|
|
Post by bigeasy on May 20, 2006 18:26:01 GMT -5
"Sadly, Kane has all the cinematic presence of a shaved ape, and possesses acting skills that make Vin Diesel look like vintage 1974 Pacino."
This movie is getting panned harder than "Gigli" over at Rotten Tomatoes, and I gotta ask: is WWE Films going the way of the XFL and the World Bodybuilding Federation? Has anyone bothered to see it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jimmyface on May 20, 2006 18:46:30 GMT -5
I'm gonna wait and see. My friends saw it last night, are hard core horror fans, and loved it. I'm currenty sidelined with a staph infection, so I'm laying low, but I can't wait to see it. I know this film will make a profit (The movie costs $8M to make), and the amount of profit will tell if they will go forward or not. And the review doesn't phase me one bit - if you are called Rotten Tomatoes, you're not one to give out good reviews.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark 138 on May 20, 2006 20:12:48 GMT -5
I saw it. It was not a masterpiece, but it was better than half of the crap I've seen lately. Compared to other films in the genre(which is how it should be judged) in the last five or six years, I say it ranks way ahead of films like Jeepers Creepers and is pretty much on the level of House Of 1000 Corpses and perhaps slightly ahead of the texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. The Devil's Rejects is the only recent true horror movie I'd put ahead of it.
. The beginning was pretty flat, but once the action starts it doesn't let up until the end. Kane has a pretty impressive presence on the screen. So much so that my wife, who is by no means a wrestling fan and I had to drag to see the movie, commented that Kane was the best horror movie bad guy she's seen.
I think it will be very difficult to weed out which reviewers and critics are panning this movie and Kane because they think it's cool to slam the WWe and which one's actually think it's a bad movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigeasy on May 20, 2006 20:15:14 GMT -5
Rotten Tomatoes is a site that acts as a compendium for all reviews. Roger Ebert, Peter Travers, all their reviews count. And to get a 0%, that means not one reputable critic liked it. Even if this film makes a profit, it will largely be a fan base that is testing the waters, and if most of them hate it, it'll make it harder for the other movies to do well.
* Horror's been a genre that's really been improving thanks to technology. Saw II, Silent Hill (IMO), and several other horror films have been good movies. Of course, maybe I am overreacting because it also tends to get panned by critics more than any other genre.
|
|
|
|
Post by PureHatred on May 20, 2006 20:45:37 GMT -5
Nobody cares about movie critics except film nerds. The only thing that film companies care about in the end is profitability. if it makes money, it pretty much proves to Vince & Co that there's an audience for movies starring his characters.
So regardless of what RT says, this will prett ymuch reaffirm Vince's experiments in movie-making.
C'mon...RV is going to end up one of the biggest money-makers of the summer. Obviously "critical acclaim" is even more meaningless in movies that it is in wrestling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Ingersoll on May 20, 2006 20:47:12 GMT -5
The fact that a movie wasn't pre-screened for critics (like most movies released between the beginning of the year and Memorial Day weekend, including this one) is generally an indication that the studio knows that most of them will call it garbage, so they don't give the critics the opportunity to drive away casual viewers.
But yeah, no horror fan really cares what most critics have to say, so at the end of the day it's pretty irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by sickman on May 20, 2006 23:51:55 GMT -5
Well; I looked it up. There was ONE critic review of the movie and it was done by Roger Moore of the Chicago Tribune. So if RT is a compendum of all of the critics; of course it got a 0% because there was only one review.
I will still see this movie despite the review from a guy who probably has as much right to be a movie reviewer as anybody else in the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe on May 21, 2006 11:51:20 GMT -5
I went to see it last night. I'm a movie buff, and I enjoyed it for what it was. It was by no means a masterpiece, but it was entertaining as far as slasher/gore heavy movies go.
Mark T was definitely right in saying it wasn't as good as the Devil's Rejects, but it was better than the Chainsaw remake.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefamoustommyz on May 21, 2006 12:14:01 GMT -5
Better than the Chainsaw remake? Hm. I liked that a lot better than I did the original...my logic is based almost entirely around the heroes/victims of the film...if they're so annoying you WANT them to die, then it's a bad horror film. If you are actually rooting for someone to live, it's a great horror film.
And the cast of the original TCM was one of the most annoying in horror history.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe on May 21, 2006 13:05:46 GMT -5
I preferred the original Chainsaw because the terror translated so well to the viewer. The actors seemed like they were terrified and in fear for their lives.
The cat in the chair was annoying as hell, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on May 21, 2006 17:18:53 GMT -5
Just got back from seeing it, and I must say it was horrible. I generally like most movies I see, and I guess I'm a "fan" of the genre, so I know how to compare it to other similar movies. There was just nothing here for me at all. Visuals were disappointing, the gory stuff all looked fake, too many cliches with the script, etc. At least the popcorn tasted good....
|
|
|
|
Post by Werner Mueck on May 21, 2006 17:30:36 GMT -5
If I remember right, in the original Chainsaw, the actors really were in fear of their lives  The heat, the long hours, the big pile of rotting carcasses out back, and the realistic (and stinky) dressing of the sets kind of played havoc on all of the cast and crew, even Tobe Hooper and Gunnar Hansen. If I remember my commentary right, Gunnar even came close to nicking Tobe with the chainsaw during a scene where he was swinging it around his head and as he was chasing the lead girl in one of the other scenes, he had to stop a few times to chop at tree limbs so he wouldn't catch up and overtake her (she was booking it so fast). No wonder they looked scared. The cast in the new movie just wasn't put through enough (not that I'm a supporter of torturing actors, well, most actors). As for the original topic, haven't seen "See no Evil". Going to wait for video. |
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on May 21, 2006 18:21:35 GMT -5
I have to admit, I was wrong. I guessed it would take in 3 million, but it's projected at 4.25 mil. But it also got a 5.2 rating on IMDB, which actually isn't too bad. imdb.com/chart/imdb.com/title/tt0437179/ |
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on May 23, 2006 3:25:03 GMT -5
From 1Wrestling.com
FINAL WEEKEND BOX OFFICE NUMBERS ARE IN, "SEE NO EVIL" OUTPERFORMS PROJECTIONS
By: Bob Ryder
5/22/2006 7:16:27 PM
"See No Evil" continues to do better than estimates. BoxOfficeMojo.com released the final weekend box office figures this afternoon, and the movie ended up with $4,581,233 for the three days beginning Friday.
The initial forcast for the movie was $3,100,000 and the estimates released yesterday were increased to $4,350,000. The actual figures released today beat both of those projections.
The per screen average for the movie was a strong $3644, which was third best for the weekend and which outperformed Mission Impossible III. Only The Da Vinci Code and Over the Hedge had higher averages.
The movie, starring Kane, was heavily promoted on WWE programming in recent weeks and debuted on 1257 screens. By contrast, Over The Hedge debuted on 4059 screens. If See No Evil had played on the same number of screens and maintained the $3644 average, the box office would have been a very respectable $14,790,996.
The movie had a production budget of $8,000,000 and has received almost unanimously horrible reviews from critics.
To be honest...it's true that you have to look at how much it took in per screening. Of course a movie being played at 3600 theaters will make more $$$ than a movie shown on 1800.
So I give them all the credit..they finished third in that. My hat's off to them
|
|
|
|
Post by faninthecrowd on Jun 2, 2006 19:31:16 GMT -5
wait, so do you guys recommend the movie or no?
|
|
The heat, the long hours, the big pile of rotting carcasses out back, and the realistic (and stinky) dressing of the sets kind of played havoc on all of the cast and crew, even Tobe Hooper and Gunnar Hansen. If I remember my commentary right, Gunnar even came close to nicking Tobe with the chainsaw during a scene where he was swinging it around his head and as he was chasing the lead girl in one of the other scenes, he had to stop a few times to chop at tree limbs so he wouldn't catch up and overtake her (she was booking it so fast). No wonder they looked scared. The cast in the new movie just wasn't put through enough (not that I'm a supporter of torturing actors, well, most actors). 