Comics Creators

Movie News and Trailers - Hollywood Hype


Kingsman 2 has been rated by the BBFC. They list the runtime as 140m 49s.
The first movie was 126 minutes.



Only trailer-esque thing for Jeepers Creepers 3 is out.


CH4/Amazon Later this month, allegedly.


I didn’t see the original Super Troopers until I’d watched a few of Broken Lizard’s other movies, so I’ve never quite seen it as their definitive movie, which it is for most people, but I’m happy they can mount a comeback with a sequel to it. And will probably motivate me to watch the original again.



Well, I can usually never pass up a Christmas Carol movie.





Add Pope Francis to Netflix’s continually growing TV and movie roster names. The streaming service is moving forward with the feature film The Pope, with Jonathan Pryce tapped to play the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, and Anthony Hopkins in talks to play his predecessor Pope Benedict. The film will be directed by City of God helmer Fernando Meirelles has a script by Anthony McCarten, who wrote The Theory of Everything about Stephen Hawking and the upcoming Darkest Hour with Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill. Dan Lin is producing.


First he plays the High Sparrow, now he’s Pope Francis? Pryce is going to become typecast in “religious leader” roles. What next, The L. Ron Hubbard Story?


Not seeing it.


This is nonsense really because it is nothing new at all. What a ‘bad Rotten Tomatoes’ score really means is a film got bad reviews. Now I know there’s a bit of a grey area in the aggregator when a review is somewhat neutral and they need to make it a binary ‘fresh’ or ‘rotten’ but in the end a film gets a bad score because it isn’t deemed to be very good. It just reflects what the press are saying.

30 years ago you got scathing reviews from the top newspapers in the US and the same thing happened. Ishtar, Howard the Duck et al were destroyed in the box office by bad reviews from the NY Times etc. For Hollywood execs in anguish at the power of Rotten Tomatoes - make better films.


I guess what is new is the accelerated nature of it - for a lot of films, it feels like the early reviews set a RT score that gets used by some people as an objective determination of how good a movie is, and that then creates a narrative that colours subsequent reviews and reactions (whether they agree with that narrative or not). And all of this often before a film is even released to the public.

I agree that the binary nature of RT is part of the problem too (and helps explain why movies often seem to get such extremely high or low scores, especially early on when only a few reviews have been published).

Criticism has always been around, and has always played a role in the success of movies - but review aggregation sites like RT are so reductive that I actually don’t find them particularly helpful in terms of giving me information on whether I would enjoy a film or not - certainly not in the way that I would expect from actually reading a few reviews (or even just one). But I wonder if some people will simply look at the RT score and decide whether a movie is worth seeing on that basis.


To a degree Dave but that is also offset by the modern trend for not giving press showings or doing them far closer to release date. 30 years ago a premier would be a good 3-4 weeks before a general release. Done specifically so the reviews could get out there and be consumed in a slower cycle, with the hope of course they will be good because nobody goes out with the intention of making a bad film. I may be a bit older and uglier but a bad NY Times review pretty much sunk a movie in 1987.

I really don’t find RT that different or reductive. I use it occasionally but my main source of critical feedback is the Kermode and Mayo show which has a single critic but also a lot of feedback and counter arguments from listeners. In the end they generally came to the conclusion that Wonder Woman (92%) and Dunkirk (93%) were very good and Dark Tower (16%) and The Emoji Movie (8%) weren’t.

If you magically erased RT and replaced it with a critic and fan listeners, nothing would change.

After having never seen any of the Mad Max films and having no real interest in them the 100% initial score for Mad Max: Fury Road was solely responsible for me getting a ticket and seeing it in the cinema and I thought it was the film of the year.


By the way, not giving advanced press screenings is 99% of the time a guarantee the film is a stinker and the studio knows it. :smile:


Ya I tend to only use Rotten Tomatoes scores if I’m on the fence and their really good or really bad.

I actually was more encouraged to go see Dunkirk because of its high score and would have passed based on the trailers. I wish I would have paid attention to the score on Mad Max: Fury Road and caught it in the theater.


It is deeply flawed when it comes to the middle. If a review is along the lines of ‘it’s okay’ it is very hard to give that a binary good or bad score. However if I’m honest I don’t go to the cinema enough to bother with ‘it’s okay’ movies, I may catch them on Netflix or some similar service later.

Everything about this stuff is subjective, it always will be, reviews are opinion pieces, I may find I love one of them but generally I don’t.


I only use Rotten Tomatoes whenever someone on social media compiles the most middling fresh reviews of a well reviewed film for comedic effect. It can be quite hilarious. Other than that I must have seen about 6 movies this summer and I used my gut for all of them.