10,000 B.C. is getting some HORRID reviews, lol...

[Goblin19]

I'm with Hector. Rottentomatoes.com is a great way to see if a movie will be good or not. I don't agree with certain critics, but when the vast majority agree on a movie, it's usually accurate.

[Vortigern99]

But sometimes critics profess hatred for a movie simply because the project's commercial success seems bullet-proof, and they have fun bashing it because it's an easy target. This is a ridiculous prehistorical action-adventure movie we're talking about here, which genre typically does not garner "fresh" reviews. Critics also tend to go with the zeitgeist, the general cultural slant toward or away from a particular work of art of commerce, which is a biased way of approaching a movie.

And what if you personally happen to fall in the 12 or 13% that actually enjoyed the film? Does that mean something is "Wrong" with you? Of course not; it simply means you found reasons to enjoy the film which others seemed to have missed.

[huedell]

But sometimes critics profess hatred for a movie simply because the project's commercial success seems bullet-proof, and they have fun bashing it because it's an easy target. This is a ridiculous prehistorical action-adventure movie we're talking about here, which genre typically does not garner "fresh" reviews. Critics also tend to go with the zeitgeist, the general cultural slant toward or away from a particular work of art of commerce, which is a biased way of approaching a movie.

And what if you personally happen to fall in the 12 or 13% that actually enjoyed the film? Does that mean something is "Wrong" with you? Of course not; it simply means you found reasons to enjoy the film which others seemed to have missed.

Understood, all valid points...but...yeah...I think you better get your head
checked if the MAJORITY of 12/13 % (i.e. VERY low scoring) ratings
you are disagreeing with and giving high ratings to----

[Hector]

But sometimes critics profess hatred for a movie simply because the project's commercial success seems bullet-proof, and they have fun bashing it because it's an easy target. This is a ridiculous prehistorical action-adventure movie we're talking about here, which genre typically does not garner "fresh" reviews. Critics also tend to go with the zeitgeist, the general cultural slant toward or away from a particular work of art of commerce, which is a biased way of approaching a movie.

And what if you personally happen to fall in the 12 or 13% that actually enjoyed the film? Does that mean something is "Wrong" with you? Of course not; it simply means you found reasons to enjoy the film which others seemed to have missed.

After you watch it, come back here and post again.

[Hector]

Is this from the makers of Godzilla and Independance Day?

Like some of the guys said...one critic is no biggie, but when it's a bunch and it ends up in the lower 13%...chances are that it's going to be pretty accurate.

[thunderbolt]

Like some of the guys said...one critic is no biggie, but when it's a bunch and it ends up in the lower 13%...chances are that it's going to be pretty accurate.

I knew there was a reason why I was avoiding that movie.

[kingcarm]

I'm taking my 2 daughters (3 and 12 yrs old) to see this movie tomorrow. I got excited about the preview on TV but like someone said, good or bad, as long as the kids like it, I'm there!!!! I'll post tomorrow with my review.

[Vortigern99]

Okay, well, Jumper has 16% and I really enjoyed that film. The bashing of it was totally unwarranted, IMO. Great little sci-fi/adventure movie, not perfect but still well made and even breathtaking in places.

But I have to admit a search on rottentomatoes.com for movies scoring in the 10-20% range did turn up unbelievable stinker after unbelievable stinker. There are a few hidden gems -- I think Halloween II is at least as effective a horror movie as the original, but it only merits 19%; and Boyle's The Beach also gets 19% when I thought it was a fine thriller -- but yes, for the most part you see the likes of Catwoman, Haunted Mansion and Jaws 3, which clearly deserve the fate of 10 - 12%.

Whether BC ends up alongside those classic turds in my own personal library of wretchedly bad films, or exceeds expectations to deliver an enjoyable romp, remains to be seen.

[Hector]

I shouldn't talk...I enjoyed Battlefield Earth.

[ctc]

>I heard Rambo 4 was great,.. & true to the character.

There were CHARACTERS in Rambo? I musta missed that one....

>but when it's a bunch and it ends up in the lower 13%...chances are that it's going to be pretty accurate.

I dunno; it'd depend on how similar the tastes of the SORT of person who feels the need to articulate an opinion of a film are. A lot of times it's pushbutton: as long as elements A, C, and F are in the film it's good. But if it has G, L or Y in it... it's bad. Now; if you're of a,ike mind these reviews are useful. If not....

I never go by reviewers. I don't care what anyone else thinks, and I've noticed that my tastes seem RADICALLY different from those of the majority.

I did see one thing that makes me leary of seeing "10,000 BC." And no; it's not the mammoths charging a zigurat. THAT'S cool. What scared me was "from the director who brought you 'Independance Day' and 'The Day After Tomorrow;" two of the worst movies I have ever forced my optic nerves to endure.

Don C.

[monkey tennis]

I took my wife and kids to see this movie today and they loved it.
"Dad, that was one of the best movies I've ever seen..."
And I also liked it.

[Steeler80]

If the storyline was good, I could forget about the inaccuracies. A bad storyline would only make me pick them up even more.