Sinbad reviews are starting to come in-

[d-r]

There are some Sinbad reviews coming in at Rottentomatoes.com -

This part really struck out to me, when I remembered reading here that Pitt didn't act like a "rock star" (of course Sinbad is an animated character and Pitt only voices, but whatever) -

To understand how completely, contemptibly and cavalierly DreamWorks has gutted the Arabian legend of Sinbad for its every-cliché-in-the-book animated adaptation "Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas," all you need know is one line of dialogue, delivered by the hero in a feeble attempt at outdated hip-hop dialect:

"Who's baaad?...Sinbad!"

The fact that this line is delivered by an appallingly miscast Brad Pitt as the voice of a Santa-Monica-beach-bum-looking Sinbad only makes it worse.

 

[wdwguide]

Tomatometer says 38% positive reviews...

 

[ErikdaRed]

But Ebert and Roeper gave it 2 thumbs up, which I think reaches more people.

 

[Planogirl]

I'll pay as much attention to these reviews as I do all other reviews.

 

[d-r]

I think the reason for looking at rottentomatoes.com is that they have so many different reviewers, you can get a feel for the quality of the movie over time - there are still only a few reviews in for this one, so you can't really draw much of a conclusion yet. But when you compare it to something like Nemo, well, that is considerable isn't it. I wouldn't make a decision about whether or not to see a film based on any one of them, it is more of looking for trends and consensus. There are always individuals who like or don't like any given thing. You get a bigger sample.

It is also fun to see what people with different viewpoints think about a film and what they see in it.

DR

 

[d-r]

I don't know, scoop - I sort of liked Spirit - I thought it was good, about the level of Iron Giant or Anastasia. I thought Prince of Egypt was OK. El Dorado wasn't great by any means, but I got a kick out of all the gay subtexts, and I respect them a lot to have the cahoney's to put them in there. They have had a direct to video of Joseph, too.

But yeah, I see what you mean. Shrek was a big fincancial success, but beyond that, they have mostly made "pleasant enough to watch on a boring afternoon" sort of movies.

 

[raidermatt]

Sometimes people do just lose their touch, but besides "luck", there's lots of other possible reasons for someone to fail in a creative field where they have succeeded in the past. The supporting cast and resources are biggies, and of course so is the person's true desire and motivation.

I think D-R's right... a few reviews doesn't mean a whole lot, but when there's a wide gap, or universal agreement, its usually for a good reason. I understand not letting even dozens of negative reviews make up one's mind for them, but we're talking about Sinbad's chances of success with a larger audience.

I'd say the chances of it reaching $60 million are not good.

For me personally, its not so much the reviews that disappoint me, but rather the "I'm bad" quote. Not promising, if that's the route taken.

 

[Another Voice]

As with Eisner, Katz likes to believe his own press. The same built-in structures that kept Eisner in check also helped to keep the worst offensives of Katzenberg at bay as well.

Similarly, once freed of their supervision, both are floundering. Disney used to have a tremendous story department that drove the process. Katzenberg's primary role was to assist that process and make some decisions. But Katz left that group behind and he personally can't make up that loss. It's one thing to make a decision between several strong choices; it's another to think you can come up with answer on your own.

 

[wdwguide]

Makes you think about what Hollywood would look like if Eisner-Wells-Katzenberg-Disney still existed as a team like they once did...

 

[wtg2000]

I can't comment on this film, but if Ebert and Roeper liked it then I'll stay away. Ebert's standards have dropped like a stone, and I think I figured out why.

He, and Siskel, used to be on PBS where they probably figured the audience was a bit refined, thus they could aptly trash really bad movies. I used to love hearing them make fun of some of the big budget garbage out there. They could get pretty funny - and punny.

But now, Ebert is on late night regular TV and I think he knows that his audience are the type that like to go to the big blockbusters, so if he trashes them and makes fun of the audience for going, his ratings will drop and he'll be off the air.

I understand that Roeper wasn't even a film critic before starting the show, and yet Ebert selected him to replace Siskel. He was probably worried that a real critic would pan too many films.

I reviewed films for a paper back in 1994-1996 (and on radio) and I remembered everyday reviewing films then reading Ebert's review and wondering if he'd seen the same cut that I did. In the 1980s, Ebert was a good reviewer, but when he went to late night TV he tossed his standards out the window.

 

[d-r]

One of the reviewers writes about ****-erotic undertones in this film. Personally, I thought this was one of the more interesting things I had read about it - what do you all think?

The film makers considered that adults would be joining kids in the theatre so they spiced it up a bit by including a bit of sex, sexuality and sensuality. “We wanted to handle the sexuality in a way that added passion but wasn’t prurient,” said Director Tim Johnson. If one scene had been played differently, the films ****-erotic subtext would have turned this into a completely queer film.

From http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click...tic=columns&sortby=default&page=2&rid=1167242