Nice catch :) Fun little writeup, and good to see it in VV.

zeitgeist | September 28, 01:08 CET

Matt Singer went further than possibly anyone in his FOX-TV-exec-attack interpretation. But I like it ;)

That marks the first (deemed) positive review among the Cream of the Crop on RottenTomatoes. Hopefully more to come.

[ edited by Serge on 2005-09-27 23:13 ]

Kaneda | September 28, 01:11 CET

I think it is a wonderful review; in spite of the editorial wondering whether people would will bother to go, they make the movie sound smart and exciting (which it is) and so the review may convince people to go see it.
I am getting so nervous about this weekend, and the all important numbers!

embers | September 28, 01:35 CET

RT has some weird ideas about rotten/fresh. I don't think 2.5/4 or 3/5 is rotten, personally, but...

zeitgeist | September 28, 01:37 CET

zeitgeist- I think the whole idea that reviews can be neatly divided between rotten and fresh is dumb, as is including the review of anyone with an Internet connection. That's why I prefer metacritic (which, granted, has been kinda inconsistent in translating reviews into ratings).

[ edited by bobothebrave on 2005-09-27 23:52 ]

bobothebrave | September 28, 01:41 CET

zeitgeist: RT's reply to that would be:

[...] star systems are not consistent between critics. [...] Also, there's always the possibility of the webmaster or critic putting the wrong rating on a review.

And then we're into the complete subjectivity of RT - hence "(deemed) positive" - since the Variety review is not really negative to anyone who doesn't work on RT =)

And added to that, I agree completely, bobo... One example of the problem with the division into fresh and rotten would be Star Wars ep. III, which got a lot of lukewarm reviews (in the vein of "well, it was better than the last two"), and yet it managed to end up with 80-something % fresh - just because most of the reviews weren't exactly bad.

But RT is still the most popular choice for review summaries...

[ edited by Serge on 2005-09-27 23:49 ]

Kaneda | September 28, 01:47 CET

Those seem like pretty major spoilers rather than just minor, but since I've seen the movie twice now so it's all blurring in my head ...

That said, very nice review. I hope that other mainstream reviewers are this nice.

chickenbird | September 28, 01:49 CET

Yeah, metacritic is much better. The way they break reviews down into three colors, and five sub-rankings within those colors just makes a lot more sense. Rottentomatoes is like the simplistic, Ebert/Roeper, everything must be either good or bad, there is no middle ground way of thinking. Of course, looking at a metacritic or rottentomatoes score is never going to tell you as much as actually reading the reviews of several critics you trust.

bonzob | September 28, 01:52 CET

This is great! The Village Voice is no small thing. I'm feeling very encouraged.

Add my voice to those who find Rottentomatoes too simplistic in their approach. I'm officially no longer a fan of that site.

phlebotinin | September 28, 01:55 CET

The part about the middle finger made me snort.

I've always thought that Joss was too kind to actually say it out loud, but that image of Spike flipping "up yours" from the Buffy opening has stayed with me, especially during opportune moments in departmental meetings.

Now I see Joss doing it. Yo FOX! " \/ "

bogu_salias | September 28, 01:55 CET

Yeah, and as you said above, the Variety review isn't considered negative by most who read it. Its just Variety being Variety. MC's approach seems way better.

zeitgeist | September 28, 01:56 CET

Matt Singer went further than possibly anyone in his FOX-TV-exec-attack interpretation.

Not so much. Some of us wrote of those parallels, as far out as Singer if not further, months ago. But then again, some of us aren't in major metropolitan weeklies where said writings will actually be seen. Heh.

Meanwhile, I've started the ongoing process of making my fan poster which review quotes on them.

[ edited by theonetruebix on 2005-09-28 00:11 ]

The One True b!X | September 28, 02:10 CET

Great news about the review. It's not quite the same weight as if it was J. Hoberman (who's very difficult to please anyhow), but I'll take it.

I've only looked at metacritic occasionally, but I like RT -- sure, it's the fresh/rotten thing is a bit of a gimmick and an oversimplificiation, but it's fun and they also provide numerical ratings, summarizing all the various star/grading systems to give a slightly more nuanced view of critical reaction.

And I like the large agglomeration -- critics are just people and the more involved, the more "accurate" the final score is. I don't want to discount poeple just because they write for lesser known pubs -- or even if they don't write well! Their opinions are still as viable as anyone else's in terms the reaction of "opinion-makers" reaction to a movie. And with the Internet, it's kind of hard to judge the relative importance of various web sites anyhow.

[ edited by bobster on 2005-09-28 00:15 ]

bobster | September 28, 02:14 CET

Some of us wrote of those parallels, as far out as Singer if not further, months ago.

Lesson: Never assume anything is new and original in the Browncoat 'verse =)

(Oh, on a personal sidenote, theonetruebix, about the box office counter, did you check the reply at the official board? I can't be bothered to keep up with five pages of recent posts...)

Kaneda | September 28, 02:16 CET

Oh, I think that, on the heels of the New York review, that this is huge, huge, huge. Pretty much all of NYC has now gotten exceedingly favorable commentary about Serenity.

I'm going Friday afternoon in DC, and Saturday afternoon in Arlington, Virginia. And maybe Sunday, too. Bringing people with me. As many as I can.

Chris inVirginia | September 28, 03:55 CET

The film, right down to the tagline ("You can't stop the signal"), is one big middle finger to Fox TV executives.

I love it!

[ edited by Nebula1400 on 2005-09-28 05:19 ]

Nebula1400 | September 28, 07:18 CET