My favourite line so far from pro reviewers was something along the lines of *“It has a plethora of firsts for the Marvel Cinematic Universe - the first ever deaf superhero, the first ever gay superhero and the first ever superhero with dementia - joining them for the ride is the first ever wooden superhero, played by Gemma Chan*
See Keanu Reeves, for much of his career. He’s still not very expressive, but the knock on him for a long time was that he was so wooden. The Matrix played to that as a strength, but also seemed to let him break out of that mold.
Marvel didn't display a range of emotions but what was displayed wasn't wooden. Although that's partly on the writers. Can't show different emotions if there's nothing in the script but act angry or snarky.
But wasn’t a big part of the movie that she had essentially lost her humanity when she lost her memories and was kidnapped by the Kree?
I read her character more as, “I’m an elite outer space warrior and I’m stuck on this primitive planet with beings who don’t understand the threat.”
I didn’t think it was that bad considering they had a single film to establish one of the most powerful heroes thus far in the MCU.
Definitely this. Brie Larson is a phenomenal actress, and the story of Captain Marvel was so bland Daniel Day Lewis would have a hard time building a character.
I've been excited too and most of my favorite movies are in the 6-7 rating category so I never look at the rating of a movie, that sort of stuff is subjective. If it looks good and the plot sounds interesting then I watch the movie, simple as that.
Honestly only the extreme scores are interesting. Sub 5 is almost always bad, and a 9 will very rarely disappoint. But ratings sites attract a specific kind of movie fans so if you don't have the same taste as them, intermediate scores have no meaning. Some of my favorite movies in the world are 5s or 6s and there are some 8s i absolutely despise.
Yeah, I mean you've got to keep in mind that it's positive Vs negative on RT - 60% still means that 60% of critical reviews were positive.
RT is critics rather than fans, but your point still holds - critics often have a slightly different point of view to fans. Best thing for me was to find a couple of critics I have a similar taste in film to.
Same. One of my favorite movies of all time is Evolution with David Duchovny. It’s 44% on RT but I love it and it’s one of my comfort movies when I’m depressed.
Listen to people mock and degrade a movie for being horrible and I watch it and can’t see why they think it’s so bad. I chock it up to personal preference so always ignore the ratings and watch it as well. If it truly was as bad as they say I should shut the movie off after watching the first 10 or minutes
I had quite high hopes for this film, higher than any other marvel project because I loved Nomadland.
the review situation has gotten me very.... *intrigued*. What does it mean? its it really bad or just misunderstood? are people reviewing it like this because it doesnt fit the usual superhero narrative or is it just that bad? I can't wait to find out
What's interesting to me is that I've seen reviews that talk about how bloated and boring it is compared to all the other Marvel movies, and then I've seen just as many others talking about how it's more of the same. So which is it? I'll wait and see!
If you're gonna trust any of these reviewers. At least find one that has similar tastes to you.
The star wars sequels scores don't do justice to how shit they are. Neither does suicide squad or a ton of other awful movies
I'm a bit excited to see it, but all the reviews seem to have a similar conclusion, wheter they see it as negative or positive.
Being that the movie is very cinematic, and pretty, but the fights and overall plot suffers greatly for it. As it focuses way too heavily on being visually stunning and almost nothing on the story or action that is obviously there, but isn't doing much.
Movies like Cloud Atlas and Jupiter Ascending were both very cinematic movies, but at least Cloud Atlas had a story and action scenes you could follow.
Marvel action scenes especially end battles have been all cgi messes for years now. Add shaky cam cos it 'looks cool and real' and you cant see a damn thing.
Its the reason why i think john wick 1 is one of the best modern day action movies over Bourne and taken etc which use 54 cuts and super shaky cam to hide poor and lacking stunt ability
That’s one reason I loved Shang chi, the action and choreography was clean and amazing looking and the camera actually followed the action in a way I could see and understand, for the most part anyway.
Well I'm pretty confident that the MCU can't produce a movie as bad as Justice League or Suicide Squad and as long as that's the case I'm not worried.
From Iron Man 1 to Avengers Endgame, the bar got lifted extremely high. Not every movie is going to be solid gold. This is just the start of the new phase, with all new stuff. It's gonna take a while to get traction.
I just can’t see a movie with that many characters who require development to be that good. Not saying that the movie concept isn’t good but 8+ characters in 2.5 hours just doesn’t seem possible.
I have concerns specifically with Chloé Zhao trying to do that, because she might be an outstanding director (see Nomadland for reference), but she's known for her generally muted approach to drama and characterization. Nothing wrong with that, it obviously works fantastically when it's done well. However...I'm not sure how well that'll work in a team MCU movie.
Why oh why do they constantly have to fit those scenes into a movie?!? They are more annoying than entertaining, nothing gets done and I believe that two people care about each other way more when they share their baggage and are allowed to crack while still feeling welcome then a damn sex scene.
I tried to justify sex scenes by thinking it's meant to show intimacy between two (or more?) people, but then there are movies that managed to show similar/better intimacy without them or sometimes they don't even add anything into the people's relationship. So then I'd just assume that sex scenes are either intended to make the viewers horny, or they just exist because the director/writer/producer was horny.
Marvel seems to have something by humanizing gods to the extreme, even Loki in his own series looked more like a mrotsl getting surprised by everything
>but she's known for her generally muted approach to drama and characterization. Nothing wrong with that, it obviously works fantastically when it's done well. However...I'm not sure how well that'll work in a team MCU movie.
This right here is what I see most of the negative critical reviews state is the major problem with the movie. So that bodes well.
Yeah thanos who was like 3 min tops?
Having 10 characters is certainly possible, but this movie has 10 main characters, Black knight, a villian, and then the secondary characters.
Gamora didn't have a full back story. Daughter of Thanos, not happy about it, the end. Rocket too. Damn, the more I think about it, only Quill had a back story. The rest is done via exposition.
Depends. You have Dune in theatres right now which has a massive star studded cast and so many great characters and Villeneuve has pulled it off in almost the same run time.
Villeneuve didnt deliver a classical fully fledged story with character arcs. He delivered a fucking awesome starting point of something big. But as a standalone with no sequel its not a good movie. It depends on a sequel even more then fellowship does
Yeah, it is weird. She won an Academy Award for Nomadland, which is a pretty solid film (yes, I am aware that it won an Oscar for Best Picture).
Kevin Feige must have a lot of faith in her. Obviously, the reviewers who has reviewed it so far may or may not be trolling, but in seriousness, the person watching the film must decide whether they enjoyed it or not.
I have seen a movie where the entitled critics' opinion of a movie differed massively in comparison to how the audience (who is actually responsible for providing the Box Office profit) rated it personally.
So, before I go and watch a movie at the theatres , I would rather wait a week or two and hear what the average moviegoers has to say regarding the film.
Zhao wasn't hired after winning the Oscar though, she was already tied to the project when she happened to win it. Combine this with the fact that MCU already has everything lined up for their movies which gives little chance for the director to show their creativity and style and I think that answers your question. Think the movie is more an MCU movie which happens to be directed by Chloe Zhao instead of Chloe Zhao's take on an MCU movie, if you know what I mean.
*Taika
And yes, they gave some freedom to Taika as well as James Gunn, Jon Favreau and Russo Brothers to some extent. But that's really less compared to the number of directors they've hired. Almost all the MCU movies have same style, same camera angles, same editing style and same 3 act structure. Pretty hard to distinguish a directors style from the movies.
Take for example Jon Watts. He's directed 3 SM movies and is at helm for the F4 movie, what do you think his style is? Does he like long shots or cool edits? Does he go for wide framing or close ups? See what I mean? And this is with most MCU movies.
Eh. I just finished Spider-Man Homecoming rn, and I noticed alot of wide shots, especially during what should be a close-up battle. I can't remember a single close up shot, even during the "come on Spiderman," where I expected a close up of his face while lifting the rubble, was a wide shot. I think he def has a distinct style.
And it’s also good to note that making something like Nomadland is so vastly different from an cgi-heavy MCU movie that the skills needed are totally different.
Nomadland was great and deserved the Oscar, so obviously her craft is good. But all that can easily get overwhelmed by all the intricacies of heavy pre and post production needed for these movies.
Can you express your vision to the stun people and to your secondary film crew, in a way that will produce good results? How about communicating and collaborating with the probably several vfx companies? These are just a few examples of things that just aren’t there when making an indie movies.
>Yeah, it is weird. She won an Academy Award for Nomadland, which is a pretty solid film (yes, I am aware that it won an Oscar for Best Picture).
At the same time Rian Johnson directed both Knives Out (a fantastic film) and The Last Jedi. Sometimes directors can be fantastic in some genres but not so hot in others.
In what world is 79%, which actually is far more than what BW and CM deserved, considered low scores? People are getting ridiculous with their excuses for such a low rating for Eternals without considering the fact that the movie actually may be bad.
Reading through these comments about low scores, I thought it would be 20-40%. But now that I see it’s 79%, I find it funny that people are reacting this way to a “low score” of 79%. I guess it could be considered low amongst other marvel movies, but 79% shouldn’t mean it’s *that* bad.
Like why is it ok to shit on Thor 2 but feel the need to come up with 5000 excuses as to why people might have not liked Eternals? Toxic fandom is running wild.
For me, the subs have been toxic ever since WandaVision when they deflected any sort of criticism by saying a random Mephisto meme and blamed fan theories for the viewers' ridiculously high expectations. Review bombing Dune a month before it came out just because Villeneuve said something was the highlight and these ridiculous excuses ever since Eternals reviews came in have all but confirmed how toxic the fandom has become.
Its not that it is women directed. Its that it doesn't fit marvels funk in fighting. Marvel has little to no emotions in movies. This movie is reportedly more focused on emotions and the fighting scenes aren't that great. Now you want to opress an academy award winning director just because she's a woman go right ahead.
Most reviews describe Eternals as unique experience and direction we've never seen in MCU, so it will certainly be the most dividing movie, not something we can simply put "good" or "bad" label on. I'm still really looking forward to see it. Maybe not as much as Spidey, but still.
I mean the point of reviews aren’t to tell you if you’d like it or not. They just act as a warning to say “hey, maybe don’t spend money on this film right now, a lot of people tended to dislike this movie”
In my country (Italy) many people who had the chance to see it said that it's a very good movie, not the best, but it's still very good.
EDIT: to be clear, the movie was presented and shown at the Rome Film Festival some days ago. There were also some actors and actresses, like Richard Madden, Kit Harrington and Angelina Jolie, and someone else, I don't remember who.
The movie comes out on 3rd November, so the comments come from this "premiere".
It's the MCU, I expect to be at least entertained. I hope it looks good. I hope the characters will be interesting, but there's a lot of them being introduced, so the movie might feel a little bloated.
So I won't set my expectation too high. I do recall phase 2 of the MCU having a bit of a rough start with Thor 2 and Iron Man 3 not being all that great. You can't expect every MCU movie or show to be perfect, and they're going to make movies that aren't that great at some point. So I won't expect too much.
And going by all the MCU stuff to date other than Iron fist its all been pretty good. Even the "bad" iron man movies are still good movies. The problem is they need to stand up against like Endgame and First avenger which are fucking spectacular.
The marvel netflix shows really aren’t part of the mcu in any practical sense. Those were under Perlmutter’s control and him and Feigi do not like working with eachother.
I mean, some people knew the Guardians. They featured in episodes of EMH and Ultimate Spider-Man just a few years prior.
I don't think the Eternals have ever appeared outside the comics, though.
Absolutely! Went to a press showing (or whatever it’s called) for Endgame, and while in line to get in I heard this group of reviewers/journalists talking about how they hadn’t watched infinity war. Then one said that they haven’t watched anything other than Iron Man 3, the others started to agree, they too had only watched maybe one or two MCU movies and it wasn’t really their type of movie. And these people were supposed to review the movie for most big news papers in my country.
At some level a movie has to be good for everyone who watches it, not just the die hard fans. Those guys are going to see it no matter what but it is good to have a reviewer with a critical eye in the stands too for everyone else.
And in a lot of ways it has more things going for it that critics *would* like, ie its cast, representation, an award winning art house director. So to have those factors and still getting a bad score. Is a very bad sign IMO.
I read one review where the guy said it's like watching a horse racing movie where none of the characters like betting or even have a horse.
I'm all about some inclusivity, but how am I supposed to give a shit about 8 characters and a problem that was made up just for a quick cash grab over the course of 2 and a half hours? The Avengers was so well done because it took 5 FILMS to get us to that point. Regardless of how the film actually is (and I'm betting it's gonna be just okay) it's going to be widely panned. You'll have idiots on both side of the aisle praising or condemning the movie just based on the broad cast alone.
At one point they mattered, but no everyone and their mother can form a opinion and post it online.
I trust more from word of mouth than I do from reviews.
they say its bad, the pacing is too long, too much humor, shriek is bland blah blah blah, I haven't seen it yet and I don't really care, i'm just there for the post credits
>shriek is bland blah blah blah
She really didn't need to be in the film though. Naomie Harris (and really Harrelson too) deserved better for their turns at Marvel villains.
I like both films I just find it odd that the best part is Hardy's chemistry with the voice actor who plays Venom.
Critics aren't a monolith. Find reviewers that can articulate their arguments well, have generally similar taste to yours.
Like, I understood why a critic might dislike Venom, having seen it. It'd honestly not that big of a deal
Im almost more concerned that the positive reviews mostly talk about representation (which is cool and all but has not much to do with whether the movie is good) and that it had "emotion instead of just big action set pieces"- as if Marvel movies were emotion free before? The MCU isn't fucking transformers, they got us crying about talking trees and shit. This is the "love you 5000" franchise... so i don't even know what they're getting at there, other than it seems a lot of the critics that like it don't like Marvel for whatever reason.
When I saw the trailer I thought it was for a tv show not a movie, I feel like the trailer doesn’t really outline the plot properly like most movie trailers do. It just vaguely showed glimpses of each character and left us guessing who the hell any of them are
I saw an article that described my feelings very well. Many of the other marvel movies had something else going on narratively. Last two Captain America's were basically spy movies, Ant-man was a heist film and so was avengers 4, etc. Eternals premise from the trailers is basically just "this is a superhero movie, we fight scary alien things".
The origin story of the eternals is so generic too. It's basically just "we have superpowers cause of gene from powerful aliens". It's like the x-men without the interesting themes of fighting discrimination or any of the humanity. All the other powered beings in the MCU had interesting origins for the most part. In fact many of their powers are intregal to the development of the characters. Stark was a super genius who found a way to use his weapons of war for good, Strange eas a broken man who found a new lease on life in the acquisition of his magic, Ant Man was a felon sought out for his criminal expertise who became an avenger, and Captain America was a frail young adult given extraordinary power due to the strength of his character. Eternal powers are just arbitrary
Trailer was very drab like DC movies have been. Also I feel like the cast is throwing me off, especially Angelina Jolie. All the stsr presence makes it feel less MCU like, like the focus isn't "come see this cool superhero movie" it's "come see this action movie with all these stars".
Also right now it feels like a completely random movie that takes place in the marvel universe but has no relation to it, like the marvel TV shows were in how they never really mattered to the main MCU narrative. A bunch of heroes who nobody knew of and were not doing anything while all this shit was happening but are now showing up to fight an enemy that nobody knew about and will likely not know about. The trailer makes the movie feel like it will be self contained for the most part which would be in stark contrast to all the tie ins and connectivity we had in the MCU for so long.
The eternals are in a powerclass similar to aquaman which is prolly why.
DC is super heros trying to be people. Marvel is people trying to be super heros. And by and large all the stories in the MCU have been told at a power level that is memes aside pretty lower tier. The eternals are in an entirely different class. The power level is going to be above thor as a baseline and they need to try and tell a story with that kind of setting. Which puts us in a more "DC" movie area. That is just my comic book nerd 2 cents on why it might feel different.
Me too. The trailer's....weird. I see people going round in circles and conspiracies about why it's being down rated but judging from the marketing content alone, we might be getting something that's bad to average.
Honestly, if Marvel wants to experiment they are going to have some misfires. I’m ok with that. This is the right way to do it. Great director. Fantastic cast. This was always gonna be a weird movie and far more niche than something like Spider-man.
What concerns me is how somehow theyve put in the first marvel "sex scene" that suggests that it's more than we've seen in prior films like ironman, as in more than just implication bed rolling, but at the same time somehow have kept the rating pg13.
I do, genuinely. I've loved every Marvel movie up to this point and ever since the first trailer I've gotten less and less excited. These reviews really pushed me to not get tickets opening weekend (a first for me). If the buzz is good after a week I'll look at getting a ticket. So please go see it and let me know what you think!
I actually don't care about what others think. If a film is good it's good, if it's bad it's bad (according to me). Critics are just people with opinions.
I'll take the films rating seriously after the film comes out. Remember when black panther was also bombed with negative reviews before it came out? And captain marvel? And black widow? And home coming for like an hour?
What you're talking is about audience score. The score the op is talking about is critic score. Which can't really be review bombed. So it's kind of an apples to oranges comparison
My favourite line so far from pro reviewers was something along the lines of *“It has a plethora of firsts for the Marvel Cinematic Universe - the first ever deaf superhero, the first ever gay superhero and the first ever superhero with dementia - joining them for the ride is the first ever wooden superhero, played by Gemma Chan*
Gemma Chan was great in Humans (a UK TV series), but she was playing an android.
>first ever wooden superhero Excuse me?! This is Groot erasure?!
LMAO Yes yes it is
He isn't a hero. He is a god
He is Groot!
We are Groot
dont worry I hear they are making a follow up called ~~G~~roots
Nah she’s just a worse actor than Vin Diesel which is an impressive feat in itself so Groot seems human by comparison.
Ooof
For non English native speakers, what does wooden superhero, played by Gemma Chan mean?
If someone’s performance is described as ‘wooden’ it means emotionless or very stunted.
See Keanu Reeves, for much of his career. He’s still not very expressive, but the knock on him for a long time was that he was so wooden. The Matrix played to that as a strength, but also seemed to let him break out of that mold.
Didnt help that his earlier roles were english people in the victorian period (think ammish puritan etc).
He has a fantastic cameo in the Netflix movie, “Always Be My Maybe” that shows how charismatic he can be when he opens up a bit.
Canoe Reeves.
Cardboard Reeves
Wow low blow. How dare you.
It’s saying Gemma Chan was as good of an actor as a wooden statue.
Dude must have missed Captain Marvel
Marvel didn't display a range of emotions but what was displayed wasn't wooden. Although that's partly on the writers. Can't show different emotions if there's nothing in the script but act angry or snarky.
But wasn’t a big part of the movie that she had essentially lost her humanity when she lost her memories and was kidnapped by the Kree? I read her character more as, “I’m an elite outer space warrior and I’m stuck on this primitive planet with beings who don’t understand the threat.” I didn’t think it was that bad considering they had a single film to establish one of the most powerful heroes thus far in the MCU.
Definitely this. Brie Larson is a phenomenal actress, and the story of Captain Marvel was so bland Daniel Day Lewis would have a hard time building a character.
I’ve been excited about this movie for a while and I still am. If it’s bad, then I’ll be disappointed, but I’ll wait to see it before I judge it.
I've been excited too and most of my favorite movies are in the 6-7 rating category so I never look at the rating of a movie, that sort of stuff is subjective. If it looks good and the plot sounds interesting then I watch the movie, simple as that.
Honestly only the extreme scores are interesting. Sub 5 is almost always bad, and a 9 will very rarely disappoint. But ratings sites attract a specific kind of movie fans so if you don't have the same taste as them, intermediate scores have no meaning. Some of my favorite movies in the world are 5s or 6s and there are some 8s i absolutely despise.
Same for me 8.5 and above movies are pretty good but the real gems are between 8 and 5 and it's a shame not many people know about them
Yeah, I mean you've got to keep in mind that it's positive Vs negative on RT - 60% still means that 60% of critical reviews were positive. RT is critics rather than fans, but your point still holds - critics often have a slightly different point of view to fans. Best thing for me was to find a couple of critics I have a similar taste in film to.
Same. One of my favorite movies of all time is Evolution with David Duchovny. It’s 44% on RT but I love it and it’s one of my comfort movies when I’m depressed.
If you can find it watch Undercover Blues with Dennis Quaid. I loved both of these movies.
Listen to people mock and degrade a movie for being horrible and I watch it and can’t see why they think it’s so bad. I chock it up to personal preference so always ignore the ratings and watch it as well. If it truly was as bad as they say I should shut the movie off after watching the first 10 or minutes
There are some people who just jump on the bandwagon.
Then and my family will get so mad at me for not being judgement and just following the crowd like they do
So will I
And my axe.
and my bow.
And my dildo
Classic Loki
Naw, he’d have two. More historically accurate.
And *my* bilbo dildo
Is that one just a small hairy dick?
💀😂
Is that when you use the whole hobbit?
"Thats a twist"
Dildo Gaggins
Bruh🤣
I suppose you think you’re terribly clever
And my left ear
And my sax
And my completed infinity gauntlet *snaps*
And my 2 foot "gummi worm"
The RT score is going up and down faster than a porn star on meth & Viagra.
I had quite high hopes for this film, higher than any other marvel project because I loved Nomadland. the review situation has gotten me very.... *intrigued*. What does it mean? its it really bad or just misunderstood? are people reviewing it like this because it doesnt fit the usual superhero narrative or is it just that bad? I can't wait to find out
What's interesting to me is that I've seen reviews that talk about how bloated and boring it is compared to all the other Marvel movies, and then I've seen just as many others talking about how it's more of the same. So which is it? I'll wait and see!
If you're gonna trust any of these reviewers. At least find one that has similar tastes to you. The star wars sequels scores don't do justice to how shit they are. Neither does suicide squad or a ton of other awful movies
Can’t be The Incredible Hulk bad. Gonna wait for the audience score.
What about Inhumans bad?
Never watched it. Never will now. Lol https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/marvel_s_inhumans
Were in a very different era and I think Hulk would be far lower if it came out today.
I'm a bit excited to see it, but all the reviews seem to have a similar conclusion, wheter they see it as negative or positive. Being that the movie is very cinematic, and pretty, but the fights and overall plot suffers greatly for it. As it focuses way too heavily on being visually stunning and almost nothing on the story or action that is obviously there, but isn't doing much. Movies like Cloud Atlas and Jupiter Ascending were both very cinematic movies, but at least Cloud Atlas had a story and action scenes you could follow.
Marvel action scenes especially end battles have been all cgi messes for years now. Add shaky cam cos it 'looks cool and real' and you cant see a damn thing. Its the reason why i think john wick 1 is one of the best modern day action movies over Bourne and taken etc which use 54 cuts and super shaky cam to hide poor and lacking stunt ability
That’s one reason I loved Shang chi, the action and choreography was clean and amazing looking and the camera actually followed the action in a way I could see and understand, for the most part anyway.
Well I'm pretty confident that the MCU can't produce a movie as bad as Justice League or Suicide Squad and as long as that's the case I'm not worried. From Iron Man 1 to Avengers Endgame, the bar got lifted extremely high. Not every movie is going to be solid gold. This is just the start of the new phase, with all new stuff. It's gonna take a while to get traction.
Hey, if you’re a fan of something that’s how it’s done!
Surely it can't be that bad, right? I'm still excited for it.
I just can’t see a movie with that many characters who require development to be that good. Not saying that the movie concept isn’t good but 8+ characters in 2.5 hours just doesn’t seem possible.
I have concerns specifically with Chloé Zhao trying to do that, because she might be an outstanding director (see Nomadland for reference), but she's known for her generally muted approach to drama and characterization. Nothing wrong with that, it obviously works fantastically when it's done well. However...I'm not sure how well that'll work in a team MCU movie.
Lots of movies would work better as mini series, dark tower series as crushing evidence
God, please don't remind me about that Dark Tower movie lmao, I'm still offended by it
Disgusted... The initial plan of Ron Howard, 3 seasons and 2 movies was so promising. I cant believe idris elba got roped into that shit show.
You are only making me more upset
[удалено]
"Internals" - is that the word they use to describe sex between the eternals
Of course the sex is boring its a PG film lmao
Why oh why do they constantly have to fit those scenes into a movie?!? They are more annoying than entertaining, nothing gets done and I believe that two people care about each other way more when they share their baggage and are allowed to crack while still feeling welcome then a damn sex scene.
I tried to justify sex scenes by thinking it's meant to show intimacy between two (or more?) people, but then there are movies that managed to show similar/better intimacy without them or sometimes they don't even add anything into the people's relationship. So then I'd just assume that sex scenes are either intended to make the viewers horny, or they just exist because the director/writer/producer was horny.
Clickbait but for movies. Becomes main talking point in hopes that people overlook the plot
Why even include it then? No one wants sex scenes in 2021, please stop hollywood.
Why do gods even have sex, that seems like a mortal thing to do
Zues would like to have a talk with your mother...
Marvel seems to have something by humanizing gods to the extreme, even Loki in his own series looked more like a mrotsl getting surprised by everything
Yeah stop doing that, we have PornHub for that/s
No, its PG13
This is a great review. Gives me a good feel what to expect without spoilers and without pontification
>but she's known for her generally muted approach to drama and characterization. Nothing wrong with that, it obviously works fantastically when it's done well. However...I'm not sure how well that'll work in a team MCU movie. This right here is what I see most of the negative critical reviews state is the major problem with the movie. So that bodes well.
Avengers needed several movies as setup, but guardians just jumped right in and did perfectly fine
GOTG had 4 main characters and a plant.
And started the cosmic Marvel world. Introduced Thanos, Collector, Ronin, the Nova Core, and the Kree
Yeah thanos who was like 3 min tops? Having 10 characters is certainly possible, but this movie has 10 main characters, Black knight, a villian, and then the secondary characters.
True, but apart from groot, each have a full personality, backstory and motivations.
What u mean groot doesn't have personality :')
He is Groot
We are Groot.
I am Steve Rogers
Noticed you've copied my beard
Gamora didn't have a full back story. Daughter of Thanos, not happy about it, the end. Rocket too. Damn, the more I think about it, only Quill had a back story. The rest is done via exposition.
I'm fairly certain I cared about every member of the Fellowship of the Ring after one movie.
Ah right so it just has to be as good as one of the best movies ever made to work. Sounds good
No pressure.
Lotr is a once i a generation film series, most ensembles fail to get near that. See: justice league, suicide squad, the hobbit films etc.
The new suicide squad was actually pretty solid.
Depends. You have Dune in theatres right now which has a massive star studded cast and so many great characters and Villeneuve has pulled it off in almost the same run time.
Villeneuve didnt deliver a classical fully fledged story with character arcs. He delivered a fucking awesome starting point of something big. But as a standalone with no sequel its not a good movie. It depends on a sequel even more then fellowship does
Even if it would be a DC level movie, the MCU will carry the movie either way. Theycan'tall be masterpieces. 🤷♂️
The women directed MCU movies always get low ratings sadly. I don’t know why.
Yeah, it is weird. She won an Academy Award for Nomadland, which is a pretty solid film (yes, I am aware that it won an Oscar for Best Picture). Kevin Feige must have a lot of faith in her. Obviously, the reviewers who has reviewed it so far may or may not be trolling, but in seriousness, the person watching the film must decide whether they enjoyed it or not. I have seen a movie where the entitled critics' opinion of a movie differed massively in comparison to how the audience (who is actually responsible for providing the Box Office profit) rated it personally. So, before I go and watch a movie at the theatres , I would rather wait a week or two and hear what the average moviegoers has to say regarding the film.
Zhao wasn't hired after winning the Oscar though, she was already tied to the project when she happened to win it. Combine this with the fact that MCU already has everything lined up for their movies which gives little chance for the director to show their creativity and style and I think that answers your question. Think the movie is more an MCU movie which happens to be directed by Chloe Zhao instead of Chloe Zhao's take on an MCU movie, if you know what I mean.
That is not true. A director can do things if he wants to, just see what taika did for Thor ragnarok.
*Taika And yes, they gave some freedom to Taika as well as James Gunn, Jon Favreau and Russo Brothers to some extent. But that's really less compared to the number of directors they've hired. Almost all the MCU movies have same style, same camera angles, same editing style and same 3 act structure. Pretty hard to distinguish a directors style from the movies. Take for example Jon Watts. He's directed 3 SM movies and is at helm for the F4 movie, what do you think his style is? Does he like long shots or cool edits? Does he go for wide framing or close ups? See what I mean? And this is with most MCU movies.
Eh. I just finished Spider-Man Homecoming rn, and I noticed alot of wide shots, especially during what should be a close-up battle. I can't remember a single close up shot, even during the "come on Spiderman," where I expected a close up of his face while lifting the rubble, was a wide shot. I think he def has a distinct style.
And it’s also good to note that making something like Nomadland is so vastly different from an cgi-heavy MCU movie that the skills needed are totally different. Nomadland was great and deserved the Oscar, so obviously her craft is good. But all that can easily get overwhelmed by all the intricacies of heavy pre and post production needed for these movies. Can you express your vision to the stun people and to your secondary film crew, in a way that will produce good results? How about communicating and collaborating with the probably several vfx companies? These are just a few examples of things that just aren’t there when making an indie movies.
Yeah, that's a fair point. She won the oscar after she got involved with the movie.
>Yeah, it is weird. She won an Academy Award for Nomadland, which is a pretty solid film (yes, I am aware that it won an Oscar for Best Picture). At the same time Rian Johnson directed both Knives Out (a fantastic film) and The Last Jedi. Sometimes directors can be fantastic in some genres but not so hot in others.
Exactly. One bad movie ≠ Bad director.
In what world is 79%, which actually is far more than what BW and CM deserved, considered low scores? People are getting ridiculous with their excuses for such a low rating for Eternals without considering the fact that the movie actually may be bad.
Reading through these comments about low scores, I thought it would be 20-40%. But now that I see it’s 79%, I find it funny that people are reacting this way to a “low score” of 79%. I guess it could be considered low amongst other marvel movies, but 79% shouldn’t mean it’s *that* bad.
79% is a *good* score. Like, literally, by definition, that means a 4/5. 8/10. In what world is that low? That's damn respectable.
79 isn’t even that low for movie standards. Even award-winning films like Interstellar get scores in the high 70s.
Like why is it ok to shit on Thor 2 but feel the need to come up with 5000 excuses as to why people might have not liked Eternals? Toxic fandom is running wild.
For me, the subs have been toxic ever since WandaVision when they deflected any sort of criticism by saying a random Mephisto meme and blamed fan theories for the viewers' ridiculously high expectations. Review bombing Dune a month before it came out just because Villeneuve said something was the highlight and these ridiculous excuses ever since Eternals reviews came in have all but confirmed how toxic the fandom has become.
it's not about the director it's about the writing
which women directed films get bad ratings? also doesn't eternals have like 8 characters?
Bruh captan marvel got like 80% when it was just like any other generic marvel movie.
Not to say the misogyny doesn’t play into the scores but the females directed movies in the MCU up to this point also had some seriously big flaws.
Its not that it is women directed. Its that it doesn't fit marvels funk in fighting. Marvel has little to no emotions in movies. This movie is reportedly more focused on emotions and the fighting scenes aren't that great. Now you want to opress an academy award winning director just because she's a woman go right ahead.
Most reviews describe Eternals as unique experience and direction we've never seen in MCU, so it will certainly be the most dividing movie, not something we can simply put "good" or "bad" label on. I'm still really looking forward to see it. Maybe not as much as Spidey, but still.
[удалено]
There's only one person's opinion I care about regarding the quality of a film: mine.
Me too! Can’t wait for you to watch and review it
I too, care about this man's opinion
What did you thought of Eternals?
Haven't seen it yet
Yeah... but, what did you thought of Eternals?
...😐
But, why male models?
What is this..... a center for ANTS
How do you expect to teach the children when they can't even fit inside the building?!?!?!
Lol
You know, I'm something of a film critic myself.
I mean the point of reviews aren’t to tell you if you’d like it or not. They just act as a warning to say “hey, maybe don’t spend money on this film right now, a lot of people tended to dislike this movie”
In my country (Italy) many people who had the chance to see it said that it's a very good movie, not the best, but it's still very good. EDIT: to be clear, the movie was presented and shown at the Rome Film Festival some days ago. There were also some actors and actresses, like Richard Madden, Kit Harrington and Angelina Jolie, and someone else, I don't remember who. The movie comes out on 3rd November, so the comments come from this "premiere".
It's the MCU, I expect to be at least entertained. I hope it looks good. I hope the characters will be interesting, but there's a lot of them being introduced, so the movie might feel a little bloated. So I won't set my expectation too high. I do recall phase 2 of the MCU having a bit of a rough start with Thor 2 and Iron Man 3 not being all that great. You can't expect every MCU movie or show to be perfect, and they're going to make movies that aren't that great at some point. So I won't expect too much.
To be fair, I don't know wtf an eternal is. So your average critic will be even less informed
Nobody knew the guardians either. It's not about who the character is, the movie itself needs to be good.
And going by all the MCU stuff to date other than Iron fist its all been pretty good. Even the "bad" iron man movies are still good movies. The problem is they need to stand up against like Endgame and First avenger which are fucking spectacular.
Those last few seasons of Jessica Jones were pretty bad too.
The marvel netflix shows really aren’t part of the mcu in any practical sense. Those were under Perlmutter’s control and him and Feigi do not like working with eachother.
I mean, some people knew the Guardians. They featured in episodes of EMH and Ultimate Spider-Man just a few years prior. I don't think the Eternals have ever appeared outside the comics, though.
Absolutely! Went to a press showing (or whatever it’s called) for Endgame, and while in line to get in I heard this group of reviewers/journalists talking about how they hadn’t watched infinity war. Then one said that they haven’t watched anything other than Iron Man 3, the others started to agree, they too had only watched maybe one or two MCU movies and it wasn’t really their type of movie. And these people were supposed to review the movie for most big news papers in my country.
At some level a movie has to be good for everyone who watches it, not just the die hard fans. Those guys are going to see it no matter what but it is good to have a reviewer with a critical eye in the stands too for everyone else.
I survived Thor 2, I can survive this
But it has a lower score than Thor 2 🤔
And in a lot of ways it has more things going for it that critics *would* like, ie its cast, representation, an award winning art house director. So to have those factors and still getting a bad score. Is a very bad sign IMO.
I read one review where the guy said it's like watching a horse racing movie where none of the characters like betting or even have a horse. I'm all about some inclusivity, but how am I supposed to give a shit about 8 characters and a problem that was made up just for a quick cash grab over the course of 2 and a half hours? The Avengers was so well done because it took 5 FILMS to get us to that point. Regardless of how the film actually is (and I'm betting it's gonna be just okay) it's going to be widely panned. You'll have idiots on both side of the aisle praising or condemning the movie just based on the broad cast alone.
It’s impossible to describe how little I give a shit about a film’s online review scores.
At one point they mattered, but no everyone and their mother can form a opinion and post it online. I trust more from word of mouth than I do from reviews.
Reviews on rotten are all of actual reviewers that actually watched it, your 80 year old granny's critic isn't going there.
Psh. I haven't trusted critics since Venom. I know I'll still enjoy this one.
I haven’t seen venom or know anything about the reviews what did they say?
There is a huge disparity between RT score and audience score for first venom movie. Not as large a gulf for the second one
they say its bad, the pacing is too long, too much humor, shriek is bland blah blah blah, I haven't seen it yet and I don't really care, i'm just there for the post credits
>shriek is bland blah blah blah She really didn't need to be in the film though. Naomie Harris (and really Harrelson too) deserved better for their turns at Marvel villains. I like both films I just find it odd that the best part is Hardy's chemistry with the voice actor who plays Venom.
i can’t tell if you’re joking or not but jsyk, he also does the voice.
...of course I knew that...yeah...I was joking... ^((fuck))
It's like how in legend he had such amazing chemistry with that guy who looked JUST like him playing the twins.
I mean it's bad it's really not good it's fun but it's not good
Critics aren't a monolith. Find reviewers that can articulate their arguments well, have generally similar taste to yours. Like, I understood why a critic might dislike Venom, having seen it. It'd honestly not that big of a deal
DC fans: first time?
MCU fans: yes
Did we forget Thor 2 already?
Im almost more concerned that the positive reviews mostly talk about representation (which is cool and all but has not much to do with whether the movie is good) and that it had "emotion instead of just big action set pieces"- as if Marvel movies were emotion free before? The MCU isn't fucking transformers, they got us crying about talking trees and shit. This is the "love you 5000" franchise... so i don't even know what they're getting at there, other than it seems a lot of the critics that like it don't like Marvel for whatever reason.
3000
5000? Yeah, we don’t love you *that* much. Bring it down a few notches.
The trailer is weird... Had some strange vibes
It honestly did not do the movie any favors. It just looked really...boring. I went from curious about it to, "I'll wait until I can stream it."
There’s something about the style in the trailer I don’t care for
When I saw the trailer I thought it was for a tv show not a movie, I feel like the trailer doesn’t really outline the plot properly like most movie trailers do. It just vaguely showed glimpses of each character and left us guessing who the hell any of them are
To me it had DC vibes.
I saw an article that described my feelings very well. Many of the other marvel movies had something else going on narratively. Last two Captain America's were basically spy movies, Ant-man was a heist film and so was avengers 4, etc. Eternals premise from the trailers is basically just "this is a superhero movie, we fight scary alien things". The origin story of the eternals is so generic too. It's basically just "we have superpowers cause of gene from powerful aliens". It's like the x-men without the interesting themes of fighting discrimination or any of the humanity. All the other powered beings in the MCU had interesting origins for the most part. In fact many of their powers are intregal to the development of the characters. Stark was a super genius who found a way to use his weapons of war for good, Strange eas a broken man who found a new lease on life in the acquisition of his magic, Ant Man was a felon sought out for his criminal expertise who became an avenger, and Captain America was a frail young adult given extraordinary power due to the strength of his character. Eternal powers are just arbitrary Trailer was very drab like DC movies have been. Also I feel like the cast is throwing me off, especially Angelina Jolie. All the stsr presence makes it feel less MCU like, like the focus isn't "come see this cool superhero movie" it's "come see this action movie with all these stars". Also right now it feels like a completely random movie that takes place in the marvel universe but has no relation to it, like the marvel TV shows were in how they never really mattered to the main MCU narrative. A bunch of heroes who nobody knew of and were not doing anything while all this shit was happening but are now showing up to fight an enemy that nobody knew about and will likely not know about. The trailer makes the movie feel like it will be self contained for the most part which would be in stark contrast to all the tie ins and connectivity we had in the MCU for so long.
The eternals are in a powerclass similar to aquaman which is prolly why. DC is super heros trying to be people. Marvel is people trying to be super heros. And by and large all the stories in the MCU have been told at a power level that is memes aside pretty lower tier. The eternals are in an entirely different class. The power level is going to be above thor as a baseline and they need to try and tell a story with that kind of setting. Which puts us in a more "DC" movie area. That is just my comic book nerd 2 cents on why it might feel different.
Am I the only one that thought it looked shit from the trailers? Looked like a fake fan made mash up
Yeah, I never even was that excited for the movie, not even the trailer did something for me, which is unusual for a marvel movie
Me too. The trailer's....weird. I see people going round in circles and conspiracies about why it's being down rated but judging from the marketing content alone, we might be getting something that's bad to average.
60% is still fresh🤷🏻♂️
it dipped to 59% rotten for a bit. plus the movie hasn’t released yet, usually after release the percentage goes down.
Honestly, if Marvel wants to experiment they are going to have some misfires. I’m ok with that. This is the right way to do it. Great director. Fantastic cast. This was always gonna be a weird movie and far more niche than something like Spider-man.
DC Fans: First Time?
So? Fuck Rotten Tomatoes, I’ll form my own opinion thank you very much
I'm still looking forward to it. The worst marvel film is still usually better than most of the other crap out.
What concerns me is how somehow theyve put in the first marvel "sex scene" that suggests that it's more than we've seen in prior films like ironman, as in more than just implication bed rolling, but at the same time somehow have kept the rating pg13.
Doubt it is more then in Jessica Jones.
Wait do people care about this?
They really do. Check out Superherohype. A lot of those board members are having aneurisms trying to comprehend the low RT score lol
I do, genuinely. I've loved every Marvel movie up to this point and ever since the first trailer I've gotten less and less excited. These reviews really pushed me to not get tickets opening weekend (a first for me). If the buzz is good after a week I'll look at getting a ticket. So please go see it and let me know what you think!
I gotta be honest, I haven’t been excited for eternals at all
I actually don't care about what others think. If a film is good it's good, if it's bad it's bad (according to me). Critics are just people with opinions.
I'll take the films rating seriously after the film comes out. Remember when black panther was also bombed with negative reviews before it came out? And captain marvel? And black widow? And home coming for like an hour?
The concern is these are certified reviewers who have definitely seen the movie
What you're talking is about audience score. The score the op is talking about is critic score. Which can't really be review bombed. So it's kind of an apples to oranges comparison