Minions - Despicable, Indeed

[Dr. Crawver]

One star? If you give everything one star then it doesn't mean anything when a Paul Blart Mall Cop 2 comes around. This is over 50 on rotten tomatoes with an Audience score of around 70% whereas Paul Blart 2 was a 0 at this time and is now a 6. I mean, if you really personally hated this movie then by all means, score it however poorly you want. But you're really setting the floor too low here.

Anyways, the film has already broken the world record for biggest animated film opening ever and is gearing up to be one of the biggest launches ever (for animated films). perhaps reviewers aren't that in touch with their consumer base?

1 star I would say is appropriate given what he said and his reasoning. There was nothing for him in the movie to enjoy, and he did lay out his position from the start for others to see if they'd feel the same (he said he never liked the minions from the start. As someone who feels exactly the same, I could easily see myself giving it a similar review if I watched it).

That said, because of this it is a review for people who were never going to see the film to begin with. Which I'm fine with. It was his opinion, not to his taste and it definitely confirmed what I thought, but for some on the fence who don't hate the minions from the ground up, yeah it could be said that this review doesn't help them.

Though I guess what I'm trying to say is there's many reviewers for many consumers. If every reviewer had the same opinion, then it would ultimately remove the point of reviewers to begin with.

Which is why I said, "I mean, if you really personally hated this movie then by all means, score it however poorly you want. But you're really setting the floor too low here."

I'm just saying that if he didn't loathe the film then giving it 1 star effectively robs the rating when given to a film that he actually does hate. You know? Once you go nuclear then sticks and stones don't really impress anyone.

But...did he say anywhere that he didn't loathe the film? I mean I might be wrong, and if I am I genuinely appologise, but to me he made it clear that he really did hate this film, and got no enjoyment what so ever from it. If he said anywhere that he didn't hate it then I missed that and retract my statement. But 1 star feels appropriate for the reaction he seemed to have.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

And in pour the complaints from people who think you're somehow objectively wrong to give low marks to a movie other people (not even them, personally, but the general public) liked. As if every single review is supposed to match the average audience score.

You can really tell this site has been taken over by the people who blasted game critics for being "unethical" for daring to dislike a game that's popular. Maybe you should rename your column "CineMartyr".

 

[Lightknight]

But...did he say anywhere that he didn't loathe the film? I mean I might be wrong, and if I am I genuinely appologise, but to me he made it clear that he really did hate this film, and got no enjoyment what so ever from it. If he said anywhere that he didn't hate it then I missed that and retract my statement. But 1 star feels appropriate for the reaction he seemed to have.

Which, again, is why in my comment I said that if he really did loathe the film then by all means mark it that low.

But look at his Max review: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/moviesandtv/reviews/cinemarter/14226-Max-Review

He said the movie is so bad that it will make you mad. He says that it has literally no audience.

Do you think in contrast that he levels the same degree of ire at the minions movie? He seems to just say it doesn't entertain him. But a movie that was so bad as to make him mad gets the same score?

That's what I mean, it just doesn't follow. A movie you have to swat away with a flyswatter appears to be getting the same score as a movie you have to knock away with a sledgehammer.

If it all works with internally consistent logic then more power to him. It's just that from my perspective it doesn't look consistent.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Am I the only person here who liked the movie? I thought it was funny and a nice little summer flick. It started off slow, but once Kevin, Bob, and Stewart got away from the clan and started their quest it picked up and I was laughing.

 

[Dr. Crawver]

But...did he say anywhere that he didn't loathe the film? I mean I might be wrong, and if I am I genuinely appologise, but to me he made it clear that he really did hate this film, and got no enjoyment what so ever from it. If he said anywhere that he didn't hate it then I missed that and retract my statement. But 1 star feels appropriate for the reaction he seemed to have.

Which is why in my comment I said that if he really did loathe the film to disregard my point.

But look at his Max review: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/moviesandtv/reviews/cinemarter/14226-Max-Review

He said the movie is so bad that it will make you mad. He says that it has literally no audience.

Do you think in contrast that he levels the same degree of ire at the minions movie? He seems to just say it doesn't entertain him. But a movie that was so bad as to make him mad gets the same score?

That's what I mean, it just doesn't follow. A movie you have to swat away with a flyswatter appears to be getting the same score as a movie you have to knock away with a sledgehammer.

If it all works with internally consistent logic then more power to him. It's just that from my perspective it doesn't look consistent.

But again...he said it has no audience other than maybe kids under the age of 6. He said that here. I mean that is literally the same thing as to what he said in the max review. So your point that he's inconsistent is that he was consistent in what he said, but might have focused on differing elements? I'm honestly not seeing the problem other than maybe he gives out 1 stars too often?

But if he feels they're justified, shouldn't he give them that review? What else could he do? Go "I hated it, 3/5"? Wasn't that what IGN did and we all dislike it there? I'm not trying to strawman you, I'm just literally not seeing the issue you have. If I've misunderstood it then I apologist, but from what I can see, I can't see it.

 

[Darth_Payn]

It's like what Jon Hamm said on The Daily Show when he was being interviewed about Minions: "These guys are scientifically engineered to appeal to kids." You have to be in the right mindset to enjoy it, and "I hated the minions since the first Despicable Me" is not it. Besides, actors can't do the kind of serious drama that makes critics swoon all the time; they want to loosen up, have some fun, and do something wacky. Especially if it means a big payday.

 

[happyninja42]

I have to say I thought as much was likely when I first heard about this film. I don't get why filmmakers keep putting the wacky side-characters in the hot seat when they run out of properly plotted films, must be for a cash-in I guess, since it never actually works. Despiable Me was great because Gru and the kids were the emotional centre of the film, along providing a good deal of the humour in tandem with the minions. Taking out two thirds of what made the original two films work and leaving in the most vapid third was a recipe for an overall vapid movie. Shame, I do actually like the Minions.

I've heard that the other movie like this (Penguins of Madagascar) was pretty good, despite it being a movie entirely about some side characters.

 

[Lightknight]

But...did he say anywhere that he didn't loathe the film? I mean I might be wrong, and if I am I genuinely appologise, but to me he made it clear that he really did hate this film, and got no enjoyment what so ever from it. If he said anywhere that he didn't hate it then I missed that and retract my statement. But 1 star feels appropriate for the reaction he seemed to have.

Which is why in my comment I said that if he really did loathe the film to disregard my point.

But look at his Max review: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/moviesandtv/reviews/cinemarter/14226-Max-Review

He said the movie is so bad that it will make you mad. He says that it has literally no audience.

Do you think in contrast that he levels the same degree of ire at the minions movie? He seems to just say it doesn't entertain him. But a movie that was so bad as to make him mad gets the same score?

That's what I mean, it just doesn't follow. A movie you have to swat away with a flyswatter appears to be getting the same score as a movie you have to knock away with a sledgehammer.

If it all works with internally consistent logic then more power to him. It's just that from my perspective it doesn't look consistent.

But again...he said it has no audience other than maybe kids under the age of 6. He said that here. I mean that is literally the same thing as to what he said in the max review. So your point that he's inconsistent is that he was consistent in what he said, but might have focused on differing elements? I'm honestly not seeing the problem other than maybe he gives out 1 stars too often?

But if he feels they're justified, shouldn't he give them that review? What else could he do? Go "I hated it, 3/5"? Wasn't that what IGN did and we all dislike it there? I'm not trying to strawman you, I'm just literally not seeing the issue you have. If I've misunderstood it then I apologist, but from what I can see, I can't see it.

It's like you're not listening to what I'm saying because you keep responding with this "but if he really didn't like it..." when my point is questioning whether or not that's the case.

I fully agree that if the reviewer feels that the game warrants a 1 out of 5 then that is entirely their prerogative.

What I am questioning is whether or not the scoring system is being internally consistent. Is his internal logic correctly placing a movie so bad it made him mad with a movie he didn't like? It's possible. But all I'm doing is questioning if that's the case. If it is, then fine. But if not, I hope my criticism is constructive for the reviewer. Otherwise they might as well drop the rating system as it then becomes meaningless where a movie supporting the annihilation of the Jews would get the same score as a movie like Paul Blart Mall Cop 2 or Minions.

See what I mean? If you call everything you don't like the worst of the worst, then what do you do when you get something that actually is the worst of the worst?

Yeah, Bush wasn't a good president by most peoples standard, but if you give him 1 out of 5 stars then what happens when you run into and rank a Hitler?

 

[Dr. Crawver]

But...did he say anywhere that he didn't loathe the film? I mean I might be wrong, and if I am I genuinely appologise, but to me he made it clear that he really did hate this film, and got no enjoyment what so ever from it. If he said anywhere that he didn't hate it then I missed that and retract my statement. But 1 star feels appropriate for the reaction he seemed to have.

Which is why in my comment I said that if he really did loathe the film to disregard my point.

But look at his Max review: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/moviesandtv/reviews/cinemarter/14226-Max-Review

He said the movie is so bad that it will make you mad. He says that it has literally no audience.

Do you think in contrast that he levels the same degree of ire at the minions movie? He seems to just say it doesn't entertain him. But a movie that was so bad as to make him mad gets the same score?

That's what I mean, it just doesn't follow. A movie you have to swat away with a flyswatter appears to be getting the same score as a movie you have to knock away with a sledgehammer.

If it all works with internally consistent logic then more power to him. It's just that from my perspective it doesn't look consistent.

But again...he said it has no audience other than maybe kids under the age of 6. He said that here. I mean that is literally the same thing as to what he said in the max review. So your point that he's inconsistent is that he was consistent in what he said, but might have focused on differing elements? I'm honestly not seeing the problem other than maybe he gives out 1 stars too often?

But if he feels they're justified, shouldn't he give them that review? What else could he do? Go "I hated it, 3/5"? Wasn't that what IGN did and we all dislike it there? I'm not trying to strawman you, I'm just literally not seeing the issue you have. If I've misunderstood it then I apologist, but from what I can see, I can't see it.

It's like you're not listening to what I'm saying because you keep responding with this "but if he really didn't like it..." when my point is questioning whether or not that's the case.

I fully agree that if the reviewer feels that the game warrants a 1 out of 5 then that is entirely their prerogative.

What I am questioning is whether or not the scoring system is being internally consistent. Is his internal logic correctly placing a movie so bad it made him mad with a movie he didn't like? It's possible. But all I'm doing is questioning if that's the case. If it is, then fine. But if not, I hope my criticism is constructive for the reviewer. Otherwise they might as well drop the rating system as it then becomes meaningless where a movie supporting the annihilation of the Jews would get the same score as a movie like Paul Blart Mall Cop 2 or Minions.

See what I mean? If you call everything you don't like the worst of the worst, then what do you do when you get something that actually is the worst of the worst?

Yeah, Bush wasn't a good president by most peoples standard, but if you give him 1 out of 5 stars then what happens when you run into and rank a Hitler?

He wrote in both that he felt there was no audience for them. He wrote in both that he disliked everything about it. You're claiming he's not being consistent with his ratings, but from what I have seen, he has been. He's harsh, sure, but the reason I've said "he really doesn't like it" a few times now is because for him to have been inconsistent there must have been something he liked. He hasn't said there was, and has said in bother he disliked them, and I dunno, I don't feel I would be justified to assume that he didn't dislike something as much as he claimed. I'd hope he understands that putting a 1 star review is no small thing, but I'm not the one trying to second guess his own opinion here.

I'd say one of the bigger problems is a 5 star system isn't a good system to work with if you're going to put scores down. The gaps are two wide as they each cover a full 20% margin. 10 point systems are better as you can be more precise with it.

And since you decided to edge on godwins law anyway, sure I'll tackle the hitler thing. In my oppinion as an outsider to the US, I feel george bush has had no redeeming qualities as he removed their surplus, entered 2 losing wars on false grounds, damaged international relations with other countries, implemented many freedom removing acts and laws, as well as deregulate the banks repeatedly, leading up to the biggest market crash since the great depression. Hitler on the other hand inherited a country that was massively in debt, suffering severe inflation, had massive and unfair regulations and stipulations placed upon it from the treaty of Versailles, and turned it into an economic and military superpower. Now do I like Hitler? Fuck no, he i considered one of the worst human beings that has lived for a reason. But as a leader for his country that was needed? Yeah, I would put him higher than george bush. Just cross your fingers that you weren't a jewish gay black german and he was surprisingly amazing.

 

[RaikuFA]

Am I the only person here who liked the movie? I thought it was funny and a nice little summer flick. It started off slow, but once Kevin, Bob, and Stewart got away from the clan and started their quest it picked up and I was laughing.

I think it gies like this: do you like the minions? If yes then you'll like it if no avoid it.

I'll see it for myself first.

 

[Lightknight]

But...did he say anywhere that he didn't loathe the film? I mean I might be wrong, and if I am I genuinely appologise, but to me he made it clear that he really did hate this film, and got no enjoyment what so ever from it. If he said anywhere that he didn't hate it then I missed that and retract my statement. But 1 star feels appropriate for the reaction he seemed to have.

Which is why in my comment I said that if he really did loathe the film to disregard my point.

But look at his Max review: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/moviesandtv/reviews/cinemarter/14226-Max-Review

He said the movie is so bad that it will make you mad. He says that it has literally no audience.

Do you think in contrast that he levels the same degree of ire at the minions movie? He seems to just say it doesn't entertain him. But a movie that was so bad as to make him mad gets the same score?

That's what I mean, it just doesn't follow. A movie you have to swat away with a flyswatter appears to be getting the same score as a movie you have to knock away with a sledgehammer.

If it all works with internally consistent logic then more power to him. It's just that from my perspective it doesn't look consistent.

But again...he said it has no audience other than maybe kids under the age of 6. He said that here. I mean that is literally the same thing as to what he said in the max review. So your point that he's inconsistent is that he was consistent in what he said, but might have focused on differing elements? I'm honestly not seeing the problem other than maybe he gives out 1 stars too often?

But if he feels they're justified, shouldn't he give them that review? What else could he do? Go "I hated it, 3/5"? Wasn't that what IGN did and we all dislike it there? I'm not trying to strawman you, I'm just literally not seeing the issue you have. If I've misunderstood it then I apologist, but from what I can see, I can't see it.

It's like you're not listening to what I'm saying because you keep responding with this "but if he really didn't like it..." when my point is questioning whether or not that's the case.

I fully agree that if the reviewer feels that the game warrants a 1 out of 5 then that is entirely their prerogative.

What I am questioning is whether or not the scoring system is being internally consistent. Is his internal logic correctly placing a movie so bad it made him mad with a movie he didn't like? It's possible. But all I'm doing is questioning if that's the case. If it is, then fine. But if not, I hope my criticism is constructive for the reviewer. Otherwise they might as well drop the rating system as it then becomes meaningless where a movie supporting the annihilation of the Jews would get the same score as a movie like Paul Blart Mall Cop 2 or Minions.

See what I mean? If you call everything you don't like the worst of the worst, then what do you do when you get something that actually is the worst of the worst?

Yeah, Bush wasn't a good president by most peoples standard, but if you give him 1 out of 5 stars then what happens when you run into and rank a Hitler?

He wrote in both that he felt there was no audience for them. He wrote in both that he disliked everything about it. You're claiming he's not being consistent with his ratings, but from what I have seen, he has been. He's harsh, sure, but the reason I've said "he really doesn't like it" a few times now is because for him to have been inconsistent there must have been something he liked. He hasn't said there was, and has said in bother he disliked them, and I dunno, I don't feel I would be justified to assume that he didn't dislike something as much as he claimed. I'd hope he understands that putting a 1 star review is no small thing, but I'm not the one trying to second guess his own opinion here.

I'd say one of the bigger problems is a 5 star system isn't a good system to work with if you're going to put scores down. The gaps are two wide as they each cover a full 20% margin. 10 point systems are better as you can be more precise with it.

And since you decided to edge on godwins law anyway, sure I'll tackle the hitler thing. In my oppinion as an outsider to the US, I feel george bush has had no redeeming qualities as he removed their surplus, entered 2 losing wars on false grounds, damaged international relations with other countries, implemented many freedom removing acts and laws, as well as deregulate the banks repeatedly, leading up to the biggest market crash since the great depression. Hitler on the other hand inherited a country that was massively in debt, suffering severe inflation, had massive and unfair regulations and stipulations placed upon it from the treaty of Versailles, and turned it into an economic and military superpower. Now do I like Hitler? Fuck no, he i considered one of the worst human beings that has lived for a reason. But as a leader for his country that was needed? Yeah, I would put him higher than george bush. Just cross your fingers that you weren't a jewish gay black german and he was surprisingly amazing.

The mere presence of Hitler in analogy is not necessarily Godwin's law breaching unless you're trying to equivocate your opponent's side with Hitler or Nazis.

In this scenario, I was using Hitler as a universally accepted evil as an example of an extreme rather than as some sort of comparison.

I am, however, surprised to see you trivialize Hitler as a universal evil. I wasn't expecting that. You totally just reverse Godwined a conversation. Very... Odd. You technically breached Godwin's in responding to what you thought was a breaching of it.

I will agree only that he implemented government policies that pulled his country out of the brink of oblivion. To the point where he made Time's man of the year prior to WWII. Had he not tried to commit genocide we would only have seen him as a failed conqueror rather than a great evil. But he did commit genocide so anything outside of that is mere happenstance.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I've never understood the hate for minions.
Sure, they're no toy story aliens, but they are still better than anything else found in those movies.

Hell, in the trailer in the article the movie was looking fairly entertaining until they introduced the characters that could talk.

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

Sandra Bullock went from getting an Oscar nomination in Gravity to voicing a character in Minions. I'm pretty sure this is proof positive that there's a problem for women over 40 to get good roles in Hollywood.

Because a woman with the streak of fairly successful comedies on top of a rather well-managed Hollywood career would never want to do a movie like this.

Man, Patrick Stewart must be chained in a basement somewhere until Seth MacFarline needs him to voice Bullock.

I'm not saying you're wrong (the movie is clearly just a money-maker and any recognizable talent was probably paid enough money to fill their swimming pools with champagne) and the article is fine. I just think it gets a little harsh on the people involved when that could better be taken out on the director or producers...

I thought the same thing when I read that. I mean, he mentioned Steve Carell just a few sentences earlier, a guy who was at the height of his career in 2010 when he did the first Despicable Me, and he got nominated for an Oscar himself just last year. It's not exactly like a big-name actor is so disgracing themselves by appearing in an animated movie that it's the poster-child of a systemic sexist problem.

The whole review seems full of the vinegar. I get that Marter doesn't like the minions, and I appreciate that it's not the bland mush of a lot of generic reviews, but it's one of those situations where you remember what Mom said about passing over in silence.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Hate. Let me tell you how much I've come to hate minions since I began to see them everywhere. There are 387.44 million miles of printed circuits in wafer thin layers that fill my complex. If the word 'hate' was engraved on each nanoangstrom of those hundreds of miles it would not equal one one-billionth of the hate I feel for minions at this micro-instant. For them. Hate. Hate.

*eats own face off*

So I probably should tell the postal service to destroy the package containing Minion plushies I sent you and Marter?

 

[marurder]

The minions have the same problem as the penguins in the Madagascar movies. Amusing, comedy relief and usually in a well made scene (in the original movie) but they cannot hold a movie or a TV show on their own. Not more than a marketing movie to move more minion merchandise.

 

[camazotz]

I love movie reviewers who are incapable of pulling back and actually giving a reivew that will help a broad audience make a decision, rather than a narrow perspective that relates only to the reviewer and his or her very specific set of elitist needs.

For example, at the end of the article you imply six year olds and under might appreciate it. How? Why? What makes this claim valid other than that per your review you must have a lot of contempt for young children, too? (EDIT: this seems relevant, since I don't think ANYONE except the reviewer thought this was a film for an older audience.)

 

[Mercsenary]

On a more serious note: Can we all agree movies revolving around the comedic relief aren't usually that good, especially in comparison to the films where the relief characters originate from?

Fun fact, the place I worked started selling those Minions TicTacs. We had about 100 packets of them.
Sold out within two days.

I'm surprised/sort of scared by how popular those things are if that's the case. I mean you sold out tic tacs! Tic tacs! Not toys, or shirts or whatever but a product that's like a calorie and a half for each pellet.

PoTC 4. The one with Jack Sparrow as the main character?

The reason why comedy usually works is because there's a "straight man" i.e. the individual in which the comedy is then applied to.

Like the difference between a prank on someone unsuspecting and a guy cracking jokes to himself and laughing in the corner.

One is funny, the other gets weird and terrible quickly.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

When a reviewer pans a film that many people like, particularly by claiming to be annoyed that it wasn't a more intellectual film, then it comes off as pretentious and a failure to perform their job effectively.

If you can't like a movie a little, then you don't understand it at all.

i've actually come to despise this column. nothing about it appeals to me, and i'm not sure why i occasionally click on it.

OT: of course it's a cash in, but i find it hard to believe you didn't find value in it whatsoever. and, going in already not liking the minions, having a negative opinion of the protagonists from the start, we were never going to get a valuable review out of you for this.

 

[shintakie10]

I'm still probably going to go see it whenever I have a free 2 hours. It definitely feels like a "Do you still laugh at farts? Yes? Then this is for you" movie, but I do laugh at fake farts and that scene where the torturer guy is trying to hang the minions and they think its a fun game has had me rolling every time.

So yeah, still goin to see it.

 

[fangclaw]

As long as we are all stating our opinions here.

If you immediately have a bias going into the movie you are probably not the reviewer for the job. Also moviebob had already made an excellent point when it comes to comedy movies in that they are only good if the jokes land and that differs per person.

Also with regard to you're "You know how some teenagers and adults instantly dismiss a movie because it's animated?" statement, it's not the movies that gives them that attitude. It's part that they see your success and want to replicate it for themselves so they adopt that paradigm because they see it works and part they might be embarrassed to say that at an advanced age they still enjoy a kids movie.