Anyone see this movie yet?

Yeah. It was pretty good. It opened with a crazy sex scene involving Eva Mendes, then turned out ordinary. There's a review by Ronnie around here someplace.

I didn't care for it at all

Yeah, I gave it ***1/2 out of 5.

If one likes little "street" dramas like Michael Cimino's YEAR OF THE DRAGON and Abel Ferrera's KING OF NEW YORK, or even Sidney Lumet's great PRINCE OF THE CITY, then Grey's WE OWN THE NIGHT is up your alley.

I just don't people who call this a bad movie. I especially love it when some people, like Irishman, claimed the movie ripped-off THE DEPARTED...

Despite you know, NIGHT's script being written 7-8 years ago, before DEPARTED or even its original Hong Kong version INFERNAL AFFAIRS came out.

My problem was I went in expecting a cool movie with a cop brother and a gangster brother and a chess match between them and I got a cop brother with a brother who just ends up joining the force. The acting was good, but the plot wasn't.

What's with people's expectations?

Why not simply hope for a decent movie, considering the talent involved, but at the same time......same talent have been in BAD movies as well.

That way, if a movie still fails for a viewer, its truely the film's fault and not some silly external expectations based on manipulative advertizing campaign.

It's the mature smart thing to do for a movie-goer, if you ask me.

If the movie was truly good, expectations wouldn't matter.

But "truly good", in this case, implies it caters towards one's expectations in the first place.

The more specific the expectation, the more crippling the viewer's strains upon the work; and thus the criticism is less effective.

The film isn't really about A, it's about B; and so to hold it up against a system of values pertaining to A is illogical.

Go with the flow.

A lot of people held reservations for Pan's Labyrinth on here (and elsewhere) because it didn't turn out quite as fantastical as the trailers had suggested. But that's the marketing campaign, the faceless execs cashing in on whatever's popular (the fantasy epic is); they need to put bums on seats, they need to do everything they can to make profit... otherwise the film's failed.

Question, though: if Pan's Labyrinth had been solely fantasy, would it have been any better? Maybe, maybe not; at any rate, this is besides my point. My poing being, if it were any different, it would be just that: a different film altogether. (And, in my opinion, not as good; for me it needs that "realism" to ground it in its rich allegory.)

I wonder how many people find out the hard way that No Country for Old Men isn't the kickass, badass, soundtrack-driven thriller that its trailer makes it out to be.

Just because I was expecting one thing and got another doesn't mean I didn't evaluate it based on itself. If I ordered a hamburger in a restaurant and got a steak, will I say the steak is horrible? No. Quality can overcome expectations, and this movie didn't.

Ah, fair enough. Well put.

It's just that this sentence sort of led me to think otherwise:

Well it didn't help, maybe if I went in without expectations I'd say it's an okay movie instead of a bad movie.

Yeah I was wanting to see the movie based on the above but knowing(how it ends in a small way) that doesn't exactly thrill me, but I'll more than likely end up seeing anyway.

I really enjoyed the movie.