Drive

[cool8man]

Originally Posted by stubadub

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/drive
79 out of 100 from 40 critics reviews, 7.4 from 659 user reviews.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/drive_2011/
92% based on 226 critics reviews, 78% from users.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780504/
8.0 based on 193,894 user reviews.

Why base it on actual, reasonably consistent metrics from multiple sources? Just go with your gut.

Um doesn't that prove my point. 92% from the know-it-all film critics, but only 78% from regular people.

That means people didn't like the movie, while the critics loved it, just like...


Lost In Translation:

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/lost-in-translation
89 out of 100 from 44 critics reviews, 6.7 from 564 user reviews.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lost_in_translation/
95% based on 219 critic reviews, 84% based on user reviews

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335266/
7.8 based on 184,399 user reviews.



Drive v. Lost in Translation:

RT: 92% vs. 95%
RT users: 78% vs. 84%

MC: 79% vs. 89%
MC users: 7.4 vs. 6.7

IMDB: 8.0 vs. 7.8


Very close to the same reaction. I bet the Netflix scores will end up being very close after a 2-3 years.

Originally Posted by tokenuser

You saw his Sorkin post right? Facts (or aggregated opinions in this case) are optional.

GTFO with that garbage.

Originally Posted by darth-ed

Do not feed the trolls.

How do you not see the similarities of the two movies? Both are critical darlings, but contain a lot of slow moving quiet scenes that drive viewers insane. Now Drive has more action overall obviously, but the plot is very low key like LiT. Viewers don't take to movies like this. Critics see more there than there actually is. It's like art. Paint a canvas blue and hang it in an art gallery, some critics will tell you it's brilliant, the average person will look at it and see nothing special and won't understand the fuss.

[stubadub]

Originally Posted by cool8man

Um doesn't that prove my point. 92% from the know-it-all film critics, but only 78% from regular people.

That means people didn't like the movie, while the critics loved it, just like...

No, it is most definitely working to disprove your point. Does it really have to be explained that on average 78 out of 100 users on Rotten Tomatoes reviewed the film favorably? Sure, that's a smaller percentage than that of the critics, but that is still more than 3 out of 4 people logging into RT and saying they liked the movie. That does not say that most people didn't like the movie. A difference in the weight of the two opinions (average joe vs film critic) doesn't in itself mean that the average joe didn't "get it".

Same goes for the other two sites. They are providing the mean of the scores, indicating that when you take into account how strongly each individual feels about the film, on average the film earns a 7.4 review score (think of it like 3 out of 4 stars) on Metacritic or an 8.0 (4 out of 5 stars) on IMDB.

Just because all you see is a blue painting does not mean that the painter wasn't communicating something more than that, nor does it mean the people around you haven't seen anything beyond "Blue Painting" when they examine it.

[cool8man]

Originally Posted by stubadub

No, it is most definitely working to disprove your point. Does it really have to be explained that on average 78 out of 100 users on Rotten Tomatoes reviewed the film favorably? Sure, that's a smaller percentage than that of the critics, but that is still more than 3 out of 4 people logging into RT and saying they liked the movie. That does not say that most people didn't like the movie. A difference in the weight of the two opinions (average joe vs film critic) doesn't in itself mean that the average joe didn't "get it".

Same goes for the other two sites. They are providing the mean of the scores, indicating that when you take into account how strongly each individual feels about the film, on average the film earns a 7.4 review score (think of it like 3 out of 4 stars) on Metacritic or an 8.0 (4 out of 5 stars) on IMDB.

Just because all you see is a blue painting does not mean that the painter wasn't communicating something more than that, nor does it mean the people around you haven't seen anything beyond "Blue Painting" when they examine it.

You might have had a point if not for the reality that the Flixster scale only goes between 65-100 for 99.9% of movies released. Not to mention half of the reviews are given before any films even release. So a 78% on average is pretty bad on the Flixster scale. Just as a 3.2/5 on Netflix for "Best Picture" nominee Lost in Translation is pretty bad given how overrated films tend to be by the general public. For reference Madea's Witness Protection currently has an 82% rating on Flixster. I don't take that to mean 8 out of 10 people who watch the movie think it is good.

Look I'm not saying Drive is "Spice World" bad or something, but it just isn't a film most people will enjoy or remember. It's not what the average viewer goes to the theater to see and it's not intellectual enough to be award worthy. As an action movie it's bland, as an intellectual film it's lacking severely in plot and character development.

The example about the blue painting is just to illustrate the point that critics sometimes see (whether projected or not) what the average viewer does not. I think most viewers prefer tangible to abstract. The line between lazy/bad art and subtle/profound art can sometimes be hard to delineate.

[stubadub]

Originally Posted by cool8man

For reference Madea's Witness Protection currently has an 82% rating on Flixster. I don't take that to mean 8 out of 10 people who watch the movie think it is good.

I take it exactly as such. Most people know exactly what to expect when they choose to watch that movie. I would have guessed that more often than not the people that sought out that movie enjoyed what they got, which the metric you linked to supports.

I have absolutely no interest in a Madea film and no one that I know that has seen one has enjoyed it. I would never make the claim that most people hate the films based on my anecdotal evidence though. Based on the fact that they keep making them I'd say that there are a significant number of people that do like them and continue to support them.

Your claim was that the film wasn't polarizing, that most people think its a bad film. Yet everywhere we look there is plenty of evidence that it is well liked by a good number of viewers. Suggestions otherwise are anecdotally supported at best.

[tsmith15]

How I feel reading the new posts in here. {NSFW}

[stubadub]

No no no! I don't mean to be a negative Nancy here but that'll never work.
Up the arms. That's the way to do it.

[tokenuser]

Originally Posted by stubadub

No no no! I don't mean to be a negative Nancy here but that'll never work.
Up the arms. That's the way to do it.

... and tilt the wrist towards you as if you are riding a motorbike, otherwise a bone pops up and blocks the artery.

[jtv]

Lost in Translation is a completely different experience. Mostly because the two leads had an actual believable relationship. They had conversations, they went out.

They weren't just two pretty people staring at each other for 90 minutes.

[heyseuss]

Originally Posted by stubadub

I have absolutely no interest in a Madea film and no one that I know that has seen one has enjoyed it.

Wait, hold up !! ..... You know someone who's seen a Madea film ??!!?


Just as a sidenote, to make everyone a little sick to their stomach's, Tyler Perry made $175M last year.

[jtv]

I was just looking through Netflix new releases for stuff to add to my queue. One of them was Tyler Perry's Movie I've Never Heard Of #17. Good Deeds or something. How does this man continue to function...

I have black friends, and even they don't understand the appeal.