Re: 6/8-10 Weekend Box Office

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:55:27 -0400, Derek Janssen
<ejanss@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>Paul S. Person wrote:
>> 
>>>Heh.  Hard to believe that StT got worse reviews than Pirates 3.  Some
>>>of the "lesser" critics around here LOATHED that film, piling on due
>>>to the success of the first two films :-)
>> 
>> 
>> A lot of reviewers seem to have had a hard time believing that a film
>> (two films ... three films) based on a /theme-park ride/ could be as
>> good as the best films based on comic books and even better than some
>> good films based on actual books.  And, of course, many reviewers
>> automatically pan sequels, which, in their opinion, are always worse
>> than the original.
>
>The current Tomatoes seem to be that even the critics who DIDN'T think 
>Pirates 2 was literally "too much of a good thing" now think so about 
>part 3, and all the distracting mumbo-jumbo didn't help for 
>two-and-a-half hours...

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? If the sequel is too close to the
original then it's "too much of a good thing" -- and if it isn't close
enough then it's bad for some other reason. But it's /always/ panned
by a subset of reviewers, and the excuse used really doesn't matter.

>While Shrek 3 was panned for being just the second movie's script with 
>the title page scribbled over, and even those who still cling to 
>memories of liking the first film (poor deluded saps) are saying the 
>"satirical" magic's since gone out of it.
>
>(In other late reviews, the Fantastic Four sequel has only marginally 
>improved over the original, but only, as critics put it, in that it 
>"couldn't go down from there")
>
>Derek Janssen
>ejanss@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
"He who should know the history of words 
would know all history"