Box Office versus Excellent Film ...

[hengcs]

Although I understand the difference in market for an "excellent" film and a box office hit (and I know the 2 are usually different), I am still very perturbed when the difference is so "vast" ...

e.g.,

The Fog (4 out of 100%) ... no, we are not talking about 40%
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10004998-fog/

yet, number 1 box office in United States over the weekend ...

what can we say?!

[tabuno]

Movies are as diverse as their creators and their audiences. They serve many purposes. With so many negative experiences occurring in reality, particularly in the United States with so many people now believing that the country is moving in the wrong direction, sometimes, in order just to be able to survive and maintain some resemblance of sanity people need to be able to resort to entertainment and escapist experiences to take us away from the real world for a time. Watching something even more horrible may allow one to feel better about even the difficulties found in the real world.

What is excellent or popular is subjective and the purpose of the movie is oftentimes murky - money, profit, enjoyment, technical expertise, expansion of our minds and knowledge-based experiences?

Can movies like The Fog be considered excellent in that they successfully provide the public some real relief or perhaps it was a quirky mistake and it will literally disappear from the movie screens in the next couple of weeks?

[oscar jubis]

The fact is that many movies who succeed at the b.o. are poorly reviewed. A lot of people who go to movies couldn't care less what so-and-so critic said. There are good "escapist" movies and then there are bad ones, as reviewed by critics. Most moviegoers never read reviews, much less follow their advice. The Fog might end up joining these bad 2005 releases that made "mucho dinero":
The Pacifier, The Dukes of Hazzard, The Longest Yard, Diary of a Mad Black Woman, Miss Congeniality 2, The Exorcism of Emily Rose, White Noise, Be Cool.

[tabuno]

oscar jubis: "The fact is that many movies who succeed at the b.o. are poorly reviewed. A lot of people who go to movies couldn't care less what so-and-so critic said. There are good "escapist" movies and then there are bad ones, as reviewed by critics. Most moviegoers never read reviews, much less follow their advice. The Fog might end up joining these bad 2005 releases that made "mucho dinero":
The Pacifier, The Dukes of Hazzard, The Longest Yard, Diary of a Mad Black Woman, Miss Congeniality 2, The Exorcism of Emily Rose, White Noise, Be Cool."

tab uno: Of the three movies I did see that oscar mentioned - The Pacifier, Miss Congeniality 2, and White Noise - each of them had decent, redeeming value such that I felt they all were worthy of being released on the big screen. White Noise in fact made it to my A list (albeit quite lengthy now) for its subdued, inferred use of horror unlike so many over the top horror movies while Miss Congeniality 2 also made to my A list for its overall quality equalling that of its predecessor by also avoiding what I consider the typical comedy crassness that other comedies depend on and Congeniality 2's use the nice balance between drama and comedy that has qualitatively improved popular movies.

[wpqx]

We're the people who care about critic reviews, we're they're audience. The general public really doesn't care. If they are debating seeing one of two movies, they might pick the one with the better rating, but most of the time it's irrelevant. Saw 2 is coming out, and it will make money (at least in it's opening weekend), even if the film gets across the board 1 star ratings, it's just the way the audience is.