Minions - Despicable, Indeed

[Nazulu]

*facepalm*

Just reading some of the comments here. It's like you lot can't handle anything negative. It's so pathetic.

OT: Marter, I don't believe it's great to read something overly dramatic like how this film is the reason why some people dismiss animated movies. I get it, it's in terrible taste, but we don't come to read something so hate filled unless you can make it amusing. Just tone it down a bit, please

 

[lacktheknack]

I have no idea how Marter can bring out so much bile from commenters so consistently. It's kind of fascinating. I mean, we only had YEARS of warning. xD

OT: I'm quite interested in why the Minion's movie is kind-of-sort-of generally liked but still raises your hackles, Marter. Is it more or less annoying than The Hangover, btw?

 

[lacktheknack]

Well, after seeing this review and the one for Max, I can officially say, Matt HATES kids movies. Of course, I probably would too, but man does he get a hate boner for anything meant for kids.

NOPE!

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.376991-2-50-Reviews-Puss-in-Boots-2011

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.305753-2-50-Reviews-Up-2009

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.380159-2-50-Reviews-The-Incredibles-2004

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.403919-Marter-to-the-Movies-The-Croods

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.250573-2-50-Reviews-The-Cat-in-the-Hat-2003

I went <link=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.284075-2-50-Reviews-Archive>here and scanned up and down the list, picking the first five kids movies I saw (the above ones) and he liked four of them.

Try the same, he's got... uh... a few reviews to pick from.

 

[Callate]

Well, Marter is entitled to his opinion, and he's not "wrong", per se, and the review probably does good service to people who feel the way he does about the little yellow babblers. They are kind of dumb, and slapsticky, and inane.

...But I quite enjoyed them in DM, so this review doesn't do me much good... I can't reliably tell whether the characters are actually shallow and stupid, or if the premise and focus colored everything else to the point that he never really gave it a chance.

And there have been a lot of crappy cartoon movies, and crappy CG cartoon movies (do I need to remind anyone of The Nut Job? Or Alpha and Omega...?) so you'll forgive me if I find it a tad hard to believe that this particular product-pusher is the straw that has broken the camel's back, the insufferable insult that has besmirched the face of respectable animation for all time.

 

[Drathnoxis]

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.

Marter is under no obligation to agree with the general public on all points. I don't see why he should be required to find something to like about a movie he couldn't stand.

Marter doesn't mince words, and that's why I like his reviews. I would much rather a critic who tells it like he sees it rather than someone who sugarcoats all their statements out of fear of offending someone who likes the movie (or worse, the producers.)

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.

I love them too, because reviews for broad audiences tend to be pretty useless. Instead of saying what the reviewer thinks about a movie, the broad reviewer will instead tell you what he thinks the general public will think about a movie. This results in wishy washy reviews that are uninteresting to read and not useful to anyone due to trying to appeal to everyone.

Furthermore, a harsh critic is a good thing. When praise isn't lavished on mediocrity things that are truly excellent shine all the brighter.

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.)

Probably because children have no taste, I know I enjoyed some utter garbage when I was a kid. A lot of kids like anything that has silly little men fooling around and hitting eachother. I don't see why it should go without saying that Minions is a kids movie. Despicable Me was a movie that was enjoyable for people of any age, so assuming that the spinoff would be the same seems reasonable to me. Granted, Despicable Me 2 was a pile of tripe and anybody who saw that movie should know the direction the series was headed, but anybody who hadn't seen it could still be under the impression that Minions was aiming to be quality film for the whole family.

we don't come to read something so hate filled unless you can make it amusing.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

"That's right. 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."

Hmmm, let's see. Sandra Bullock is turning 51 this month, which means she turned 40 in 2004. Since 2004, she has:
-Been nominated for an Oscar for Best Actress (Gravity)
-Won an Oscar, Golden Globe, SAG award, AND Broadcast film critics award for Best Actress (Blind Side)
-Been in a movie that won the best picture Oscar (Crash)
-Won a women in film Crystal award
-Was rated among the top 100 movie stars of all time.

If these are "problems", what does the author define as success? Does she need to cure cancer?

Ugh, I was really hoping that the departure of MovieBob would mean we could get movie reviews without the smug pretentiousness and lazy attempts at injecting social justice advocacy into just about everything, but it seems like we've just traded in one who made videos for one who just writes columns.

 

[lacktheknack]

"That's right. 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."

Hmmm, let's see. Sandra Bullock is turning 51 this month, which means she turned 40 in 2004. Since 2004, she has:
-Been nominated for an Oscar for Best Actress (Gravity)
-Won an Oscar, Golden Globe, SAG award, AND Broadcast film critics award for Best Actress (Blind Side)
-Been in a movie that won the best picture Oscar (Crash)
-Won a women in film Crystal award
-Was rated among the top 100 movie stars of all time.

If these are "problems", what does the author define as success? Does she need to cure cancer?

Ugh, I was really hoping that the departure of MovieBob would mean we could get movie reviews without the smug pretentiousness and lazy attempts at injecting social justice advocacy into just about everything, but it seems like we've just traded in one who made videos for one who just writes columns.

Don't you think you're going a bit far, there? Like, in the same way Marter is in the review?

...possibly for the same reason (effect)?

 

[Norithics]

Oh boy! Another critic bein' a critic! Another lynch mob just a-waitin' to put 'em in the gallows for it!
The cycle begins anew! How long will this one last? How sad and confused will they be when the hammer inexplicably comes down?? Who knows!

 

[Nazulu]

we don't come to read something so hate filled unless you can make it amusing.

Speak for yourself.

No, it's not a good look to spew overly dramatic hipitibob. I mean, I don't mind at all when a critic says it's stupid or just plain shit (along with the reasons why), but to go out and say it's the death to all things good (for example) is just silly.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Aw .. but, minions man. They're funny, for the most part- though to each their own. My dad believe it or not, craved to see this. He REALLY loves minions so we'll be seeing it. Probably will still entertain me & all BUT yeah, not expecting this to be amazing or anything.

Well, reviewing movies works a little differently than just 'to each their own.' It's about quantifying your opinion so that readers can see if your reasons for your opinion would invoke a similar opinion for theirs, or whether the opposite would happen.

Marter did fail a little in this one, possibly because of his sheer dislike of Minions. A dislike I short of share, but as a reviewer you have to be able to step out of that personal viewpoint a bit and critique it more broadly. For someone reading a review, knowing whether the reviewer liked the movie isn't that relevant, knowing how they appreciated it, a more complex thing, and why they came to that conclusion all the more so.

But his sheer dislike of Minions, a dislike I short of share, coloured it that much that it brings the reasonable, appreciative aspects of the review down. We do have some answers:
- The movie apparently has some questionable content for being something toddler-focused.
- All characters, both Minions and other, are very shallow.
- It has a paper-thin plot, instead revolving around a string of slapstick sketches.

But we do miss some things that would've mattered but were glossed over. How's the slapstick executed? Are the Rude Golberg-ian hijinks made with any creativity or do they adhere to old tropes, for instance. Questions that matter for a movie like this, as every film has its own context. And that context seems to be partially glossed over.

 

[Twinrehz]

I won't argue finicky points about whether the minions are funny or not, it's a purely personal preference, and I think they're an absolute delight.

I will admit I'm skeptical to a full feature length movie with them, chasing bananas and whatnot. Haven't seen the movie yet, I guess I will someday. The reason I'm skeptical is plainly because of past experience. Movies like Shrek and Ice Age are both excellent, well-rounded movies, but their parade of sequels, while still finding them entertaining, have way too much the feeling of a cash-cow, marketed towards younger audiences, with themes befitting them more than anything. I realize these ARE movies made for children, but for example Shrek is laden with themes that will go way over the heads of younger audiences, and while the sequels do that to some extent as well, bwlablbwallbalwablalb.....

I just realized this isn't getting anywhere, because what it all boils down to is that for me, the sequels to the aforementioned movies haven't managed to recapture the spirit of the first movie (in my opinion), and simply just ends up recycling the same old tropes and jokes using the all too familiar themes from the first movie (he's a big scary ogre and it turns out he has feelings, ha ha. That was funny in the first movie because it was unexpected and so on, not funny again unless you properly mix up the formula). One of the things I liked about the first Shrek movie was its fantasy-themed world juxtaposed with themes and ideas from our own reality that gave it its own kind of logical reality, and while the following movies do a good job of expanding on that world, it does the fallacy of making it too familiar.

Anyway it seems I completely lost my way with this post, so I'll try to make a quick ending for it: While the minions are loved by many, me being one of them, this movie smacks way too much of being a cash-cow designed to milk the concept before it grows completely stale and unprofitable, as is the issue with most things that end up being a franchise these days. Despicable Me was perhaps intended as a one-off shot, but it stuck so well to the wall that they decided to expand the concept to make more money off it. I feel sequels often ruin the main character in some way, taking away the extraordinary and making them completely mundane, like the birthday party in the beginning of Despicable Me 2.

I will also say that I was originally not a huge fan of Despicable Me, I mostly enjoyed it because I found the minions entertaining.

 

[talker]

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.

Exactly. The entire point of Minions is that it's aimed at children, people who enjoy the slapstick and stupidity far more than adults. You can't review a kid's movie and say it's shit when you're not the target audience.

 

[Kargathia]

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.

Yea, I can understand he disliked the concept, but if all you have to offer is a personal rant, then you shouldn't be writing reviews professionally.

You're writing reviews for people who are potentially interested - people who didn't hate the concept or genre on sight. Right now this is useless for anyone who liked the minions in Despicable Me, useless for anyone unfamiliar or neutral about the whole thing, and a wankfest for the ones who hated minions.

Useless, useless, or completely unprofessional. 1/5.

 

[Cowabungaa]

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.

Exactly. The entire point of Minions is that it's aimed at children, people who enjoy the slapstick and stupidity far more than adults. You can't review a kid's movie and say it's shit when you're not the target audience.

I disagree, that'd make a lot of movies un-reviewable. What's key is that a critic has to be able to leave his personal perspective behind and discuss a movie both in its context and from a more neutral point of view. Appreciating and liking something isn't the same, after all; I appreciate FIFA for being a solid football game, but I don't even remotely like it.

 

[gorfias]

I do have to think this is the Fonzie or Jack Sparrow problem. Some characters are fun and great when they are supporting characters. Put them front and center and they no longer function as they did.

Sorry to hear it is that bad. I like the commercials.

 

[Andy Shandy]

"Marter hates everything"

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/moviesandtv/reviews/cinemarter/13821-Ex-Machina-Review

"Marter hates kids/family films/animated"

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/moviesandtv/reviews/cinemarter/14174-Inside-Out-Review

Well how about that.

Maybe Minions is just shit. Considering it seems to be a cash grab while the minions are popular, it wouldn't surprise me.

Don't worry I'm sure there will be a review out there that lines up with your pre-decided opinion.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

<-<.......What review did you all read?

Did people really expect Minions to be good?
I mean even most of the people here are just saying "Well it's a kids movie. What did you expect", or "I'm not sure if it deserves that low a score" so it's doesn't sound like they even liked it.

That or they seem to be mad he put his opinion of Minions in a movie about them. I mean, who the hell expected that left turn, right? ;p

And there have been a lot of crappy cartoon movies, and crappy CG cartoon movies (do I need to remind anyone of The Nut Job? Or Alpha and Omega...?) so you'll forgive me if I find it a tad hard to believe that this particular product-pusher is the straw that has broken the camel's back, the insufferable insult that has besmirched the face of respectable animation for all time.

He didn't say it was the last straw, he said it's movies like this that give people reason to dismiss animated movies. You know, like the ones you mentioned.

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.)

He did explain why it would be appreciated by six year olds. He said it was a colorful distraction of slapstick.

Also, he didn't say he expected the film to be for an older audience, but that it had nothing to offer an older audience.

There have been A LOT of good kids movies that have been popular with adults as well as kids, so the old "It's just a kids movie" excuse doesn't work.

As someone else pointed out, he has given positive reviews to other animated/kids movies.

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.

>-<......Really?

You're defense of Minions is to say he just didn't understand it?

Minions.

Lets forget that it's a bit condescending to say someone didn't like something "because they didn't "get it"", and just ask the more important question.

What was it in Minions that you believe went over Marter's head?

 

[Basement Cat]

This film has really divided critics. You hated it, Mark Kermode really liked it, and a lot lie somewhere in between. It's odd that it's an inoffensive children's film should be the subject of such wildly differing opinions.

This.

The parents I know who've taken their children to see it have all enjoyed it--particularly the 1968 pop culture references that went over the children's heads but not (most) of the parents.

There's a real generation gap when it comes to enjoying this movie but since it's wildly popular with the demographic group it's aimed at (very young) then I'm inclined towards heeding the parents and children's opinion over the one's given by cynical childless reviewers in their early twenties to early thirties.

 

[144_v1legacy]

"They weren't fun, at least for me, in the first film,"

And then I decided this review might not be for me.

Maybe this movie is bad. I don't doubt it. But it was immediate that I could tell that this writer can't relate to me, and I think I can relate to the general moviegoer more than he after this. There's only two interpretations of the quote:

1: "I legitimately didn't find the minions' antics funny in the first movie."
2: "I did find them funny, but I'm lying now because it will make stronger my rant that a movie based on minions is a bad idea."

I imagine option 2 is the unfortunate truth, because the minions were not such a large part of the first movie, the parts that involved them were clever (the idea that Gru would know their individual names, their willingness to be test subjects, etc.), and therefore almost everyone in the world found them funny. Sometimes, when you are the only person not laughing at a joke, you need to wonder "is is the joke, or is it me?"

 

[Rad Party God]

Actually I don't mind all the Frozen craze, in fact, great for the kids who love it!

But the minions... Ugh, just... I don't get why everyone loves them, I really can't stand them.

They were fun and cute on the first film, but of course, they had to fucking milk that cow until not a single drop of blood is left and oh boy, do that cow keeps on deliverling that milk, shit and piss.