Other ways to rate movies

I thought of this will reading the horror thread.

1. Movies where it turns out the trailer is the only thing worth seeing.
2. Movies that you leave the theater before it's over.
3. Movies that are only good because they are free and on TV but wouldn't have been worth seeing in the theater.
4. Movies you thought were good when you first saw them, but now don't.
5. Movies that should be seen on big screens.
6. Movies that were better than you expected.
7. Movies you really like but everyone else seem unimpressed.
8. Movies your friends really love but you find boring.
9. Movies where you laugh in the wrong places.
10,

more?

Movies that are supposed to be serious but you laugh more than during "Airplane!" or "The Naked Gun."

Quote: rxwine

I thought of this will reading the horror thread.

1. Movies where it turns out the trailer is the only thing worth seeing.
2. Movies that you leave the theater before it's over.
3. Movies that are only good because they are free and on TV but wouldn't have been worth seeing in the theater.
4. Movies you thought were good when you first saw them, but now don't.
5. Movies that should be seen on big screens.
6. Movies that were better than you expected.
7. Movies you really like but everyone else seem unimpressed.
8. Movies your friends really love but you find boring.
9. Movies where you laugh in the wrong places.
10,

more?

Movies that everyone assumes you have seen, but you never did (like Seinfeld).

10. Movies that I liked once but don't really need to see again
11. Movies that I will watch almost anytime

The massively over-budget movie has been with us since silent movie days.

But often it was like Cleopatra (1963) which brought in $57.7 million in box office receipts of which the studio got half. It was the highest grossing film of 1963, yet made a loss due to its production cost of $44 million. Cleopatra's budget was about equivalent to over $300 million today. The loss might not be as bad today because of foreign markets, DVD sales, Pay per view, and other revenue raisers like tie in action figures, book sales, and fast food merchandizing.

But what kills me today is that they can sometimes make a movie with a $100-$200 million budget that is almost unwatchable (by nearly anyone). I am not talking a movie aimed for a different audience than you, but hardly anyone wants to sit through it for free.

Movies that you didn't like the first time, but did the second, third, fourth, etc. time. Neapolitan Dynamite was one of these for me. I must have been really tired or something the first time I seen it.

Quote: Pacomartin

Cleopatra's budget was about equivalent to over $300 million today.

How about very expensive movies that don't look expensive?

I can't for the life of me think of one right now. Cleopatra, which I've yet to see in its entirety, looks very expensive. There are sets and costumes galore, which alone must have accounted for a hefty percentage of outlays.

I also wonder how many years of the annual Roman Imperial budget could "Cleopatra" have paid for? ;)

Quote: Nareed

How about very expensive movies that don't look expensive?

I can't for the life of me think of one right now. Cleopatra, which I've yet to see in its entirety, looks very[/] expensive. There are sets and costumes galore, which alone must have accounted for a hefty percentage of outlays.

I also wonder how many years of the annual Roman Imperial budget could "Cleopatra" have paid for? ;)

Now they can do a pretty good job with green screens instead of hiring casts of a thousand extras. Although the battle scenes in Lord of Rings Trillogy with all extras probably would still be better real than FX, but the expense would be enormous. And it wasn't cheap to begin with.

Quote: Nareed

How about very expensive movies that don't look expensive?

I thought that Tangled looked good, but it's rumored production budget was far in excess of any other animated film, and one of the highest of any film. I am not sure why


Spider Man 3 has the highest budget formally acknowledged by a production company. It didn't look that much better than the other ones. I must assume that the actors were now in a position to demand outrageous raises.


The Frighteners was supposedly made on a $30 million budget. Although it was not a financial success, it convinced the power that be that Peter Jackson could produce special effects on a budget, and his next film five years later was "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring"

By the way, it is a decent movie if you like horror/comedy.