted for having an opinion. Last time I checked, we both live in countries that grant their citizens the right to free speech, or freedom of expression as they call it up here. I think you need to realize that not everyone is going to like the same movie, whether it be Underworld or Return of the King... if you like those movies its okay but just because myself and Kevin didn't doesn't mean you're wrong, but it doesn't mean you're right either." Of course you don't, you ragged on ROTK! You've taken so much from that I'll bet you don't think so. Noone is taking anyone else's speech away here buddy, so cool you little jets.


I agree, if you can't handle the flack... don't post reviews. Personally, I've enjoyed reading every post that has been written about my reviews... both the good and negative posts. While I respect everyone for taking the time to stand up for their opinions, you're wasting your time if you think that any of us are going to alter how we feel just because it doesn't coincide with how you feel." Than why are you even posting this. Am I not entitled to MY opinion? Or should I just have to listen to what you say silently? You seem to have a very hard time handling your partener taking criticsm......



"We get paid to do this?



No review is safe from criticism... ever. But I think some of you are being a tad unreasonable by harping on us for merely expressing how we honestly felt. Do you prefer that critics lie in order to make themselves popular with the masses? How would you be able to trust that they're being honest if they shift to make themselves more pleaseable with the general public instead of judging a film based on the material itself, not what everyone else thinks of it." Again, it's accuracy in what is on the screen. And I highly doubt anything anyone says will change the mind of a critic. Plus, even Ebert goes on to say something of second reviews and they have sometimes changed his opinion.

"Thorshammer, if you want to read reviews by someone who will agree with everything you like and will say want you to hear... then I would recommend going to a fansite where you can talk and interact with those who will never argue with what you say. But if you want to read honest reviews and opinions from people who will speak their mind regardless of what kind of response or harassment comes as a result of it... you know where to find us." What the hell are you talking about? Clearly you've developed "Critics Chip". Views need to be discussed and reasons for differences brought out. Do you not like people disagreeing with you? Can you not justify what you write? What is the problem?

Peter

Nice little tirade. Grow up.

[The Baron]

Anybody else here think that this thread has had about 2 1/2 more pages dedicated to it than it's deserved?

[Peter_Lowry]

Originally posted by thorshammer
Than why are you even posting this. Am I not entitled to MY opinion? Or should I just have to listen to what you say silently?You seem to have a very hard time handling your partener taking criticsm...

I didn't post this because of the criticism... because if it was just that I wouldn't care. What is truely disturbing is your childish attempt to prove Carr wrong and force him to change his mind, which won't happen anytime soon. (Neither will any attempts to change my mind on ROTK) You can't change his mind, and I don't expect you to change yours either. You just have to accept that you both have different views on the film and move on. If you really want to post a retort (which is fine) try do it without the attitude and you won't come off like a dork who's trying to attack people for merely having an opinion. Just a suggestion...

Nice little tirade. Grow up.

There's nothing wrong with people having differences, but you're the one having hissy fits over reviews and you have the nerve to lecture on maturity? Dude, you're the one acting like a child... so do us all a favor and practice what you preach.

Peter

[Seedy Edgewick]

Originally posted by The Baron
Anybody else here think that this thread has had about 2 1/2 more pages dedicated to it than it's deserved?

Sometimes I'm too clever for my own good. I thought the absurd ramblings about "Pete the Weremarmoset" would get the same point across. Alas....

[thorshammer]

Maybe you guys should change the title of this section to "Well, I kind of disagree". Then your egos would be better off. Considering it is, in fact, called "Hate Mail" and I've yet to use profanity, so I'm not sure what Mr. Lowry's problem is...

Anyhow, I am hardly forcing anyone to do anything. I am pointing out weaknesses in the criticisms. That's it. And how has anything I've posted been misconstrued into trying to change anyones mind on ROTK? I've been extremely subtle about that movie...many others have said far worse and continue to do so.

[El Duderino Diablo]

I like cheese.

[Rory L. Aronsky]

I like strippers and cheese.

Top THAT!!

[The Baron]

Oh yeah? Well, I like strippers IN cheese and coffee shops in Amsterdam!

Bring it on! ;)

[Rory L. Aronsky]

Dammit. In Amsterdam wearing those Dutch clogs? You've topped me this time, Baron. When my ego recovers, ohhhhh, you'll really get it!

Ok, now that it's recovered, I'll try again:

I like strippers wrestling in a vat of Cheese Wiz, IN Amsterdam, with those Dutch dresses AND clogs.

Ow, my brain hurts.

[Pete Vonder Haar]

I'm confused.

So...it's okay for anyone who disagrees with a FT writer's review to come on to the web site and jump down his throat, but should said writer or his colleagues enter the fray, they're suddenly touchy and overly sensitive? How does that work?

I agree with the sentiment that everyone who posts reviews should be prepared to take flack, but if you come onto a forum giving that reviewer shit, you should be prepared to take it as well. Don't harp on a guy for a week then call foul when others disagree with you and side with him.

[The Baron]

Originally posted by Rory L. Aronsky
I like strippers wrestling in a vat of Cheese Wiz, IN Amsterdam, with those Dutch dresses AND clogs.

OH MY GOD! YOU'VE BEEN THERE, TOO!!!!

[KevinCarr]

Originally posted by The Baron
Oh yeah? Well, I like strippers IN cheese and coffee shops in Amsterdam!

I'd like to take issue with the accuracy of this statement. Strippers are not actually strippers, they are dancers - especially when they are in the process of exhibiting obvious performance art. And usually cheese is not actual cheese, but a cheese-like product like Cheez-whiz (really, how can they move in a vat of sharp chedder?). Finally, coffee shops in Amsterdam are not about coffee... they're just about pot.

Remember, this is an attack on your accuracy and a weekness in such a statement, and I have hardened, irrefutable proof that this is innaccurate and not just my opinion. How can we believe anything you say? You must agree with me or suffer my wrath on the FilmThreat message boards.

Yours truly,
Kevin "tongue firmly in cheek" Carr
:D

[El Duderino Diablo]

Herve asks... (http://www.treasurehiding.com/random/why.htm) :(

[thorshammer]

Originally posted by Pete Vonder Haar
I'm confused.

So...it's okay for anyone who disagrees with a FT writer's review to come on to the web site and jump down his throat, but should said writer or his colleagues enter the fray, they're suddenly touchy and overly sensitive? How does that work?

I agree with the sentiment that everyone who posts reviews should be prepared to take flack, but if you come onto a forum giving that reviewer shit, you should be prepared to take it as well. Don't harp on a guy for a week then call foul when others disagree with you and side with him.

Good to see accuracy lacks in others as well. I jumped on Carr for a lack of it, a few days later Lowry, who I said nothing about, decides to jump in making inaccurate comments in a tirade to protect his buddy after the fact. If he wishes to flame, I couldn't care any less, but to accuse me doing things I haven't siad or done is another. On the other hand I feel the points I brought up were more accurate than Mr. Carr put in his review. I didn't say Mr. Carr was trying to make anyone do anything. If Mr. Lowry came on saying he backed up Mr. Carr's views and posted facts, that'd be different story. Please get it right.

[thorshammer]

Originally posted by KevinCarr
I'd like to take issue with the accuracy of this statement. Strippers are not actually strippers, they are dancers - especially when they are in the process of exhibiting obvious performance art. And usually cheese is not actual cheese, but a cheese-like product like Cheez-whiz (really, how can they move in a vat of sharp chedder?). Finally, coffee shops in Amsterdam are not about coffee... they're just about pot.

Remember, this is an attack on your accuracy and a weekness in such a statement, and I have hardened, irrefutable proof that this is innaccurate and not just my opinion. How can we believe anything you say? You must agree with me or suffer my wrath on the FilmThreat message boards.

Yours truly,
Kevin "tongue firmly in cheek" Carr
:D

Spoken like a true critic.

[The Baron]

Originally posted by KevinCarr
I'd like to take issue with the accuracy of this statement... coffee shops in Amsterdam are not about coffee... they're just about pot.

Now hold on a minute, Bucko!

I can tell you, having spent many, many hours in Dutch coffee shops, that you can get a damn fine cup o' joe. (The "damn fine" part is, of course, only my opinion. Especially considering the vast amounts of Moroccan black hash that I consume while in the coffee houses, I can't really say that the goodness of the coffee is factual.) Okay... You can get a cup of coffee!

Yours truly, Kevin "tongue firmly in cheek" Carr

And I have to question whether your tongue was physically in your cheek at the time you wrote the above. Might it not have been in another part of your mouth? Hmm...? Or perhaps it was not so firmly in your cheek? Oh, you critics! You, with your fancy expressions! :D ;) :D

[KevinCarr]

Originally posted by The Baron
You can get a cup of coffee!

That's right - and accurate. 'Cause coffee is good for the munchies.

:D :D :D

[thorshammer]

Children. :rolleyes:

[Pete Vonder Haar]

Good to see accuracy lacks in others as well. I jumped on Carr for a lack of it, a few days later Lowry, who I said nothing about, decides to jump in making inaccurate comments in a tirade to protect his buddy after the fact.

Among the "inaccuracies" you took Kevin to task for in his review were opinions he had: including the fact that he felt the movie took itself too seriously, was too similar to the "The Matrix" (wire and bullet time sequences, not computer themes, I suspect), and questioned why the werewolves didn't attack during the day. Your response was to counter the "accuracy" of these opinions not with opposing facts, but with opinions of your own.

As for Lowry, correct me if you didn't make this exact comment earlier in this very thread:

Lowry is getting blasted for his review of ROTK, and should be.

That was you, right?

If he wishes to flame, I couldn't care any less, but to accuse me doing things I haven't siad or done is another. On the other hand I feel the points I brought up were more accurate than Mr. Carr put in his review.

Make up your mind. You feel Kevin's points aren't accurate enough, yet don't present anything other than opinion yourself. If all critics can offer are opinions, then why should we give any more weight to yours? Hell, Kevin brought his point up himself 2 pages ago.

If Mr. Lowry came on saying he backed up Mr. Carr's views and posted facts, that'd be different story. Please get it right.

Why should he have to? You're the one who called him out for his RotK review.

What I don't get is why you can't accept that other people simply don't agree with you that "Underworld" was very good. Opinions on movies are a dime a thousand. Just because ours get published on a web site doesn't make them any more valid than anyone else's.

Now then...who's got that coffee?

[thorshammer]

Well, no.

I said, infact, that there is basically only one costume straight out of the Matrix, bullet time/what wire there was, comprises less than a minute of footage in the movie in 2 sequences(I believe that would already be two facts), there is no dialogue from the Matrix that I could tell, there is little else of a comparison(certainly not storylines), as I've said before.... but then again, those guys in ROTK also wore some leather and there were some slower motions.....ROTK must have ripped off Matrix and Blade! They used arrows, so they ripped a few thousand other movies, etc....

The daytime attack question is valid as I said before, but there are many reasons that could have happened....

There is a separate thread in which he is blasted, as well as other sites that dedicated threads that blasted him as well. My comment was about as benign as one can be, there is no way that can be construed as "it was good you idiot! Change your mind or I'll rip it out!".

What gives anyone's opinion anymore weight? And why am I not entitled mine? You're sounding more like Lowry now......

I do accept it(any critics/anyones opinion), but that doesn't mean I don't get to voice my opinion of disagreement(I'm not stopping you form posting your problems with me am I?).

Your post indicates that you didn't read my initial post, but only the critics'.

Anyhow, this horse is now at the molecular level of being beaten. Pass on the coffee for a shot of Rumpleminze with a Jagermeiter chaser....

[Seedy Edgewick]

Okay, I'll do it:

Arguing with critics is like Jews arguing with Nazis -- no one's ever going to get anywhere.

Godwin's Law is hereby invoked. This thread is officially dead.

[Pete Vonder Haar]

Thank Christ. Arguing with "Mjolnir" up there was making my eyes bleed.

[thorshammer]

Cool.

[The Baron]

For fuck sake... Would an Admin please lock this thread?

[El Duderino Diablo]

Bang! Closed thread! Damn, that didn't work.