Flags of Our Fathers

[Cinemaman]

you still said 80%

If the movie gets 80% at first, it won't even get to 70%, what means bad.

I am tired with reiteration of this.

 

[Jolie_Desastre]

If the movie gets 80% at first, it won't even get to 70%, what means bad.

I am tired with reiteration of this.

it's not getting entirely mixed reviews. otherwise it would be in the 30s.

 

[Cinemaman]

it's not getting entirely mixed reviews. otherwise it would be in the 30s.

Look, if you can't understand a simple thing, that's not my problem.

For movie like this getting 80% at first means 45-55% as final result.

And BTW, 50% means negative perception from critics. Mixed reviews mean 70-80%.

 

[Hunter Rider]

If a movie starts out with a couple of bad reviews and and gets set at 80% there is no reason it can't pick up and add some percent as opposed to all the latter reviews being negative

 

[Cinemaman]

If a movie starts out with a couple of bad reviews and and gets set at 80% there is no reason it can't pick up and add some percent as opposed to all the latter reviews being negative

But usually, if movie get 80% at first, final result will be 45-55% and the same now happens with Flags of Our Fathers.

 

[Bat Brain]

But usually, if movie get 80% at first, final result will be 45-55% and the same now happens with Flags of Our Fathers.

Am I the only one not seeing the logic behind this?

 

[Cinemaman]

Am I the only one not seeing the logic behind this?

There is logic.

There is almost no movie, which got at first 80% and had 70% as final result.

That is why I am right.

Oh God, this is just simple.

 

[Hunter Rider]

But usually, if movie get 80% at first, final result will be 45-55% and the same now happens with Flags of Our Fathers.

I don't see how that works,your theory seems to insinuate that b/c the first few reviewers didn;t like it then it will continue that pattern and the percentage will plummet,
is it not possible that many latter reviewers will like a movie that got a few early bad reviews and thus keep it's percentage from falling completely ? obviously Flags is done for now but in other cases it could quite easily happen

 

[Cinemaman]

I don't see how that works,your theory seems to insinuate that b/c the first few reviewers didn;t like it then it will continue that pattern and the percentage will plummet,
is it not possible that many latter reviewers will like a movie that got a few early bad reviews and thus keep it's percentage from falling completely ? obviously Flags is done for now but in other cases it could quite easily happen

No, no. You didn't get it right.

If most of first reviews aren't positive, then it is doubtful for movie to get 70%.

Just look at movies like The Da Vinci Code, The Black Dahlia, Sky Captain, Constantine and etc.

 

[Hunter Rider]

No, no. You didn't get it right.

If most of first reviews aren't positive, then it is doubtful for movie to get 70%.

Just look at movies like The Da Vinci Code, The Black Dahlia, Sky Captain, Constantine and etc.

That wasn;t my point, say Zodiac gets 7 bad reviews and 3 good to start it out and it kicks off at 77% isn't it just as likely that the next 20 reviews will be mostly positive and the percentage will rise or at least even off at around 70%

 

[Cinemaman]

That wasn;t my point, say Zodiac gets 7 bad reviews and 3 good to start it out and it kicks off at 77% isn't it just as likely that the next 20 reviews will be mostly positive and the percentage will rise or at least even off at around 70%

Actually Zodiac didn't get 7 bad reviews, but if the movie at first gets much more negative reviews than positive, then it won't have 70% finally.

And I doubt the movie would rise with positive reviews, if there weren't so much of them.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Actually Zodiac didn't get 7 bad reviews, but if the movie at first gets much more negative reviews than positive, then it won't have 70% finally.

And I doubt the movie would rise with positive reviews, if there weren't so much of them.

Cine you missed my point,i never said Zodiac got 7 bad reviews i was using a hypothetical to make the point that a movie can rise or even out as reviews come in,just b/c the first set are bad it isn't a definite that it will continue to plummet,it can just as easily pick up

 

[Cinemaman]

Cine you missed my point,i never said Zodiac got 7 bad reviews i was using a hypothetical to make the point that a movie can rise or even out as reviews come in,just b/c the first set are bad it isn't a definite that it will continue to plummet,it can just as easily pick up

Ok, there can be some possibility of this, but it doesn't happen usually. And I was right this time with Flags of our fathers.

 

[Jolie_Desastre]

it wasn't about being right or wrong geez cool down

i'm seeing this movie no matter what. and i liked constantine

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

More reviews from AICN:

Capone

Quint

 

[hippie_hunter]

So is this movie set in the world of Saving Private Ryan since Steven Speilberg is producing it?

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

So is this movie set in the world of Saving Private Ryan since Steven Speilberg is producing it?

Set in the world of SPR? Huh? SPR is fictional while Flags is historic.

Anyway, the History Channel had a special on last night about Flags of Our Fathers and about combat photography in general. Got to see a lot of footage and behind the scenes of Eastwood, Pepper, Bradford, etc.. They based a lot of cinematography around old photos taken during the event, and it was apparent how detail-oriented Eastwood was during the making.

 

[Jolie_Desastre]

If the movie gets 80% at first, it won't even get to 70%, what means bad.

I am tired with reiteration of this.

it won't?....but it did

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

you can truly never predict something on rotten tomatoes...hell even i was surprised

 

[DACrowe]

While Cinemaman....please DON'T TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW, it got 75% good reviews.

Anyway I had the good fortune to see this movie yesterday. No it is NOT Saving Private Ryan, nor is it as good but it isn't trying to be. It is a movie told in three very strong narratives about heroism in war and more interestingly this generation and how it affected them as men and also a sleight at war propoganda then and now. While I generally disagree with what it said about the home front war effort during WWII (the parallels to today are unwarrented and don't work) the movie overall is very well done. The acting is great ,and while the whole thing is so dark and convoluted I felt a little TOO distant to some of the action, overall I was very much moved by this movie.

I would also venture to say that this is the most realistic WWII movie in representing that generation. This seems to me more what these men were like and not the almost romantcizied view in Spielberg and Band of Brothers and so on (though at the same time I think Band of Brothers was the fairest hand about these men than either fiilm). I think this is much truer to that generation while giving a fairly good depiction of the beginning of the battle for Iwo Jima (though the other two narratives are its larger focus).

I would call this a very good movie and I think it stands as one of the more wild card contenders for best picture nominations this winter too.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

not the almost romantcizied view in Spielberg and Band of Brothers and so on (though at the same time I think Band of Brothers was the fairest hand about these men than either fiilm).

Uh, maybe I don't get what you're saying, but there is NOTHING romanticized or even close to "almost" about SPR and BoB. Of all the war related films, etc., those two are the absolute best in terms of realism and the immediate perceived effects of war.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Just saw this tonight. It was really good. Not really great, but it doesn't seem to aim for that if that makes any sense.

Structure was pretty odd though, not straight forward at all. Too
many different time lines spread out, which I think hurt it. It would
have been better to go backwards I think, with the end being one long
battle sequence of the actual Iwo Jima battle, as in the movie would
build to the battle. As it was, you see the battle throughout the
movie, interspersed.

It was very well made though, great direction of course and the battle
itself was top notch. Everything else in between held up surprisingly
well, considering the intensity of the battle footage. There are some
"hokey" moments that fail, but they weren't going for anything huge
and tear-jerking so I can forgive that.

Lots of good moments in the battle...some stuff I haven't seen done
before. Very Saving Private Ryan-ish, even has a couple of actors from
it in the movie. I enjoyed it,and think it told a good story well.

 

[Clerk]

I dont know what the overall reaction is, but I hated this movie. While I completely understand what Clint was trying to say and commetate on what exactly a hero was, the nonlinear structure was more annoying than helpful and there wasn't enough of the soldiers battles and relationships on Iwo Jima (sp? tired from 48 hours awake). Once the "narrator" was brought in at the end, I couldnt take it and fell asleep for a few mins. Perhaps if I viewed it on one of my reflection nights, I'd enjoy it, but Im gonna go have sex with the Prestige.

 

[Darth Elektra]

Wasnt great but wasnt bad either.

 

[Movies205]

After the ****fest known as MDB, I was scared for the quality of this film, however the film turned out to be good but still had some lingering flaws. I give it an 8/10, the cinematography, story, theme, etc is all there but it's too long and the editing is muddle. In the beginning the jumping around didn't bother me but it's when the film started going around in circles, repeating the same things over and over again, that it gets tedious. They should of cut 20 mintues from the film to tighten the pace. But I like the acting and the story, and the ending is heart-felt.