Summer movies living up to the hype?

Are the summer movies really living up the hype that the companies were making them out to be?

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

i can't really vote "yes" or "no"... it depends on what you see...

Well based on peoples reviews of the summer movies that were expected to do real well...most of them are flops.

I don't judge a film that way -- I tend to look at box office numbers. Let's face it: good movies are not usually ignored by the general public for very long. I voted "Yes", simply because it was a slightly better fit than "No."

The Mummy Returns was exactly what I had expected. A.I. was a letdown. So was Jurassic Park 3, but it was still fun, and worth seeing anyway. Final Fantasy dissapointed heavily, but Shrek was awesome.

Anyway, it hardly matters to me now. If Lord of the Rings is anywhere nearly as good as it can be, I'll forget all about the movies I've seen this summer.

I said no. So far I've been rather dissapointed. I still liked most of the movies, but they aren't what I expected.

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

I don't remember what I voted, but since I wasn't expecting much out of this summer, I think the movies have lived up (of down) to my expectations.

Of course, we've yet to hit the time when the movies I was really looking forward to are released. I've been mostly looking forward to POTA, Osmosis Jones, Jay & Silent Bob, American Pie 2 and maybe even Rush Hour 2. Since none of those films have come out yet, I can't yet be surprised or disappointed in them.

I didn't vote, but dammit, most summer movies suck anyway. I was disappointed with Pearl Harbor. That movie sucked. Final Fantasy had a boring and redundant storyline, but the visuals were all I wanted, and more. The Score was a good picture. I enjoyed Tomb Raider and A Knight's Tale very much, both were good popcorn movies. Shrek was awesome. I saw it twice. Still, I'd have to say my two favorite movies that I've seen so far this summer are Moulin Rouge and Lost and Delirious (which, if you haven't seen, get to a theater immediately!). There's never really any GREAT summer blockbusters, because movies of quality are generally held back for "Oscar season". Still, a few gems poke through every once in awhile. In any case, check out Lost and Delirious at all costs, especially if you're a teenager.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

Good films aren't ignored by the general public for very long? Tell me you're joking! Have you seen Wonder Boys? How much money did Almost Famous make? Not as much as it costed, cowboy. The real truth is, great movies are ignored by the public for any number of reasons, and many of them don't make very much money. Magnolia made 20-some million, on something like a 40 mil budget. Boogie Nights didn't make jack. Leaving Las Vegas was a failure, if I recall correctly - and it's the best love story in the history of movies. Eyes Wide Shut barely made back it's money. And this isn't mentioning the scores of other films that aren't even released wide. There are so many movies that are overlooked by the general public, that don't deserve to be. Lost and Delirious, the best film playing at a theater right now, isn't going to make any money. That statement is horribly inaccurate.

Of course, Magnolia wasn't very good, so there's that. I agree with your general point, though. Audiences often don't find good movies. We even see it with movies that have not-so-hot runs at the theater only to take off on video and finally find their audience (Even movies that aren't necessarily "good" sometimes have this happen).

I did see Wonder Boys, but I was anticipating that movie because I had read the book years ago when it came out. And I like Michael Douglas, generally.

Oh yeah, I forgot an example: The Shawshank Redemption. The movie didn't even make back its original costs. Now it's considered by the general public to be one of the best movies ever made. Where was the audience on that one?

Not to nitpick, but, the simple past of "cost" is "cost."
Way to go!

Duck Soup was a disaster in the box office...but its one of the greatest comedy films out there.

So it really depends on the mood of the crowd and their liking.

__________________
Sometimes you wake up. Sometimes the fall kills you. And sometimes when you fall, you fly.

If you'll recall, I said "usually", and I stand by that. Do you realize how many box office flops, that are also great movies, you'd have to list to make my statement incorrect? Tons of them.

Besides, a lot of those movies you're listing are not hailed as fabulous movies by most. Not everyone thinks that Eyes Wide Shut, or Magnolia, were decent movies.

I also said "for very long" -- Shawshank has been recognized for it's greatness shortly afterwards, which I'll bet is reflected in video/DVD rentals and sales. Horribly inaccurate? Sounds pretty dang subjective to me. And no, Duck Soup does not apply -- movies were WAY different then, and I'm simply speaking of a way to judge them now.

I didnt bother voting either. here is my point of view here:

The summer movies, except for Pearl harbor, are all to me what I call to be a very good summer ,movie holiday. I have no complaints.

I don't pay attention to the critics(reviews of movies). If they wanna criticize a movie giving it a bad review , go right ahead.

I don't personally look at the B.O. results . Unlike what some people do by judging a flick just by how it did there.
I just go by if I liked a film or not.

Well, I tend to go with what a noteable critic has to say. If they say it's about as fun as having a root canal then that tells me it's not that good. Take Ebert for example. He likes a lot of movies I would never think would be any good, that doesn't mean I'm gonna see em. If it looks good, has a good storyline, good acting, sure, I'll go see it. But these days with movies getting so expensive any movie that you don't like is 10 bucks down the drain.

A critic's review is helpful, it's a suggestion that you can choose to use or just go all out and see what happens. Either way, you're taking a risk of not liking it. I haven't heard of the "perfect" movie ever coming out. One that no one can find anything wrong with.

there is really never a "perfect" movie. every one has at least one little flaw or so whether its big or small.

Well, first of all, I do NOT "judge a movie" based no box office results...but I do follow the B.O. very carefully. I think it can tell you a lot about a movie. In fact, I KNOW it can tell you a lot about a movie...in some cases, of course.

Re: the perfect movie. I don't know of a perfect movie, but, for me, Unbreakable, as well as Dial M For Murder, are dangerously close. I find little to nothing I would change about either if given the opportunity.

I can agree w/you TWT about the B.O. now that I think of it.
Although like I said (personal wise) it has nothing to do with me liking the film)

What were the predicted grosses of Unbreakable? How much money did it make?

I'm sorry, I just can't agree with you that the box office has anything to do with how good a film is. Wild Wild West made $150 million. Do you know anyone who thinks that is a picture of quality? How much money did Pearl Harbor make exactly? Much more than The Score will. Which is the better film? I think box office success tells you much more about the audience (and on occasion, their intelligence) than it does about the film. Nobody wants to see a masterpiece about love in an all girls' boarding school, they'd rather go for the cheap thrills of JP3 or see the cars go real fast in Fast and the Furious. Big budget, big grosses don't equal good movie.

I mean, there are films that will make 100 mil easy, no buts about it, but we have no idea how good they'll be. Take Harry Potter for example: here's a film that is almost guaranteed box office gold, yet we have no idea how good it will be.

And yes dillane, my english is terrible. But when you think about language in general, it's just a device humans invented to communicate. So if you got the point-then why bother complaining?

Of course, in terms of movies like Lost & Delirious, the choice is made for many potential viewers before the movie even comes out.

It's hard for the vast majority of Americans to see that movie (or a movie like Memento, as another example, though Memento eventually got a wider release thanks to the hype it was able to build) because the movie never makes it to their multiplexes. The theaters have made the choice for a lot of people. Even a movie like Reversal of Fortune never made it to my hometown (which is a city of nearly 200,000 people).

Even if I wanted to see Lost & Delirious, I can't. It isn't playing in my city (which is a bit weird since I do live in a Top Ten market).

It's also hard to find these movies when the studios spend so little money promoting them (while spending massive tons of money promoting other features. It's as much the marketing budget that determines opening week box office as anything else) so even if it does make it somewhere in my city, if I don't know about the movie, I'm not likely to go see it.