I don't get it. I really don't. How do critics minds work? There Will Be Blood. This movie, in my opinion, was not worth the amazing ratings it received from critics. I thought the plot went absolutely nowhere, and I didn't care about the stale characters. So with a plot that goes nowhere, and a main character that I could not find myself to care about, what made this film so good in the eyes of critics, because I hated it. I know it's just my opinion, and I have no professional experience in the film industry, so what am I not getting. I just got home from seeing Knowing and I loved it. I thought it was creepy, suspenseful, it had characters that I genuinely cared about, and the special effects were AMAZING. Yet, of course, critics gave it terrible reviews. "Consensus: Knowing has some interesting ideas and a couple good scenes, but it's weighted down by its absurd plot and over-seriousness." That is straight from rottentomatoes.com. What does an absurd plot have to do with anything? It's a movie, it doesn't have to be possible, it just has to make you think it could be believable when you are watching it. And over-seriousness? What? The world is about to end, why would this film not be serious, do they want the characters cracking jokes while trying to escape the end of life as we know it. Yes the movie was a bit out-there. But it was entertaining and fun. How is it worth a 24% on rottentomatoes when There Will Be Blood gets a 94%? Now I am completely open to these critics ideas and opinions on the films, but I would just like help understand why they think one movie is terrible while the other is amazing.
Am i not getting something here?
- Thread starter DRthunderMD
- Start date
Haven't seen either of those films.
I'm not going to lose any sleep, knowing that I haven't seen them either.
Different people like different things. Gladiator was a huge success, by most standards. I found it to be extremely dull & predictable.
Stop worrying about what other people think, and focus on what you like or want to create.
If Lloyd Kaufman cared about critical reviews, he would have quit 30 years ago. Instead, he's got quite a (tumultuous) legacy behind him.
Crap or not, he's made a career of doing what he wants to be doing.
I'm not going to lose any sleep, knowing that I haven't seen them either.
Different people like different things. Gladiator was a huge success, by most standards. I found it to be extremely dull & predictable.
Stop worrying about what other people think, and focus on what you like or want to create.
If Lloyd Kaufman cared about critical reviews, he would have quit 30 years ago. Instead, he's got quite a (tumultuous) legacy behind him.
Crap or not, he's made a career of doing what he wants to be doing.
Horses for courses. I thought There Will Be Blood was fan-bloody-tastic. Top class acting, multi-layered and memorable characters, awesome score, beautiful colours and cinematography, and a great story.
Shows what we know, eh?
Shows what we know, eh?