Warcraft reviews not looking great
- Thread starter Bob_McMillan
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Saw that one in theaters after kind of writing it off early due to negative reviews...AccursedTheory said:
Wasn't a planned viewing, as my dad came into town and we were at a loss as to how to entertain ourselves.
Ya know what? It wasn't bad. Not great, by any stretch, and plot points were all over the place, but it certainly wasn't the dumpster fire they'd been proclaiming it to be.
So. Reserving judgment on this until I see it.
See above.mduncan50 said:
Critics and I don't see eye to eye a lot of the time so I'm not really invested in their view on things.
I'm not saying this'll be God's gift to cinema, but a 22 (currently 29) percent? Of course not.
Hell, that Prince of Persia movie was decent. I don't see how this could be worse.
No I dis not post that to make a point I am just showing you this to know your thoughts on it.AccursedTheory said:
I'd have appreciated it if you used words to convey that from the start.Samtemdo8 said:
As for an opinion... what can I say? It did ok in foreign theaters. It's projected to have ok numbers in the US. So... okay, I guess? There's not much more to say at this point, until regular viewer reviews and box office numbers start coming out and we can comparing them to critic's reviews and projected financial figures.
Honestly, I'll probably still see it at some point. I've heard a decent amount of not-shit (and good) things said about it to give it a fair shot.
For future reference, I'm just going to ignore any post where you quote me, or otherwise try to get me to say something, unless you can be bothered to use full sentences and provide some sort of context besides 'Here.'Samtemdo8 said:
Since I'm here now, that's a review from a youtube critic and a singular single Warcraft fan. The fuck do you want me to do with two opinions? Or do you want me to take on every single person who will ever say anything good about this movie? The only alternative, presumably, being my admission of defeat?
tl'dr didn't read a damn thing.
I looked at Metacritic. The ratings there weren't fantastic either. Then again, it looks like Zootopia averaged a 78 - nothing to sneeze at, but it seems a tad low. And Civil War gets a 75. Conclusion: This is an aggregate score site that should be taken with a grain of salt.
I then looked at Rotten Tomatoes, and so far it has a 22%, with the average score being 4.4/10, or "a little below average." Okay, fair enough, that sounds kinda accurate. But then I looked at a couple of the reviews, and... I can't help feeling like a few of these fellows have their heads up their asses.
My favorite (that is, the funniest) review summarizes their opinion thusly: "Warcraft provides thunderous spectacle, but when performing the alchemy of transforming genre archetypes into characters with soul, the magic fizzles out." One, WHO TALKS LIKE THAT?! And two, even though the final score was pretty much a "meh" there were still rumblings of desire for character depth. From the Warcraft movie.
I really can't help feeling like these critics were looking for things that were never promised. Watch the trailers, and for all the posing and drama, the only thing that's really advertised is that there's gonna be lots of fighting, both on personal levels and epic scales.
I looked at Metacritic. The ratings there weren't fantastic either. Then again, it looks like Zootopia averaged a 78 - nothing to sneeze at, but it seems a tad low. And Civil War gets a 75. Conclusion: This is an aggregate score site that should be taken with a grain of salt.
I then looked at Rotten Tomatoes, and so far it has a 22%, with the average score being 4.4/10, or "a little below average." Okay, fair enough, that sounds kinda accurate. But then I looked at a couple of the reviews, and... I can't help feeling like a few of these fellows have their heads up their asses.
My favorite (that is, the funniest) review summarizes their opinion thusly: "Warcraft provides thunderous spectacle, but when performing the alchemy of transforming genre archetypes into characters with soul, the magic fizzles out." One, WHO TALKS LIKE THAT?! And two, even though the final score was pretty much a "meh" there were still rumblings of desire for character depth. From the Warcraft movie.
I really can't help feeling like these critics were looking for things that were never promised. Watch the trailers, and for all the posing and drama, the only thing that's really advertised is that there's gonna be lots of fighting, both on personal levels and epic scales.
I want that! One man vs. the entire Warcraft fanbase! If you win you'd be a legend, might even be made into a movie!AccursedTheory said:
Metacritic is pretty useless for movie scores because they only include about 1/10 of the reviews that Rotten Tomatoes does. I'm not sure what you expect from critics. It is their job to try to judge the quality of a movie, and yes part of that is would be expecting character depth. Even though from the tone of writing it sounds like this reviewer was very much trying to get into the spirit of things, rather than being a snooty "Bah, video games!" kind of critic. As for your defense that basically comes down to "They shouldn't have been expecting a good movie, it's only about fights", one does not preclude the other, so if they were unable to have a good story and good action, then that's their fault, not the reviewer who dared judge a movie based simply on whether or not it was good.PFCboom said:
Well I was bored this weekend so I decided to go see it and well... it's not great, but it's not terrible either.
For those that don't know anything about Warcraft, it will be very confusing as there is next to no buildup what so ever. It is basically "here is the world now let's GO!", which is something a lot of movies struggle with these days.
You don't really get to know the characters or locations and it just feels very rushed.
The thing that really breaks the whole thing though (for me anyways) is the horrible mix with CGI and real actors/set. I could not for the life of me forget that I was looking at a set or a rendered background the whole movie, and it made it impossible to accept the world they were supposed to be in.
The different elements on their own are really not bad though. The orcs look good, the human armors look good, the areas look good, but they just do not mix well together at all.
It's a bit silly how bad it is compared to everything else we have these days. Like take a look at Deadpool and look up how much of that is CGI (which is more than you think), most of it is almost impossible to see unless you know where to look and what to look for. That is blending done right.
So I stand by what I've been saying all along, it would have been a much better movie with pure CGI.
All in all it's an okey movie about humans and orcs pounding each other into the ground and a little bit magic, all done with the special effects of yesterday.
For those that don't know anything about Warcraft, it will be very confusing as there is next to no buildup what so ever. It is basically "here is the world now let's GO!", which is something a lot of movies struggle with these days.
You don't really get to know the characters or locations and it just feels very rushed.
The thing that really breaks the whole thing though (for me anyways) is the horrible mix with CGI and real actors/set. I could not for the life of me forget that I was looking at a set or a rendered background the whole movie, and it made it impossible to accept the world they were supposed to be in.
The different elements on their own are really not bad though. The orcs look good, the human armors look good, the areas look good, but they just do not mix well together at all.
It's a bit silly how bad it is compared to everything else we have these days. Like take a look at Deadpool and look up how much of that is CGI (which is more than you think), most of it is almost impossible to see unless you know where to look and what to look for. That is blending done right.
So I stand by what I've been saying all along, it would have been a much better movie with pure CGI.
All in all it's an okey movie about humans and orcs pounding each other into the ground and a little bit magic, all done with the special effects of yesterday.
MrCalavera said:Welp, this sucks. I wasn't hoping for something that would knock my socks off or MOON levels of good(previous Jones' movie). I expected kind of a lighter fantasy adventure with a side of epic, something like Hobbit, but y'know, pleasant to watch. That also probably means we're not gonna see the Lich King on a silver screen.
Tsk tsk. Glass houses and all that... You're lauding Warcraft's oh-so-unique setting by comparing it to Might and Magic? I can't say much about Wizardry, but M&M mixed fantasy and sci-fi way before anyone in Blizzard thought about adding space goats to the mix. Here's the ending to M&MIII, a game released in '91.Samtemdo8 said:Warcraft has more personality and identity then something like say Might and Magic and Wizardry
[/spoiler][/quote]
Ultima 1, 2, and 3 have done it aswell, it was made during a time when RPGs were COMPLETELY INSANE!!!
Ulitma 4 made everything sensible.
It's by far the most faithful adaptation from a computer game story that exists so far. The landscapes are instantly recognisable Even the orcs who aren't named in the movie are recognisable from their faces. They didn't put in a fairy tale ending, all the deaths are there. It's as warcraft as a 2 hour blizzard cinematic of the warcraft 1 game and last guardian novel.
The beginning and the end are a bit abrupt however, but all the plot points for continuing the universe are there.
People are complaining about the orc-human CGI comparison, however I didn't find it much of an issue. The larger issue is the human / plastic set comparison. The props are all plastic recreations of oversized things in game, that is very brave and it gives the movie a little anti-realist charm that isn't being acknowledged. If it has just been CGI it would have been generic.
The beginning and the end are a bit abrupt however, but all the plot points for continuing the universe are there.
People are complaining about the orc-human CGI comparison, however I didn't find it much of an issue. The larger issue is the human / plastic set comparison. The props are all plastic recreations of oversized things in game, that is very brave and it gives the movie a little anti-realist charm that isn't being acknowledged. If it has just been CGI it would have been generic.
Game of Thrones is only loosely, LOOSELY, based on the War of the Roses and the difference is that a Stark (in this case a York) was not killed in a Wedding.mduncan50 said:
And I do not see any allusions to real world wars in Lord of the Rings, besides didn't Tolkien himself said he dislikes allegory? (Or anything similar to it?)
Who said anything about real wars? I was replying to someone that said you should not expect anything beyond a bunch of battle scenes when a movie is about war and power shifts, and I just gave a few examples of the many such great movies/shows that have been made.Samtemdo8 said: