The Shrine

I have to say I went into this with the lowest of expectations, and I was quite happy it disappointed me in that regard. I enjoyed this far more then I enjoyed any other video game based movie(NOT THAT THAT'S SAYING MUCH CONSIDERING THE COMPETITION).

Maybe it was because it was far more faithful to the subject matter it was based on, it took itself seriously and showed respect. I can see why it has higher ratings from users then critics, if you ever played a PoP game you'll be pleasantly surprised at how much care was given into crafting that world on the big screen. It's a shame that it didn't do as well box office wise, more video game based movies should be so faithful/good as this.

So it's actually better than Mortal Kombat and the first two Resident Evil movies? That's saying quite a bit, those were solid :-)

I don't believe you. It was a Jerry Fuckheimer film. Hell, it got 37% on Rotten Tomatoes. (Although, the best video game movie, FF: Spirits Within, got 48%, so that's not saying much.)

Shit, if you want a video game movie, just watch Scott Pilgram. Now.

SineSwiper wrote:I don't believe you. It was a Jerry Fuckheimer film. Hell, it got 37% on Rotten Tomatoes. (Although, the best video game movie, FF: Spirits Within, got 48%, so that's not saying much.)

Shit, if you want a video game movie, just watch Scott Pilgram. Now.

I actually thought it did better on Rotten Tomatoes. I was under the impression, like Eric, that the critics didn't hate it. Maybe I shoulda looked deeper before watching it so my impressions going in aren't that wrong....

Scott Pilgram did 81%, only slightly less than the 87% for Inception or far less than the 94% of the Star Trek reboot if you want a point of comparison.

Zeus wrote: Scott Pilgram did 81%, only slightly less than the 87% for Inception or far less than the 94% of the Star Trek reboot if you want a point of comparison.

I think Scott Pilgrim only did 81% because it's pretty much geared toward gamers/geeks only. I think its a love it/hate it movie, so sure it won't get 100%, but I think 81% for that kind of movie is excellent.

Come on now. Everyone knows the best Videogame movie was The Wizard. Fred Savage FTW!

Zeus wrote:Scott Pilgram did 81%, only slightly less than the 87% for Inception or far less than the 94% of the Star Trek reboot if you want a point of comparison.

All good movies, though Inception was more accessible to the general public than Scott Pilgram, and Star Trek more accessible still. But, then again, the more specific the comedy, the greater the laughs.

SineSwiper wrote:

Zeus wrote:Scott Pilgram did 81%, only slightly less than the 87% for Inception or far less than the 94% of the Star Trek reboot if you want a point of comparison.

All good movies, though Inception was more accessible to the general public than Scott Pilgram, and Star Trek more accessible still. But, then again, the more specific the comedy, the greater the laughs.

So you believe that the aggregate score is more strongly influenced by accessibility than anything else? That's a pretty interesting argument. I'd have to think about it more but it certainly appears to be a strong factor on the surface

Accessibility being how much the general public "gets" the movie. Scott Pilgrim is full of video game references that not everybody gets. Inception is a fairly complex story involving dreams, which not everybody would understand. Star Trek, on the other hand, didn't need Trekkies to understand the reboot; to most, it was just a fun sci-fi action movie.

I'm not saying that's the full picture though. All of those movies were excellent movies, so you're talking about a swing of only 13%. The ones with the low scores still suck.

SineSwiper wrote:Accessibility being how much the general public "gets" the movie. Scott Pilgrim is full of video game references that not everybody gets. Inception is a fairly complex story involving dreams, which not everybody would understand. Star Trek, on the other hand, didn't need Trekkies to understand the reboot; to most, it was just a fun sci-fi action movie.

I'm not saying that's the full picture though. All of those movies were excellent movies, so you're talking about a swing of only 13%. The ones with the low scores still suck.

That makes sense. I'd have to say it's certainly a factor. I mean, no movie is more accessible than Toy Story 3 and look at the score it got (99%).

Yes, generally the relatively low score ones do suck but I don't necessarily think it goes the other way. There are a lot of mediocre films that get 80s or even 90s on Rotten Tomatoes (Titanic got an 82% :-). You do have your occasional one under 40% that's actually a decent flick, but they are very few and far between, much more so than the other way.