Page 3 of 5

PostPosted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:45 pm
by Not_Impulsive
I don't like critics. Sorry you guys! *referring to the critics*

Every movie that I like the critics disapprove.
There are a lot of movies that the audience loves and the movies become box office hits, but the critics write their unpleasant reviews on every good movie calling them "plain, pop - meaning "sh**", for an average viewer" insulting not only the movie but also the public.
Critics are critics - read "those who work to put a movie into the dirt".

PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:46 am
by trishroberts
I've got to admit after hearing all these negative reviews I feel a little concerned about the number 23. I will make up my own mind on Friday but it doesn't boad well when I havent seen one positive review from a known critic. We are all very excepting of positive reviews how come we all go deaf when they are bad ?
He's still my hero gotta love him for pushing the bounderies ... you go Jim.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 12:36 pm
by fluffy
but i've read good ones too :shock: some folk just don't want people to evolve.......they want Jim to stick at Ace.....well i have the utmost respect for Jim for taking risks and making changes. The critics can be narrow minded but it's their loss.....they will miss soo much.....

fluffy :D

My chance at being a critic:

PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:38 pm
by Canadian Jayne
What if he had been the young Superman?
No matter what he would have done the one thing he started with will
always remain in the minds of people until something really jars them
and makes them say "Wow! that was amazing"
What if Jim had never played Ace?
Many of us still remember him talking from his butt, at that moment I
decided I wouldn't watch too much of Jim's stuff. I clasified him as
the Comedic Idiot and would not watch, I gave my kids the option to do
so since most men liked his gross behavior since many men have alot
of gross behavior and want to justify it and just say "Well, Jim Carrey did it why can't I" the wives just shake their heads and boycott anything from
him, hoping he would not influence their sons and husbands any more
than they already had.
I still haven't changed my mind on some of this, I think promoters and Jim's sporadic behavior brings out the "Comedic Idiot" verification everytime he does so. Eg. Leno and thefake poop recently, again I shook my head, laughed this time, (see my comment on this)and thought "Man, he reminds me of my brother"
so gross!. I think Jim always reverts back to his safety net of comedy,
it's comfortable and humour dispells discomfort, or perhaps boredom.
Not that the audience gets bored but Jim gets bored with the humdrum
usual stuff, perhaps comedy challenges him, perhaps it stimulates his
creative powers.
Maybe his true love is to make people laugh, feel better or feel good,
not a thing wrong with that, there is so much humour in real life that
just living can be really funny eg. slipping when you don't mean to,
farting, burping, for some, trying to sing, listening to someone try to
sing, snoring the list goes on and on.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:15 pm
by On Mt. Crumpit
To be honest, the critics seem to be letting Jim off lightly. He's clearly not the reason why the critic's dislike it. Many seem to to dislike the script or the basic premise. I'm sure Jim will recover.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:17 pm
by fluffy
the critics seem to hate Joel rather than Jim.......poor bloke, make one dodgy film and they harp back to it........ :?

fluffy :D

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:53 pm
by On Mt. Crumpit
First, one negative...
"Schumacher’s direction throws every imaginable bit of visual extravagance onto the screen in a vain effort to combine energy with obfuscation, and Phillips’ script has all sorts of implausible twists and swerves to it... As for the cast, they flail about wildly, no one more than Carrey, who starts out a dour everyman but is soon thrashing around in a full-blown session of scenery-chewing. It only proves that his manic tendencies are much better suited to farce than melodrama."
- Frank Swietek, One Guy's Opinion

Another negative...
"The conceit has a buzz-factor – though the film eschews the most obviously spooky 9+11+2+0+0+1=23 – and an intriguing first half-hour draws us into the so-called ‘23 Enigma’. But turning this into a workable plot is beyond writer Fernley Phillip... Schumacher keeps it pacy, the murky camerawork’s very cool, Carrey suitably wide-eyed, but its limitations are finally only too obvious."
- Trevor Johnston, Time Out

Another rotten review (nice illustration, though!)...
"The biggest star, of course, is Jim Carrey, who obviously relished the chance to fall apart on camera. The problem is that he’s never together on camera... Joel Schumacher works his familiar anti-magic. Incapable, like his leading man, of establishing a baseline of realism, he delivers one overdesigned, overcostumed, overlit image after another."
- David Edelstein, New York Magazine

And finally a positive review!
"Joel Schumacher's film proves enthralling enough to forgive a final twist so dumb you half expect Ace Ventura to appear... Carrey makes a convincing transformation from ordinary Joe to disturbed obsessive in a role that makes good use of his manic energy."
- Neil Smith, BBC

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:58 pm
by grinchy steve
So, the first critic in Belgium gives it a 2.5 out of 5. Saying it's a haunting movie with a strong visual puzzle structure. But the problem seems to be that Schumacher made a movie that's beautiful on the outside, but once inside it's quite empty. The script starts promising and then collaps becoming very predictable and 'dumb'. Luckely, the critic says, Jim Carrey has a lot of guts and proves once again that he can handle his stuff and is one hell of a talent.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:40 am
by grinchy steve
First "positive" Reviews;

- "The who-wrote-it revelation folds under scrutiny but it’s fun getting there. Genuinely intriguing in places and romps along at a satisfying pace for a conspiracy thriller." ,- Empire Magazine

- "Things don't really add up in The Number 23, but you can count on some queasy chills and trashy thrills all the same. Oscillating between befuddled and psychotic, Carrey makes a convincing transformation from ordinary Joe to disturbed obsessive in a role that makes good use of his manic energy." ,- BBC

So far the Rottentomatoes are 18%. I'm guessing it will end at 23% Rotten.

edit; whoops, didn't saw the previous collection-post. :)

PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:40 pm
by On Mt. Crumpit
Some more negatives...

"Ultimately the sheer preposterousness of Fernley Phillips' original screenplay overwhelms the overly convoluted proceedings, and despite the undeniable conviction of the performers, the film eventually becomes more laughable than chilling."
- Frank Scheck, Hollywood Reporter

"What should have been a cool and creepy thriller is neither cool nor creepy nor even particularly thrilling, but it is kind of amusing to watch Joel Schumacher trying his hardest to be David Fincher or David Lynch and failing miserably, mainly due to the weak material. The premise might be intriguing on its own, but the way the story drags along at a dull snail's pace with Carrey's lazy voice-over lulling us to sleep, you might wish that something interesting might happen."
- Edward Douglas, Coming Soon

"Gimmicky numerology plus Jim Carrey minus narrative coherence equals "The Number 23," a visually and psychologically murky thriller that, given its hero's paranoid obsession with the titular number, plays like a very grungy episode of "Sesame Street." Noirish fantasy sequences and red herrings galore fail to enliven this straight-faced but silly exercise from helmer Joel Schumacher"
- Justin Chang, Variety

"This interior film is beyond complicated, but it basically comes down to: Omigod, 23! + killing. That's how The Number 23 goes from being a film about diabolical literature and hysterical numerology to a murder mystery that has something to do with a certain Dr. Sirius Leary. But seriously, could this film please be a little more off its rocker?"
- Nathan Lee, Village Voice

"I'd like 23 reasons from the Academy why Carrey wasn't Oscar-nominated for The Truman Show, Man on the Moon and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Still, our boy is floundering here... I find the thick wad of improbabilities in this junk impossible to swallow."
- Peter Travers, Rolling Stone

And a positive review...
"The biggest issue with The Number 23 isn’t the plot, the writing, or even the directing; it’s Jim Carrey. Though I would really love to see him really hit one out of the park someday in a serious thriller, this is just not the one for him... Other than Carrey’s turn as the lead, though, The Number 23 isn’t a bad flick at all. I can say I was never bored with The Number 23."
- Johnny Butane, Dread Central

PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:42 pm
by jimliker
Bad reviews :cry:

Unlucky Jim: Carrey Fails to Thrill
The actor’s latest bid for gravitas is dumb, dumber, dumbest. ... exreed.asp ... 48&k=77455

PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 6:08 pm
by 123Dan123
Why believe the Critics? They give just about all Jim Carrey Movies bad reviews.

For example on (takes the average of all Critic Reviews)

These Movies got bad scores:

Ace Ventura: Pet Detective - 37/100
Man on the Moon - 58/100
Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls - 45/100
The Mask - 56/100
Dumb and Dumber - 39/100
Bruce Almighty - 46/100
The Majestic - 27/100

And The Number 23 will probably join with these Movies with a low score as well. Don't listen to the Critics!!

PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 6:57 pm
by grinchy steve

Phu-lease. How many times will the defenders repeat those same things?

Love you all, though. :oops:

Btw, some movies were 'Fresh', like 'Man on the Moon', but in time reviews dissapear. In this case the wrong ones.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:31 pm
by On Mt. Crumpit
Here's some more...

"Carrey, in "serious actor" mode, is fine playing a normal guy (which is Walter for about a third of the running length), but he lacks the intensity and desperation that are eventually required as obsession grips the character and pulls him under... The Number 23 feels perfunctory and is developed in such a way that few people are likely to leave the theater satisfied. The movie isn't sufficiently lurid or campy to be enjoyable on an exploitative level and it's not well enough crafted to work as a more serious form of entertainment."
- James Berardinelli, Reel Views

"One of the many mysteries about the number 23 is why Jim Carrey and director Joel Schumacher thought audiences would share their fascination over the mysteries about the number 23."
- David Germain, Associated Press

PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:19 pm
by sprousefan23
grinchy steve wrote:EVERYBODY

Phu-lease. How many times will the defenders repeat those same things?

I agree!!!!! Don't think other people's opinions are what you have to depend on to think a movie that you havn't seen yet is great, you have opinions too! Remember Cable Guy?