The Law Abiding Citizen

[BigRichard]

Went and seen it tonight. It was awsome. If you are entertained by bloody sadistic movies with a little bit of a twist then you can't miss on this one. At least something can be good since the Chiefs are just about unwatchable.:thumb:

[Sure-Oz]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/law_abiding_citizen/

yikes a 19% on RT

i wanted to see this

[CoMoChief]

i wanted to see this very bad

i know a good movie when i see it

the only problem is i watch most movies online. dont wanna pay 8-9 dollars to see one.

[God of Thunder]

I concur with TS, movie was good.

[God of Thunder]

also, yahoo users liked it....

has A- so far!

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810029276/user

[Thig Lyfe]

also, yahoo users liked it....



Sooooo it sucks?

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

I like the vibe of this movie though I fear the final product may be a letdown of Pioli-esque proportions.
Should I brave the front and give one ounce of care, or should I give in to reality and be prepared for an utter failure on every conceivable front?

[BigRichard]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/law_abiding_citizen/

yikes a 19% on RT

i wanted to see this

Those are the same people that give "No Country for Old Men" a 94% and "Sideways" a 97%. Those movies are absolute garbage IMO.

[OmahaChief]

Those are the same people that give "No Country for Old Men" a 94% and "Sideways" a 97%. Those movies are absolute garbage IMO.

I feel asleep 3 different times at No Country for Old Men. It was that boring. I totally agree that these guys that rate movies a lot of the time have no clue.

[BigMeatballDave]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/law_abiding_citizen/

yikes a 19% on RT

i wanted to see thisAre you really gonna let them decide if you go see a movie?

[unlurking]

Those are the same people that give "No Country for Old Men" a 94% and "Sideways" a 97%. Those movies are absolute garbage IMO.
I agree with you on Sideways, but I loved No Country for Old Men. That movie was great.

[Fire Me Boy!]

I feel asleep 3 different times at No Country for Old Men. It was that boring. I totally agree that these guys that rate movies a lot of the time have no clue.

The problem with the guys that rate those movies is they tend to rate them based on artistic merit. The LCD audiences just don't like them because there's not enough tits, not enough explosion, too much character, and the plot is too complex.

When I critiqued for a living, I specifically tried to place myself out of my shoes and into the person's sitting next to me. I gave some movies favorable reviews basically because I knew audiences would love it, even if it was a piece of garbage as far as films go.

Now if it was bad, it was bad and it got a bad review. Gothika, Underworld, Tuck Everlasting.... those were bad films and got bad reviews. However, movies that would have gotten bad reviews to my film school buds but I knew audiences would love might have mentioned that bad parts but remained a favorable review overall.

For the general public - that LCD audience - they certainly shouldn't be getting their reviews from someone that's educated on the subject.

[TRR]

Those are the same people that give "No Country for Old Men" a 94% and "Sideways" a 97%. Those movies are absolute garbage IMO.

Sideways was fantastic! The movie revolutionized the wine industry and the sales of Pino Noir like no other movie ever has. Trips to Napa have doubled since the release of Sideways.
Posted via Mobile Device

[baitism]

I want to see this too. Also, Zombieland was the funniest movie I have ever seen in theaters.

[Deberg_1990]

The problem with the guys that rate those movies is they tend to rate them based on artistic merit. The LCD audiences just don't like them because there's not enough tits, not enough explosion, too much character, and the plot is too complex.

When I critiqued for a living, I specifically tried to place myself out of my shoes and into the person's sitting next to me. I gave some movies favorable reviews basically because I knew audiences would love it, even if it was a piece of garbage as far as films go.

Now if it was bad, it was bad and it got a bad review. Gothika, Underworld, Tuck Everlasting.... those were bad films and got bad reviews. However, movies that would have gotten bad reviews to my film school buds but I knew audiences would love might have mentioned that bad parts but remained a favorable review overall.

For the general public - that LCD audience - they certainly shouldn't be getting their reviews from someone that's educated on the subject.

There really are two different film audiences.

1. The general public who just wants to have a good time, eat their popcorm and forget about life for 2 hours. They could care less about directors, editing, score, all the artsy stuff. My wife is one.

2. People like you and I, and most major critics who pay attention to the technical arsty stuff and want something a little bit deeper. Not that i dont enjoy a good guilty pleasure once in awhile. Ive got tons of those.

I think alot of the major critics get a bug up their a$$ sometimes. They could benefit from lightening up a little bit. Too much self importance.