It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
For the simple reason that I won't let marketing cloud my judgeement. I prefer to read reviews, because those I later can counteract/debunk them or, when I am in agreement, refer to them. That's the fun of it for me. That's resulting in the nice movie debates; between those who agree and disagree with your own opinion. Critics let you stay more critical as a result. Trailers to me are just mere marketing fodder, despite the fact that they can be fun. But if trailers are your more important reference point on watching a movie or not, then be my guest. But for me personally, I prefer some more critical, neutral opinions that are not related to the movie company making the film.
Hence I will most definitely see "Kingsman", despite the fact that critical reviews are mostly shit so far....
Judge a film based on footage of the film itself? Or judge the film based on what some guy in California thinks? Logic dictates the former.
I also planned to see it for months! I am a Bond fan, and Bond fans, like you and me, in general are more interested in the spy thriller/action genre.
Your 'logic' is also a matter of....personal opinion. Also needs to be taken into account :-). But, there is a mild tendency that you have a slightly conflicted reasoning when it comes to CGI in trailers. When it comes to a Marvel movie, such a trailer can't help you and on most occasions you even ignore such a film. But when it comes to Kingsman, which is a mishmash of James Bond and Marvel CGI-pornish superhero characters and dito action, then all the CGI from the trailer doesn't seem to be leading and you still go. It's a bit two-sided I think.
To be honest....I have seen way too many movies in cinema the past months: "Dunkirk", "Life", "Baby Driver", "The Hitman's Bodyguard", "Barry Seal", "Atomic Blonde". And I went to see them simply by looking at the genre.......or director. I didn't even read critics nor did I see the trailers. Just.....go to the cinema. It's a great experience :-).,
Watch a film the critics hate, ......... Only
To find you love it. ;-)
Indeed. On that we agree hehe.
That is very different from how I see and experience Bond, which I see as more grounded.
That is also why I am personally far more critical of any CGI in a Bond film, whereas I can more readily forgive it in something like Kingsman or Marvel.
Just lime Kickass.
Definitely not seeing the Marvel connection you note, as those are films I avoid like the plague in general now - no CG aliens fighting CG superheroes to the backdrop of a CG beam shooting into the sky, from what I can tell.
Plus, It's easier said than done to just "go" see a movie, and that's why I always fall back on trailers - I can't afford to see every single movie that releases in theaters (nor would I want to even if I could), so I judge it all based on footage of the film - the only thing that gives me a look at what I'm paying to see.
Reviews mean absolutely nothing, because critics mean nothing, because I don't know these critics. If they did, then 'Baby Driver' would've been the best action movie I saw this year, and 'The Hitman's Bodyguard' would've been a massive trainwreck.
I'm supposed to believe old critics in their 70's and 80's truly know what makes a proper action/horror movie these days? No. Not that it would matter even if they did - it's subjective.
It's not really my mission or anything. I kinda forgot that in your case it's more difficult to go to the cinema. Sorry for that.
It's just....when I start posting some new results from RottenTomatoes or MetaCritic, then suddenly others in here think that I want to prove something. That has nothing to do with it. A trailer can be as much as a reference point or incentive to watch a movie as a review. That's basically my message. But I just don't get it when I quote RT or MetaCritic suddenly a whole armada of angry Bond fans keep attacking me for that. That is not necessary either. It's calling the kettle black then when people in here accuse me of defending "SPECTRE", and than others do exactly the same for the other movie.
I mean, why can't we just......be a bit more open-minded to all kinds of incentives to watch a movie.
Do you have Alzheimer?
You said it here:
So unless you have severe mental issues that prevent you from thinking straight, you accuse @Creasy47 of focusing on trailers and not reviews, yet you said in that post above that you went to see Dunkirk (93% on RT) and Hitman's Bodyguard (38% on RT) without reading reviews. So if you had no problem doing that, stop making anymore of your random useless arguments about the importance of reviews. Your arguments are indeed 'useless' when you admit you had equally zero problems or concerns seeing a movie that had 93% on RT and another that had 38% on RT. You just wasted everyone's time with your rumblings when you yourself admit there that you had no problems seeing 2 movies that were on opposite ends of the RT rating spectrum. So why do you give any shit about the reviews for Kingsman 2? It's a 62% now, yet you went to see Hitman's Bodyguard blind while it was at 38%? Are you insane?
And I never did that, so not sure why you're attacking me over it. I don't see reviews as an incentive - it's nothing more than someone else's opinion. Sure, it's exciting if a movie you're eager to see does get great reviews, but I'm not about to let reviews cut down on my excitement either.
I did think the CGI in the first one was excessive but I also thought there was enough genuine stuntwork there to make up for it. I think it's all down to context. As @Creasy47 pointed out, it wasn't all just fake with CGI men fighting CGI aliens. It was very stylised and comic book but the CGI was things like camera movement, blood splatters and explosions which I can forgive even if it was a bit overdone, because you still had great fight scenes (they got the Jackie Chan team in for the first one) at the heart of it. I hope the same is the case in this one but there do seem to be more reviews pointing out the CGI which has me a little worried.
To be there to Vaughn I don't think Kingsman should be taken as how he'd tackle Bond. It's inspired by Bond but Kingsman is its own beast imo. Bond turned up to 11. And he's shown with Layer Cake and even Kick Ass (until the jetpack scene at the end) that he can do a thriller or an action film with restraint. I think that the point of Kingsman is that it's gratiously OTT. Bond turned up to 11. But I don't think that's how he'd necessarily approach it if he was directing the real thing. Maybe we'd get that sort of lighter tone but I doubt it'd have been as out there and over the top as either of the Kingsman movies.
That was a really weird choice in hindsight. The only people who'd really get excited over that are us lot but that just meant some people were expecting a very different kind of film.
Yeah don't get me wrong I think reviews can be very useful if you're undecided on whether to go and see a film. But the whole purpose of trailers is to give you a taste of the film (I know sometimes they're misleading but that doesn't seem to be the case here). So if you like a trailer for something why wouldn't you make up your own mind rather than letting someone you've never met decide for you. I can think of plenty of poorly reviewed films I love. The Rambo sequels for example.
I didn't mean to attack you. Sorry. For me it's just interesting to read other people's opinion, if that concerns a movie fan like you, or a paid critic. Sometimes even more interesting than marketing/promo from a movie company. That's all. But let's give it a rest, because someone in here prefers to call me an Alzheimer patient. If I....'attack' (I prefer to call it fierce discussion) I do it on arguments that I crafted; not single words.
You said @Creasy47 has
And here you said:
You also said:
So what the hell is your damn problem? Dunkirk is at 93% on RT and Hitman's Bodyguard is at 38%. And yet you are annoying everyone with your irrelevant and useless* opinion on the importance of critics when discussion Kingsman 2 that is at 62% while the previous outing was at 74%.
You had no problem with a 93% to 38% gap, but a 74% to 62% clearly means 'something' about either films? You sound borderline insane when we analyze your posts as they are so damn incoherent, unless 2 different individuals are using your account.
*Your opinion was deemed useless by yourself once you said you had no problem seeing movies that were practically on opposite ends of the RT rating scale.
You keep going on about SP being an amazing film yet complaining about GE at every occasion. Yet, ironically, GE is at 78% on RT and SP is at 64%, so by your own definition, either SP is vastly inferior to GE, or the reviews for Kingsman 2 mean it is better than the 1st Kingsman film.
Edited for inappropriate content
You hate 'Furious 7', yet you enjoy 'Fast Five' and 'Furious 6', which both have inferior ratings to Furious 7. You seem to enjoy TWINE and despite DAD, yet DAD has a higher RT score than TWINE, not to mention you dislike GE and love SP, and also saying on numerous occasions QOS is your least favorite Craig film yet its RT score is higher than SP's.
So unless this morning you were claiming that the lower RT score for Kingsman 2 means the film is factually better than the original Kingsman, you can stop spamming this thread (and other threads) about the importance of critics when you factually have a pattern in enjoying movies with lower ratings compared to other films. Which means, by your own argumentation, that critics and professional reviews are wrong so stop mentioning them since you clearly disagree with critics more often than not.
So, the final time: Why are you attacking @Creasy47 for giving a bigger importance to trailers than to critics, when you have the tendency of disagreeing with critics? Why defend something that you don't even believe in? Why not start defending Brosnan and hating on Craig in that case ? Or was I unaware we are in the middle of the 'say the opposite of what you mean' week?
You angered me, and I have absolutely no interest in reading your statement. Especially since you continue bragging on like this. Look in your own mirror. I gave you an answer when this discussion was still civilized. You have to take that for granted.
Edited for inappropriate content
Need I repeat once again the question I asked on the previous page that you still have not answered? Or are you going to continue your nervous breakdown? And read what statement of mine? I made no statements, I simply asked for you to explain your opinion. Oh dear, do you also suffer from hallucinations? And you can direct your anger at yourself for refusing to answer a simple question I originally asked hours ago.
You're the one repeatedly telling him to piss off (with all the recent drama over the swearing rule I won't quote you exactly). All @DaltonCraig007 is trying to do is understand where you're coming from. You're right that it is all a got a bit out of hand and uncivilised now but from where I'm standing that seems like your fault. There's making sarcy comments (cold light of day the altzheimers comment may have been a bit OTT but have you really never said "are you/do you have xyz or something" when in an argument/debate) and then there's ignoring someone and just swearing at them over and over.
If that is your answer, then you should go back to school as this isn't an answer to anything, and all it does is make your contradictions even clearer.
We have factually proven that you do not believe in reviews and professional critics. So can you explain why you are arguing that you do care about them? Tell the other individual to stop using your account so we can get only your own opinions. Either that, or you are due for an appointment with the doctor as you seem oblivious that you are holding 2 totally contradictory views at the same time.
Until you explain this, I hereby declare you should be banned from mentioning reviews and Rotten-tomatoes until you make up your mind on whether reviews are important or that you really don't believe in them.
It gets a good review here.
I have watched a few movie shows on Youtube more or less positive also, I am sure the film will be fun.
Are Kingsman fans. ;-)