Google Movies

by ,
google movies
click for larger version

I was trying out Google’s home page when I noticed they had something called “Movies”.
I checked it out and found two interesting links:
movie theatres near my house
and
movies showing near my house
(it’s the same info, sorted by movie instead of theatre.

For our movie planning, we’ve been using
Eye’s film listings,
but maybe next time we’ll give Google a shot.
They let you add reviews and stuff, too.
No they don’t; they collect reviews from various film critics on the ‘Net and translate them all to X-out-of-five-star-ratings.

entertainment, the Net.

About rae

I'm a long-time Mac and iOS developer. I'm also a big fan of Ruby on Rails and relational databases. I tend to work remotely, in my basement with occasional trips to the office. I'm also a big videophile, both TV and film, and can't wait for a good, inexpensive home 4k solution.

8 comments on “Google Movies

  1. rae Post author

    Google also has a “movie:” keyword that lets you search through movies. Here is The Matrix, for example. You can also search for people in the movies, e.g. Akira Kurosawa.

    As well, you can search for local theatres directly from the normal Google page by typing the prefix “movie:”, “theatres”, and your zip/postal code. e.g. “movie: theatres M1e1e1”. If you want to see nearby movies, it would be “movie: movies M1e1e1”.

    By the way, I noticed that Google has a University of Toronto search page in their huge list of university-specific search pages.

  2. Pingback:Tech Tok » Google and movies

  3. Jeff K

    I have decided that in addition to the movies you all love, I like movies of the following types even more:
    1. They go out of print mysteriously and quickly despite sounding interesting
    2. They have reviews of 1/5 *and* 5/5 at the same time.
    3. Neither that Google link nor Rotten Tomatoes has a review.
    4. They have jealously guarded copyrights.
    I am also a car-chase fanatic and the ones where the director gets arrested are the best.

    For example, “The Final Cut”, “To Live and Die in L.A.” and “The Matrix” are all over the map on the google movie reviews. This is your clue that 50% of the reviewers don’t have a stinking clue.

  4. Jeff K

    Bah, you guys won’t argue with me, so I’ll argue with myself. Take “Rent” @ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rent/ The reviews are all over the map. Basically a couple of bad reviews by tightasses and some positive reviews from folks who like tight-shorts. I caught the R-rated preview clip on the Daily Show (“Gee Jon, they don’t usually show that clip on TV! There’s a lot of booty in that clip.”, said Rosario Dawson — http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0206257/#guest-appearances ). I’ll probably wait for DVD so I can properly analyse the booty-cam for its technical merits. It would probably benefit from HD-DVD. (The ornate railings, brickwork and all that good stuff).

  5. aiabx

    I’ll fight with ya, Jeff. The reason movie reviews are all over the map, especially for popular movies, is that people are ignorant monkeys. You can’t trust people to rate movies; just look at the LOTR ratings in the IMDB top 50. they think the Shawshank redemption is better than Citizen kane. Your only real option is to find a critic whose taste you can trust, like, say… me. I’ll gladly tell you for the price of hearing me blab that The Matrix was a crappy, nonsensical movie raised to excellence by sheer style, To Live and Die in LA is bitter, miserable, pessimistic and totally cool, and the Final Cut must suck rocks because I haven’t seen it yet. And all that all on one website! How righteous is that?

    As for Rent, here we get into my favourite type of review; the movie I have only seen in commercials- but I can already sense the reek of a Broadway Musical long past its sell-by date. Now I’m not going to argue that Rosario Dawson is a babe-unit. But two hours of crappy, heartwarming musical is too much to see *any* on-screen booty. You’re better off renting the DVD, so you can do your examination of critical artistic scenes, and then get the rest of the movie the hell away from your video collection, in case it gets poisoned.
    -aiabx

  6. Jeff K

    Now here’s a 2003 movie I just have to say something about: “11:14”. I started off watching the thing, thinking, “hmph, some lame little town America story”. However it’s got a budget of $0, its perfectly executed, and I started off the film wearing my figurative white chrisitian robe and shedding a figurative tear, and when the end of the movie runs again to the same scene again 90 minutes later (that’s 11:14 in case you couldn’t guess), I’m wearing my viking hat and smashing luggage cheering over the same scene as the song “All American Girl” hits along with the credits. Someone on IMDB compared it to Rashomon. I wouldn’t go so far, but it had very low distribution, and 85% of the reviewers on IMDB missed the point and its completely missing on Google (although Google finds another mysteriously out of print item “12:01” easily enough). The reviewers on IMDB seemed to think that learning that the same moment 11:14 appears several times was the “secret” of the movie. I believe they are completely unable to re-assemble the simultaneously occurring vignettes in their little brains. It wasn’t fantastic, but it’s the same sort of thing as the “Good, bad, what does it matter, I’m the one with the Gun” in Army of darkness (cut out in the directors cut) or Han Solo shoots first (cut out in the re-edit). 11:14 is a movie the directors are going to one day say, “Holy cow, we had *no* morals back then, we’ve created a movie that could corrupt the youth of the world! Pull the damn copyright.” Er, youth of the world: Give it a pass, you wouldn’t understand it.

    …and before there was Janet Jackson, there was “Used Cars”, another classic for the cynical.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *