|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Into the Storm (2014)
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 09-02-2014 09:00 AM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
How this thing even got an 6.3 on IMDB is beyond me, it's probably a clear indication that those ratings are no longer trustworthy. Buying good ratings seems to be the new form of "guerrilla marketing".
This is not an indication of tampering or "buying" the IMDB ratings as much as it is an indication of the dumbing-down of the American public. If it doesn't have bigger and wilder explosions and more whiz-bang special effects and faster and faster CHASES of one kind or another, they are not interested. Multi-layered themes and subplots? Nuance (HA)? If a plot doesn't go from point A to point B in a straight line (and FAST), they are not interested. They have the attention span of a 5 year old and the intellectual acuity of a rhododendron. It's no wonder they think this kind of crap is good and quality is boring. Even in an English language film, if there is a discussion where the characters are speaking a foreign language and subtitles are used, if that scene lasts more than a minute or two, they are lost. Foreign language films? Forget about it. They can't read. And it doesn't seem to bother anyone that in ALL the important disciplines -- math, science and reading -- the good ole US of A ranks 21st....behind Slovenia, Trinidad, Armenia.
No, they don't need to buy IMDB ratings, they just need to get the formula right to appeal to our bright, younger generation --their prime demographic. They just need sexy flash and no substance and there you've got your 6.3....easy.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 09-04-2014 09:59 AM
quote: Frank Angel
Actually, no, I didn't see it, and maybe I am overstating, but the premise was that lots of really bad movies can and do get good IMDB ratings, or at least higher than what you would think and I don't believe that's because they are manipulated. It's just we can like some mediocre movies...which is fine, as long as the better films still get a fair shake.
There are always exceptions to the rule, but in general, I would say that until a year or three ago, those IMDB ratings generally reflected my opinions about a movie. But nowadays, I find that those ratings are generally just bogus, at least for me. So either the dumbed-down populace has found their way to the vote button, or something other is going on.
Keep in mind that IMDB's ratings are based on some secret magic foo. Their, as they claim, weighted average uses metrics that nobody knows. They say they won't tell you, because else people will game the system...
Well, IMDB is a subsidiary of Amazon. Amazon sells content on a large scale, both physical and as subscription and download service. They also sell advertising. A good rating on IMDB will have their effects on the box office, just like reviews will do. IMDB does therefore has a conflict of interest, there is no reason to trust them.
quote: Mike Blakesley
As for this movie -- I'm looking forward to seeing it just for what it is -- an action movie with a dynamic soundtrack. It's summer escapism and it doesn't pretend to be anything more. The "thinking" movies will be coming along this fall.
Personally, I like many of those GOOD action movies just as much as those with the more seasoned kind of story. But the less story there is, the more you need to like and care for the characters on-screen to keep it working. There's a reason why, for example, Die Hard works and is among my favorite popcorn movies of all time. It's not like that movie has such a compelling, complex and multi-layered plot, it's just a damn good and entertaining action movie.
Twister also worked pretty well as a movie. Yeah, it was never a masterpiece and it was full of "Hollywood Science" and other stupid inconsistencies, but it's still fun to watch once in a while. It also has a good pace and really doesn't get boring.
This movie is exactly the opposite. First of all, the whole plot and setting is just a direct Twister ripoff, the differences are almost in the detail. In essence, you could call it a remake, a bad remake, but nonetheless a remake. But, it still feels like they first came up with the tornado destruction scenes and figured out how to glue those together later. There is no chemistry between the main characters and the stuff between the action scene's is just sooo cheesy and boring, it makes the rest hardly bearable.
And for what it's worth... I didn't see this in Atmos, but in 7.1. You probably know the trailer, it sounds great in Atmos and 7.1. Unfortunately, the audio in the trailer must have been made by another production team than the mix of the movie itself... It's not that the mix is really bad, but it doesn't really stand out, it nowhere comes close to the effect that's been achieved in the trailer.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-06-2014 11:21 PM
We watched this today. I enjoyed the hell out of it -- but as has been noted, you totally have to check your brains at the door. I can see a hurricane tearing up an airliner, for example, but picking up a dozen of them at the same time and hurling them around the sky seemed a little over the top. The filmmakers got carried away with the CGI.
Still, as a thrill ride this was probably the best one of the summer. It kind of hearkened back to the old disaster movies, except the best of those ("Towering Inferno" comes to mind) always took time off from the thrills for character development. None of that here -- the dialogue scenes (badly acted, mostly) are just bridges from one storm scene to the next.
I thought the sound mix was good. About what was expected, at least.
I'm kind of surprised they didn't release this in 3-D. Those storm scenes could have been pretty cool with stuff flying at you.
As an action movie, it was great, but it suffered from bad writing and bad acting, so it gets 3.5 out of 5 stars for me. If they'd had some real good actors and decent writing, it could have been a great movie.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 09-08-2014 10:38 AM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
There are always exceptions to the rule, but in general, I would say that until a year or three ago, those IMDB ratings generally reflected my opinions about a movie. But nowadays, I find that those ratings are generally just bogus, at least for me. So either the dumbed-down populace has found their way to the vote button, or something other is going on.
It goes right along the same lines of the audience ratings I see at Rotten Tomatoes' web site. Take a movie that got drubbed by the critics, such as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. It earned only 19% on the Tomato Meter, but scored 59% on the audience poll. Sometimes audiences and critics are mostly in agreement, like with Guardians of the Galaxy (92% Tomato Meter score, 95% audience score). In the case of Into the Storm, it had a 21% Tomato Meter score yet 50% of audiences liked it. It's pretty rare for a movie to score better with critics than audiences. Lucy got a 66% score on the Tomato Meter, but only 48% of audience members liked it.
Generally speaking, critics are not very hesitant about picking apart a movie while theater customers are more willing to look past the flaws and like it anyway. I also think there's a factor involved where customers may be embarrassed to admit they wasted money on a bad movie. Whenever I hear someone talking about a movie they saw over the weekend and they say something like, "it was okay," the comment probably really means the movie was dog shit.
Prominent film critics are usually very knowledgeable movie buffs who know enough film history and have seen enough movies to tell when a bad movie is ripping off things from other movies and just doing things poorly. A lot of casual movie goers, particularly the younger ones, don't know any better. So those movie goers are far more likely to enjoy something that would make a critic want to pour salt onto his eye balls.
A lot of casual movie goers will also pop off the comment, "I don't listen to the critics." I don't listen to just one critic's opinion. But I don't like wasting money on bad movies either, and the cost of going to the movies isn't exactly cheap these days. So I'll look for a consensus at sites like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. If a movie scores pretty low at those sites I'll know it's probably a good idea to at least avoid that movie in first run release.
quote: Mike Blakesley
I can see a hurricane tearing up an airliner, for example, but picking up a dozen of them at the same time and hurling them around the sky seemed a little over the top. The filmmakers got carried away with the CGI.
Wind is an extremely powerful thing. In real life, a severe tornado (EF-4 to EF-5 range) could pick up jumbo jets with ease. They might not get picked up in one piece though; I would expect a tornado to tear off the wings and then demolish them with all the flying debris. The EF-5 tornado that hit Moore, OK a year ago took out an old truss bridge on the Canadian River next to I-44, and the tornado hadn't reached full EF-5 strength at that point.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic