Movie appraisals: I don't think I am alone

This morning I was reading the “Rave!,” a section of the South Bay Daily Breeze; you can see this online at . In Rave! is Roger Ebert’s review of the new movie See Spot Run.
The SDMB posts I have started seem to have blown up in my face from the hostile replies I’ve seen posted in them. But somehow, I feel vindicated after reading Ebert’s review, to some extent.
Please read Ebert’s review and then comment to me. :slight_smile:

I don’t exactly know what you had been saying, but you probably shouldn’t just trust Roger Ebert., however, gives it a 22% on the tomatomoeter scale – definitely rotten. Cream of the crop review are down to 14%, which is even worse.

Evidently, the film is as bad as the ads for it make it seem.

Well, there you are.

<hijack, I think, since I’m not quite sure what this thread is about>
I LOVE Rotten Tomatoes! It’s a great place to go and read a bunch of reviews of a movie I’ve just seen (I hardly ever read reviews before I go see a film). Still, Monkeybone got a horrendous 16%, reviewers just HATED it, but my husband and I thought it was, for the most part, wonderful, so I don’t put all my faith into their Fresh/Rotten ratings. Btw, I heard that the studio really screwed up Monkeybone by cutting the hell out of it, so I hope to see the Director’s cut on DVD someday.

If Ebert loves a film, I’ll almost always love it too (95% of the time)and have him (and Siskel) to thank for pointing me toward some of my favorite films, but if he doesn’t like a movie, or is lukewarm about it, I’ll use other ways to decide if I want to see it. Too many times he’s disliked or been lukewarm about movies I’ve loved. The most recent being Oh Brother, Where Art Thou, which he just didn’t get. Considering that he didn’t like Raising Arizona, I’m not surprised. And I still haven’t quite forgiven him for trashing one of my favorite films, the utterly delightful and brilliant Return to Oz.


“My hears are lucky to hear these glorious songs…”
Happy Rhodes

I saw the movie at a sneak preview last weekend, and am surprised that it was released at all. This is supposed to be a kiddie flick?!?
David Arquette does a third-rate Chevy Chase imitation, there are scenes of one FBI agent trying to seduce another FBI agent, the bad guy seems astounded that Agent 11 is a dog in the first scene yet tells his cartoon-character hitmen in the next that Agent 11 has shut down a few of his operations before, and to top it all off(here’s where the preschoolers get a BIG laugh!) the doggie’s tricks seem to be jumping into vehicles and biting the gonads off of bad guys!

You know, Czarcasm, this is a cogent point, albeit probably not for me.
In the thread in the BBQ Pit in which I ranted at length about certain movies, I believe even the Dopers who sharply disagreed with me, would hardly question my decision not to see movies in the first place–and to let it go at that.
But this should be a matter of concern for parents, who need proper information about what is in a movie before they let their kids see it. While my own appraisal seems, from the others’ posts in that thread, to be severely skewed from the norm, the matter of concern with children is how they are impressionable, so much so that it is the parent’s right and duty to exercise discretion on behalf of the child. Since I do not have children I probably couldn’t imagine what a parent must think, know, and decide, but I sense that the moviemakers don’t particularly care to give parents the correct (or adequate) information, beyond the letter ratings. I remember that the Motion Picture Academy decided to give the movie Dogs an “R” rating, over the movie company’s objections. (And I can assume that any Dopers who have seen that movie and now have kids, might decide that they wouldn’t want to let their kids go see it.)