So, I should chance the Katy Perry movie. Even if it sucks, I'm just goofy and don't understand stuff.
THANKS, SOME DUDE ON THE INTERNET WHO UNDERSTANDS STUFF I DON'T!!!!!
You should type in caps harder so that your point comes across louder.
If you like Katy Perry go for it. I don't so I don't care to go watch it regardless of how well made the movie is. Usually I select movies based on the subject matter and genre. Then I check how its doing before I go and spend my hard earned money on it. If it is doing terrible I wait for the video. Sometimes RT can be wrong. Sometimes even when it says a movie is terrible, I love the subject matter so much that I will go to the theater anyway. In the case of Conan 2008 I wish I hadn't.
Lets have a look at some of my favorite classics:
1. Evil Dead II 98%
2. Texas Chainsaw Massacre 91%
3. The Godfather 100%
4. Monty Python and the Holy Grail 95%
5. Aliens 100%
6. Night of the Living Dead 96%
7. Brazil 98%
Some more modern flicks I enjoyed:
8. The Avengers 92%
9. Fellowship of the Ring 92%
10. Shaun of the Dead 91%
11. Let the Right One In 98%
12. Tucker and Dale vs. Evil 85%
Conan got a 23%. It was a warning that I should have listened to.
So Rottentomatoes does a pretty good job of distinguishing between quality movies and crap movies in the genres that I like.
I want to explain the problem with Rotten Tomato rating system.
Let's say we have two "rotten" films. One is a film that is universally regarded as being slightly disappointing. Since EVERY critic on RT thought this, it has a "freshness" rating of 0%.
Next we have a movie that 99% of all critics think is the worst abomination ever put on film. And there's the one critic who, for whatever reason, likes it.
Using Rotten Tomato's rating system, it doesn't matter that those 99% of critics thought that the second movie was far FAR worse than the first. The horrible second movie gets a "freshness" rating of 1%...higher than the merely "meh" first movie.
Plus, let's face it, Conan 2011 probably lost a good 50% before it even opened due to enraged Arnold fanboys hating it for the crime of not staring Arnold.
That would explain why a decent movie got a mediocre rating. The rating Conan got was absolutely atrocious. It was 40% below rotten.
I thought the movie was terrible based on the acting alone. To me it seemed as if they read their lines from teleprompters. Also the villains were like characters taken from a he-man cartoon.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:I think the woman who was in this latest Conan flick and the John Carter movie was very pretty. If I was Conan, I would do her in a cave, too.Rachel Nichols. Check out the series "Continuum". She's the lead actress.
She also played the Orion girl that hooked up with Kirk in the Trek reboot.
But I also heard it was a body double in the love scene in Conan.
I am a 23%er. Actually 31% of audiences like it. I enjoyed the new Conan movie. The origin sequence in the first twenty or so minutes was well done. It had a few cool action sequences. The sand warriors were well done.
Was it great film making? Heck no! But it really didn't need to be. How many Sword and Sorcery movies that are out there constitutes great film making? The original Arnold Conan was close. Harryhausen's Jason and the Argonauts also comes to mind. Really only the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Chronicles of Narnia series are a cut above; and I would not categorized them as Sword and Sorcery.
I could come up with a long list of Sword and Sorcery movies worse than Conan the Barbarian (2011).
Jason Momoa was O.K for Conan - I mean, it's not like Conan ever was an emotinaly xomplex character or something, though Momoa's movie did change the rage I expected for a far more controled cold bloodthirst - he was more a killar than a warrior.
That's not all that bad though, and I have to say that there were several parts of that movie that I enjoyed, though probably that was due to low expectations. Then again, I never did see the previous movies, so maybe I'm missing something here.