Author Topic: Movie: Bridesmaids (Read 5090 times)

SavannahLion · « **on:** June 11, 2011, 02:44:41 am »

I'm stuck watching this chick flick, right now... are they ---smurfing--- British?? Their accent sucks...

Stab me. Stab me now.

Oh my God! Stab me in the ---smurfing--- eyes, tear my ears out! Watching this as the double feature is no not worth it!

Even the sex scene at the beginning sucked, it is the worst fake sex scene in the history of fake sex scenes. Oh God! Even the crappy eighties fake scenes were better than this! I've suffered through an hour of thiss so far! What the Hell? People are laughing at this inane ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---?? Not even my Android can save me from this crap!

Please, answer my prayers and destroy the digital medium this film exists on!

No matter what happens, do not, under any circumstances watch this with your wife/girlfriend/ ---fudgesicle--- mate/ whatever. YOU WILL NOT GET LAID!!!

SNAAKE · « **Reply #1 on:** June 11, 2011, 02:49:58 am »

did you download a torrent or something??

Id probably still watch. I like the director's other movies.

SavannahLion · « **Reply #2 on:** June 11, 2011, 03:04:00 am »

No, we're at the drive in.

Dartful Dodger · « **Reply #3 on:** June 13, 2011, 01:18:25 pm »

Two guys I work with watched this over the weekend. One with a gf the other with his wife and they both said it was a good movie.

It looks like a Hangover rip off and with Hangover 2 being garbage they may have had lower expectations for Bridesmaids and were pleasantly surprised that it wasn’t that bad.

ChadTower · « **Reply #4 on:** June 13, 2011, 01:24:57 pm »

Quote from: SavannahLion on June 11, 2011, 03:04:00 am

No, we're at the drive in.

Next time you get in that situation at the drive in go for the sex in the car. With your date, with someone else's date, doesn't matter. At least the fistfight will be more entertaining than the movie.

Vigo · « **Reply #5 on:** June 13, 2011, 01:54:43 pm »

Quote from: SavannahLion on June 11, 2011, 02:44:41 am

No matter what happens, do not, under any circumstances watch this with your wife/girlfriend/ ---fudgesicle--- mate/ whatever.

Isn't this rule #1 for about 99% of chick flicks? Avoid at all costs?

Rule #2 being: the more chicks talk about it, the worse it is. The gals in my office won't shut up about the movie.

Donkbaca · « **Reply #6 on:** June 13, 2011, 02:17:18 pm »

No, the movie has about 5 minutes of funny, and no boobs. Furthermore, it really doesn't have anyone who's boobs you want to see.

shmokes · « **Reply #7 on:** June 13, 2011, 02:22:20 pm »

89% on Rotten Tomatoes.

ChadTower · « **Reply #8 on:** June 13, 2011, 02:33:33 pm »

Quote from: shmokes on June 13, 2011, 02:22:20 pm

89% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Proof that Rotten Tomatoes is useless to the typical guy.

shmokes · « **Reply #9 on:** June 13, 2011, 02:43:06 pm »

I'm not so sure. The total scores for movies like Iron Man and the new X-Men movie (not to mention the first two) make me think that in general film critics are not nearly as snooty as people frequently think of them. There are countless examples. Even the new Fast/Furious movie was certified fresh with a 78%, though the one before that got a 28%.

Anyway, while it has definitely not been infallible, it's generally good, and by far the best tool I've found.

Donkbaca · « **Reply #10 on:** June 13, 2011, 02:44:26 pm »

75 on metactitic. I would probably give it a 75, considering that half the population (women) would probably give it higher marks than us men.

ChadTower · « **Reply #11 on:** June 13, 2011, 03:10:43 pm »

Who is the bigger tool? The tool or the tool he uses?

I don't have enough spare time to care what 750 chicks in Idaho think about a movie. If the preview looks decent I might watch it. If the preview looks like crap I won't. It is even simpler.

shmokes · « **Reply #12 on:** June 13, 2011, 04:30:36 pm »

How would the preview, an clip made by marketers working for the movie-maker designed to make you want to see the movie (no matter how bad the movie actually is), be a good indicator of the quality of the movie?

Also, watching the trailer is not at all simpler. Checking a movie's RT rating is faster and easier than finding and watching a given movie's trailer. RT's normalized score is both easier to check and far more likely to predict whether the movie is any good, thanks to objectivity and sample-size. What you said is like saying, "I'm not interested in reviews or safety ratings or statistics on longevity or gas mileage. If the auto manufacturer's ads are good I might buy the car."

Vigo · « **Reply #13 on:** June 13, 2011, 05:03:46 pm »

Quote from: shmokes on June 13, 2011, 04:30:36 pm

How would the preview, an clip made by marketers working for the movie-maker designed to make you want to see the movie (no matter how bad the movie actually is), be a good indicator of the quality of the movie?

Also, watching the trailer is not at all simpler. Checking a movie's RT rating is faster and easier than finding and watching a given movie's trailer. RT's normalized score is both easier to check and far more likely to predict whether the movie is any good, thanks to objectivity and sample-size. What you said is like saying, "I'm not interested in reviews or safety ratings or statistics on longevity or gas mileage. If the auto manufacturer's ads are good I might buy the car."

My general rule of thumb for movie trailers is the more they tell you about the movie, the worse it is. Not a guaranteed litmus test, but if a trailer has to tell you half the plot to get you interested, then it probably is not a good movie.

Ond · « **Reply #14 on:** June 13, 2011, 10:06:08 pm »

Quote from: shmokes on June 13, 2011, 02:43:06 pm

Anyway, while it has definitely not been infallible, it's generally good, and by far the best tool I've found.

+1, I still like PBJs criteria for movie watching though, that's why "Amazon Women on the Moon" sits proudly on my DVD shelves (64% on RT).

ChadTower · « **Reply #15 on:** June 14, 2011, 09:13:55 am »

Quote from: pinballjim on June 13, 2011, 05:14:50 pm

Quote from: Vigo on June 13, 2011, 05:03:46 pm
My general rule of thumb for movie trailers is the more they tell you about the movie, the worse it is. Not a guaranteed litmus test, but if a trailer has to tell you half the plot to get you interested, then it probably is not a good movie.

Same here. But if it's got an alien, spaceship, or a laser I'm going to watch it anyway so I just completely avoid all reviews or trailers. Been deleting a lot of e-mail about Super 8 today.

Same here for both. What good does a rating do me when I don't care at all what anyone else thinks of a movie? Millions of people consider American Idol and Survivor to be great television. Why would I have faith in the opinion of those idiots?

shmokes · « **Reply #16 on:** June 14, 2011, 10:04:16 am »

For a couple reasons. For one, these aren't user reviews. They're written by people who are paid to think about and write about movies. I'm sure that there is a part of you that knows that for the most part this is not by random chance. They have this job because they're better at it than the average person.

The second reason is that to a large extent what makes a movie good is practically objective. There is such broad consensus about some things as to effectively take them out of the realm of "matter of opinion". Obviously if someone puts Catwoman, Iron Man, and Dark Knight next to each other, it would technically be a matter of opinion whether Catwoman is the best of that lot. But for all intents and purposes that's not the case. The latter two have story arcs that make sense, characters that behave and speak in believable ways (at least within their universes) and so on. If there were no objective criteria by which to evaluate film, film school would be pointless.

And, as much as you like to believe that you are the one special human, that's probably not true. You want it to be. We all do. But that's just your inner megalomaniac talking. If something is loved by 90% of people, whether film, food, or whatever, there is probably a much higher probability that you too will like it vs. something that is hated by 90% of people. Especially when supplemented by other info (genre, director, writer, actors, trailer, etc.). We're dealing with probabilities, of course, so sometimes you're gonna be in the 10% of haters. But that doesn't negate all the times that you fit in with the crowd, which is probably far more often than you're letting on. Something tells me that, like the critics, you'll give Dark Knight and Iron Man and Spider-man enthusiastic recommendations over Catwoman, Daredevil and Elektra.

And in any case, no matter the track record of statistical prediction, it's bound to be a more reliable indicator than the persuasiveness of a movie trailer that has been specifically designed to persuade you.

ChadTower · « **Reply #17 on:** June 14, 2011, 10:20:38 am »

Quote from: shmokes on June 14, 2011, 10:04:16 am

And, as much as you like to believe that you are the one special human, that's probably not true. You want it to be. We all do. But that's just your inner megalomaniac talking. If something is loved by 90% of people, whether film, food, or whatever, there is probably a much higher probability that you too will like it vs. something that is hated by 90% of people.

Actually, I find the opposite to be true most of the time. The more people love something the less likely I am to have much use for it. The types of movies that get great ratings on Rotten Tomatoes are not entertaining to me. I can't finish a Tarantino movie. The Farrelly Bros movies are awful. More often than not when I go with the opinion of the large crowd I end up regretting it. Not that I'm "that one special human" or whatever you're getting at there. I just don't like the things that the majority of people like. I don't care who is getting paid for what. It's not me paying them, that's for sure. Their criteria are not my criteria.

Note that there are several people here saying the same thing. It's not just me. Rotten Tomatoes is a good tool for people who think like those who like Rotten Tomatoes. The data there is useless to those who do not think like that.

BTW, I didn't like Spiderman at all. I disliked it enough that I skipped the sequels. Yeah, Dark Knight is a great movie, but let's not suggest that has anything to do with Rotten Tomatoes.

Dartful Dodger · « **Reply #18 on:** June 14, 2011, 11:03:39 am »

Quote from: ChadTower on June 14, 2011, 10:20:38 am

Dark Knight is a great movie, but let's not suggest that has anything to do with Rotten Tomatoes.

He's not suggesting Rotten Tomatoes had anything to with it being a good movie. He's saying that rotten tomatoes (and the masses) are just saying it was a good movie.

It sounds like you are jsut saying you hate anything that's popular and then claim it's because you don’t conform because you have unique tastes.

You're like those Goth kids who don't conform and want to be unique by not blending in with everyone else, you know the ones, they dress all in black, they all wear long coats, they all wear army boots, they all wear heavy eyeliner and they all dye their hair the same color of the day...

ChadTower · « **Reply #19 on:** June 14, 2011, 11:25:26 am »

I never said I dislike things because they are popular. That would be your interpretation. I don't care what is popular. Hell I don't even know what is popular. I'm that far out of the loop most of the time. It's easy to be unaware of trends when you're at home working on old games and don't have the TV on.

Vigo · « **Reply #20 on:** June 14, 2011, 11:25:53 am »

The problem with RT is that it is someone assigning a simple thumbs up or thumbs down random reviews from all over the place. First, a number of reviews on their site are not really reviews, but more movie introductions. The "critic" doesn't criticize, but more gives background on the movie for anyone interesting in seeing the film. RT, picks out an excerpt from it, and assigns a positive or negative based on the very little the critic provided in commentary. Not to mention a number of critics are geared to a specific reader. A critic writes reviews for families with small children would have a negative review of something like the new harry potter films, because they are no longer geared to little children.

That being said, I looked at RT's list of top movies of all time...some are really lame. I like really toy story 2, but it is not the best movie of all time, sorry. Man on a wire is not the second best movie of all time either. Searching for Bobby Fischer? 100% RT score? How the heck did that get to be one of the greatest movies of all time?

Don't worry though, RT tells us that Bridesmaids is a better movie than Indiana Jones and the temple of doom, as well as the last crusade. Since I loved Indiana Jones, I am sure to love Bridesmaids even more.

shmokes · « **Reply #21 on:** June 14, 2011, 11:41:57 am »

Quote from: ChadTower on June 14, 2011, 10:20:38 am

Actually, I find the opposite to be true most of the time. The more people love something the less likely I am to have much use for it.

See, you've just admitted that Rotten Tomatoes would work for you "most of the time".

What I mean to say is that you can choose to use it however works best for you. But it just strikes me as unlikely that Rotten Tomatoes, which is nothing but raw, unadulturated data, cannot be more useful to you than a clip designed expressly to manipulate you.

Mikezilla · « **Reply #22 on:** June 14, 2011, 12:00:27 pm »

Quote from: Vigo on June 14, 2011, 11:25:53 am

The problem with RT is that it is someone assigning a simple thumbs up or thumbs down random reviews from all over the place. First, a number of reviews on their site are not really reviews, but more movie introductions. The "critic" doesn't criticize, but more gives background on the movie for anyone interesting in seeing the film. RT, picks out an excerpt from it, and assigns a positive or negative based on the very little the critic provided in commentary. Not to mention a number of critics are geared to a specific reader. A critic writes reviews for families with small children would have a negative review of something like the new harry potter films, because they are no longer geared to little children.

That being said, I looked at RT's list of top movies of all time...some are really lame. I like really toy story 2, but it is not the best movie of all time, sorry. Man on a wire is not the second best movie of all time either. Searching for Bobby Fischer? 100% RT score? How the heck did that get to be one of the greatest movies of all time?

Don't worry though, RT tells us that Bridesmaids is a better movie than Indiana Jones and the temple of doom, as well as the last crusade. Since I loved Indiana Jones, I am sure to love Bridesmaids even more.

shmokes · « **Reply #23 on:** June 14, 2011, 12:16:25 pm »

Quote from: Vigo on June 14, 2011, 11:25:53 am

Not to mention a number of critics are geared to a specific reader. A critic writes reviews for families with small children would have a negative review of something like the new harry potter films, because they are no longer geared to little children.

That's the beauty of Rotten Tomatoes. The large sample size corrects for that very problem. That's what makes it superior to individual reviewers. It takes all the biases and mashes them all together and They do a pretty good job of cancelling each other out.

As for your complaint about movies with seemingly inflated score, you're using the site wrong. That's an easy mistake to make and probably my least favorite thing about Rotten Tomatoes. It's telling you how many reviewers gave the film a good review. This makes it so that a mediocre but largely unoffensive film (like almost everythin Ron Howard has ever made) might unanimously get like 2.5 to 3 stars. So Rotten Tomatoes will give that film like 90%, cos only 10% of reviewers thought it was actually BAD. That makes it easy to think that it's a much better film than it is. The average critic score is also shown, but it's easy to miss because Rotten Tomatoes is all about the Tomato Rating. But like I say, that's not how the site should be used. The Tomato Rating should really be viewed as the probability that you will like the film, rather than necessarily how much you will like it.

SNAAKE · « **Reply #24 on:** June 15, 2011, 08:11:55 pm »

RT is far more "effective" than trailers. movie trailers are designed to make the movie look good even if its terrible. I dont watch movies based on trailer. I check reviews first and usually RT/imdb.

SNAAKE · « **Reply #25 on:** September 08, 2011, 02:41:19 pm »

overrated crap

that was...tiring. its at least 40 minutes too long.

Rick · « **Reply #26 on:** September 08, 2011, 04:01:57 pm »

Quote from: Ond on June 13, 2011, 10:06:08 pm

+1, I still like PBJs criteria for movie watching though, that's why "Amazon Women on the Moon" sits proudly on my DVD shelves (64% on RT).

---That which is odiferous and causeth plants to grow---, or not?!

emphatic · « **Reply #27 on:** September 13, 2011, 08:10:53 pm »

A movie that has the funniest woman alive today (I love Kristin Wiig to death) in it can't be all bad?

SNAAKE · « **Reply #28 on:** September 14, 2011, 03:35:24 am »

Quote from: emphatic on September 13, 2011, 08:10:53 pm

A movie that has the funniest woman alive today (I love Kristin Wiig to death) in it can't be all bad?

watchable.

generally kristin wiig is good but this movie is slow/boring. its just bad editing. would have been fine if it was like 80 minutes.


Main	Restorations	Software	Audio/Jukebox/MP3	Everything Else	Buy/Sell/Trade
Project Announcements	Monitor/Video	GroovyMAME	Merit/JVL Touchscreen	Meet Up	Retail Vendors
Driving & Racing	Woodworking	Software Support Forums	Consoles	Project Arcade	Reviews
Automated Projects	Artwork	Frontend Support Forums	Pinball	Forum Discussion	Old Boards
Raspberry Pi & Dev Board	controls.dat	Linux	Miscellaneous Arcade	Wiki Discussion	Old Archives
Lightguns	Arcade1Up	Try the site in https mode		Site News


Unread posts \| New Replies \| Recent posts \| Rules \| Chatroom \| Wiki \| File Repository \| RSS \| Submit news