What is the very last movie you watched? Do you recommend it?

[debojahh]

Watched Maxxxine last night.

Liked it, not as 'horror' as you would expect.

Also watched Pearl and When Evil Lurks around Halloween.

Pearl, similar vein to Maxxxine.

When Evil Lurks was a super interesting Spanish horror with some really shocking/gruesome scenes!

[evergreen]

Just thoroughly enjoyed Holdovers set Christmas 1970 main character Paul Giametti, Sky

[Princess Ariel]

I watched Don't Listen on Friday night. It's on netflix and is Spanish but you can choose to watch it with subtitles or dubbed.
It was really good. I enjoyed it.

[fl-veteran]

Paddington 3 - dunno why the reviewers were so harsh, I thought it held up well compared to the other two movies.

[Nimbus]

Originally Posted by fl-veteran

Paddington 3 - dunno why the reviewers were so harsh, I thought it held up well compared to the other two movies.

See more...

The reviews I've seen tend to say it's okay: fairly entertaining and fun, like the other Paddington movies. Rotten Tomatoes currently gives it 92% based on 38 reviews. IMDB gives it 7 out of 10.

[fl-veteran]

Originally Posted by Nimbus

The reviews I've seen tend to say it's okay: fairly entertaining and fun, like the other Paddington movies. Rotten Tomatoes currently gives it 92% based on 38 reviews. IMDB gives it 7 out of 10.

See more...

From the first page when I Google "Paddington 3 reviews" on Google news:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62lnlr9g74o

"New Paddington film charming but slow, critics say"

https://www.theguardian.com/film/202...t-all-involved

"Paddington in Peru review – hard stares at all involved"

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-b2640826.html

"Paddington in Peru is the worst in the franchise"

https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/f...-b1191337.html

"Paddington in Peru review: Britain’s favourite bear suffers franchise fatigue third time round"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/...n-peru-review/

"Paddington in Peru, review: a jolly fun adventure that doesn’t hit the heights of its predecessors"

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/...w-paddington-2

"Paddington in Peru review: 'Everything you want is there but it doesn't reach the lofty standards of Paddington 2'"

https://www.indiewire.com/criticism/...ew-1235061942/

"Paddington in Peru’ Review: Paddington Looks for His Roots in a Sequel that Loses its Way"

https://www.thewrap.com/paddington-in-peru-review/

"‘Paddington in Peru’ Review: If You Loved ‘Paddington 2,’ We Have Bear-y Bad News"

In my opinion, all of them wrong. I find IMDB / Rotten Tomatoes ratings much more useful than critics.

[Nimbus]

Originally Posted by fl-veteran

From the first page when I Google "Paddington 3 reviews" on Google news:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62lnlr9g74o

"New Paddington film charming but slow, critics say"



https://www.theguardian.com/film/202...t-all-involved

"Paddington in Peru review – hard stares at all involved"

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-b2640826.html

"Paddington in Peru is the worst in the franchise"

https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/f...-b1191337.html

"Paddington in Peru review: Britain’s favourite bear suffers franchise fatigue third time round"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/...n-peru-review/

"Paddington in Peru, review: a jolly fun adventure that doesn’t hit the heights of its predecessors"

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/...w-paddington-2

"Paddington in Peru review: 'Everything you want is there but it doesn't reach the lofty standards of Paddington 2'"

https://www.indiewire.com/criticism/...ew-1235061942/

"Paddington in Peru’ Review: Paddington Looks for His Roots in a Sequel that Loses its Way"

https://www.thewrap.com/paddington-in-peru-review/

"‘Paddington in Peru’ Review: If You Loved ‘Paddington 2,’ We Have Bear-y Bad News"

In my opinion, all of them wrong. I find IMDB / Rotten Tomatoes ratings much more useful than critics.

See more...

I wouldn't say those reviews were harsh. Not really. Well, except for The Wrap's review.

The first few say "critics calling it "charming-enough"", "a high-action jungle sequel that’s perfectly enjoyable" (3 out of 5), "occasionally sweet and whimsical third go around for the marmalade-loving bear" (3 out of 5), "just as jolly as the previous two films", etc.

Basically they seem to be saying it's an enjoyable movie, and tend to give it an average of 3 out of 5 stars, just not quite as good as the previous two movies.

Rotten Tomatoes is a review aggregator, so it takes reviews by critics and presents an overall picture of those reviews. It says that 92% of critics think it's a decent movie. Only 8% think it's bad. So the vast majority of 38 critics listed like it.

[fl-veteran]

Originally Posted by Nimbus

I wouldn't say those reviews were harsh. Not really. Well, except for The Wrap's review.

The first few say "critics calling it "charming-enough"", "a high-action jungle sequel that’s perfectly enjoyable" (3 out of 5), "occasionally sweet and whimsical third go around for the marmalade-loving bear" (3 out of 5), "just as jolly as the previous two films", etc.

Basically they seem to be saying it's an enjoyable movie, and tend to give it an average of 3 out of 5 stars, just not quite as good as the previous two movies.

Rotten Tomatoes is a review aggregator, so it takes reviews by critics and presents an overall picture of those reviews. It says that 92% of critics think it's a decent movie. Only 8% think it's bad. So the vast majority of 38 critics listed like it.

See more...

Not that I particularly fancy diving down a(nother) pedantry / subjectivity rabbit hole with you, all of those reviews rated the movie somewhere between 2 and 3 stars out of 5 (or 40-60%), so not exactly stellar. Rotten Tomatoes considers 3* reviews to be positive, so if all reviews rate a movie as 3/5 stars it would receive a 100% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and yet critics would only have rated it an an average 60%. Personally, I would tend to avoid a movie with an audience score of less than 60%. Critic scores I tend to ignore.

I find the popcornometer much more useful, but there aren't sufficient scores for them to publish that yet.

To anyone who is still awake at this point, if you liked the first two movies, you'll like this one.

[Nimbus]

Originally Posted by fl-veteran

Not that I particularly fancy diving down a(nother) pedantry / subjectivity rabbit hole with you, all of those reviews rated the movie somewhere between 2 and 3 stars out of 5 (or 40-60%), so not exactly stellar. Rotten Tomatoes considers 3* reviews to be positive, so if all reviews rate a movie as 3/5 stars it would receive a 100% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and yet critics would only have rated it an an average 60%. Personally, I would tend to avoid a movie with an audience score of less than 60%. Critic scores I tend to ignore.

I find the popcornometer much more useful, but there aren't sufficient scores for them to publish that yet.

To anyone who is still awake at this point, if you liked the first two movies, you'll like this one.

See more...

Again, I wouldn't call all those 3* reviews - that is, all those reviews that gave it a positive "fresh" rating (which includes all the main newspapers here in the UK, and 92% of critics who reviewed it) - as being what you called harsh. If anything, that seems to be a generally positive outcome to me? Noting that critics can adjust whether they think the film is "fresh" or "rotten" on RT.

Maybe you have a different idea of "harsh" to me than one where the vast majority of critics generally liked it?

You also said you find Rotten Tomatoes ratings much more useful than critics. But I was merely pointing out that the RT rating is indicative of the critics' views (i.e. a score of 92% means that 35 out of the 38 critics enjoyed the movie). I didn't realise you meant the audience scores rather than the usual critics scores.

I've not seen this new Paddington movie (yet) but I give the other two Paddington movies around 3 or 3.5 out of 5 (or 7 out of 10). They are entertaining, fun, family movies but nothing exactly amazing.

[Kat11]

I watched “Lee” last night on Sky cinema it’s about Lee Miller the war photographer with Kate Winslet. It was very good and I would recommend.

Kat