[003]
97.127.71.120
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
This is pushing it since at the time of this writing it came out 15 days ago, but could the 2014 remake of \'\'Literature/LeftBehind\'\' qualify? It\'s not like the original is a total classic either, the former version having a 16% RT rating, but this one is even worse apparently, having a 3% rating, plus a 3.2 rating on [=IMDb=] and 12% on Metacritic. Many people are calling it {{Anvilicious}} propaganda, with bad special effects, terrible writing, and acting \
to:
This is pushing it since at the time of this writing it came out 15 days ago, but could the 2014 remake of \\\'\\\'Literature/LeftBehind\\\'\\\' qualify? It\\\'s not like the original is a total classic either, the former version having a 16% RT rating, but this one is even worse apparently, having a 3% rating, plus a 3.2 rating on [=IMDb=] and 12% on Metacritic. Many people are calling it {{Anvilicious}} propaganda, with bad special effects, terrible writing, and acting \\\"[[http://www.richardroeper.com/reviews/leftbehind.aspx so wooden you could make a basketball court out of it]].\\\" It also grossed just $13,000,000 in America against its $16,000,000 budget. Should we put it in, for wait for it to come out so it can get a video review and proper reception?
UPDATE: The rating is now a measly 2%.
UPDATE: The rating is now a measly 2%.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
This is pushing it since at the time of this writing it came out 15 days ago, but could the 2014 remake of \'\'Literature/LeftBehind\'\' qualify? It\'s not like the original is a total classic either, the former version having a 16% RT rating, but this one is even worse apparently, having a 3% rating. Many people are calling it {{Anvilicious}} propaganda, with bad special effects, terrible writing, and acting \
to:
This is pushing it since at the time of this writing it came out 15 days ago, but could the 2014 remake of \\\'\\\'Literature/LeftBehind\\\'\\\' qualify? It\\\'s not like the original is a total classic either, the former version having a 16% RT rating, but this one is even worse apparently, having a 3% rating, plus a 3.2 rating on [=IMDb=] and 12% on Metacritic. Many people are calling it {{Anvilicious}} propaganda, with bad special effects, terrible writing, and acting \\\"[[http://www.richardroeper.com/reviews/leftbehind.aspx so wooden you could make a basketball court out of it]].\\\" Should we put it in, for wait for it to come out so it can get a video review and proper reception?
UPDATE: The rating is now a measly 2%.
UPDATE: The rating is now a measly 2%.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
This is pushing it since at the time of this writing it came out 15 days ago, but could the 2014 remake of \'\'Literature/LeftBehind\'\' qualify? It\'s not like the original is a total classic either, the former version having a 16% RT rating, but this one is even worse apparently, having a 3% rating. Many people are calling it {{Anvilicious}} propaganda, with bad special effects, terrible writing, and acting \
to:
This is pushing it since at the time of this writing it came out 15 days ago, but could the 2014 remake of \\\'\\\'Literature/LeftBehind\\\'\\\' qualify? It\\\'s not like the original is a total classic either, the former version having a 16% RT rating, but this one is even worse apparently, having a 3% rating. Many people are calling it {{Anvilicious}} propaganda, with bad special effects, terrible writing, and acting \\\"[[http://www.richardroeper.com/reviews/leftbehind.aspx so wooden you could make a basketball court out of it]].\\\" Should we put it in, for wait for it to come out so it can get a video review and proper reception?
UPDATE: The rating is now a measly 2%.
UPDATE: The rating is now a measly 2%.
