Age of Ultron Avengers 2: Rotten Tomato Watch

[TheVision]

If 78% is considered to be great/excellent, then I'm happy. Im cool with anything in the mid 70s up for AOU.

Add the mega box office takes to that and we'll be stylin and profilin once again.

 

[Micromind]

It's not a mcu tv show but powers is FROM MARVEL JUST LIKE IZOMBIE IS FROM DC.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_(PlayStation_Network_TV_series)


List of television series based on Marvel Comics


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_series_based_on_Marvel_Comics




List of television series based on DC Comics - Wikipedia ...

Well, I certainly had no idea about that, the advertisements were misleading then.

 

[First Avenger]

IMO this honestly deserves a higher rating than 78%.

 

[TheVision]

Maybe itll go up after its released on Friday.

 

[mace1]

I found this today from another website.


Moronic negative review for SWESB strikingly similar to AOU backlash

by
jackncola

I am not saying AOU compares to Empire in quality, but I am pointing out the similarities in the sentiments this now-infamous review has to the negativity around AOU. This moron from the NYT didn't "get it" either. The thing being: there isn't anything to get, it's a movie for young people.

'The Empire Strikes Back' Strikes a Bland Note



By VINCENT CANBY

he Force is with us but let's try to keep our heads. These things are certifiable: "The Empire Strikes Back," George Lucas's sequel to his "Star Wars," the biggest grossing motion picture of all time, has opened. On the basis of the early receipts, "The Empire Strikes Back" could make more money than any other movie in history, except, maybe, "Star Wars." It is the second film in a projected series that may last longer than the civilization that produced it.

Confession: When I went to see "The Empire Strikes Back" I found myself glancing at my watch almost as often as I did when I was sitting through a truly terrible movie called "The Island."



The Empire Strikes Back" is not a truly terrible movie. It's a nice movie. It's not, by any means, as nice as "Star Wars." It's not as fresh and funny and surprising and witty, but it is nice and inoffensive and, in a way that no one associated with it need be ashamed of, it's also silly. Attending to it is a lot like reading the middle of a comic book. It is amusing in fitful patches but you're likely to find more beauty, suspense, discipline, craft and art when watching a New York harbor pilot bring the Queen Elizabeth 2 into her Hudson River berth, which is what "The Empire Strikes Back" most reminds me of. It's a big, expensive, time-consuming, essentially mechanical operation.



Gone from "The Empire Strikes Back" are those associations that so enchanted us in "Star Wars," reminders of everything from the Passion of Jesus and the stories of Beowulf and King Arthur to those of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, the Oz books, Buck Rogers and Peanuts. Strictly speaking, "The Empire Strikes Back" isn't even a complete narrative. It has no beginning or end, being simply another chapter in a serial that appears to be continuing not onward and upward but sideways. How, then, to review it?



The fact that I am here at this minute facing a reproachful typewriter and attempting to get a fix on "The Empire Strikes Back" is, perhaps, proof of something I've been suspecting for some time now. That is, that there is more nonsense being written, spoken and rumored about movies today than about any of the other so-called popular arts except rock music. The Force is with us, indeed, and a lot of it is hot air.



Ordinarily when one reviews a movie one attempts to tell a little something about the story. It's a measure of my mixed feelings about "The Empire Strikes Back" that I'm not at all sure that I understand the plot. That was actually one of the more charming conceits of "Star Wars," which began with a long, intensely complicated message about who was doing what to whom in the galactic confrontations we were about to witness and which, when we did see them, looked sort of like a game of neighborhood hide-and-seek at the Hayden Planetarium. One didn't worry about its politics. One only had to distinguish the good persons from the bad. This is pretty much the way one is supposed to feel about "The Empire Strikes Back," but one's impulse to know, to understand, cannot be arrested indefinitely without doing psychic damage or, worse, without risking boredom.



This much about "The Empire Strikes Back" I do understand: When the movie begins, Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) and their gang are hanging out on a cold, snowy planet where soldiers ride patrols on animals that look like ostrich-kangaroos, where there are white-furred animals that are not polar bears and where Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) almost freezes to death.





Under the command of Darth Vader, the forces of the Empire attack, employing planes, missiles and some awfully inefficient tanks that have the shape of armor-plated camels. Somehow Han Solo and Princess Leia escape. At that point Luke Skywalker flies off to find Yoda, a guru who will teach him more about the Force, Yoda being the successor to Ben (Obi-Wan) Kenobi (Alec Guinness), the "Star Wars" guru who was immolated in that movie but whose shade turns up from time to time in the new movie for what looks to have been about three weeks of work.



As Han Solo and Princess Leia wrestle with the forces of darkness and those of a new character played by Billy Dee Williams, an unreliable fellow who has future sainthood written all over him, Luke Skywalker finds his guru, Yoda, a small, delightful, Muppet-like troll created and operated by Frank Oz of the Muppet Show. Eventually these two stories come together for still another blazing display of special effects that, after approximately two hours, leave Han Solo, Leia and Luke no better off than they were at the beginning.


I'm not as bothered by the film's lack of resolution as I am about my suspicion that I really don't care. After one has one's fill of the special effects and after one identifies the source of the facetious banter that passes for wit between Han Solo and Leia (it's straight out of B-picture comedies of the 30's), there isn't a great deal for the eye or the mind to focus on. Ford, as cheerfully nondescript as one could wish a comic strip hero to be, and Miss Fisher, as sexlessly pretty as the base of a porcelain lamp, become (is it rude to say?) tiresome. One finally looks around them, even through them, at the decor. If Miss Fisher does much more of this sort of thing, she's going to wind up with the Vera Hruba Ralston Lifetime Achievement Award.


The other performers are no better or worse, being similarly limited by the not-super material. Hamill may one day become a real movie star, an identifiable personality, but right now it's difficult to remember what he looks like. Even the appeal of those immensely popular robots, C-3PO and R2-D2, starts to run out.



In this context it's no wonder that Oz's contribution, the rubbery little Yoda with the pointy ears and his old-man's frieze of wispy hair, is the hit of the movie. But even he can be taken only in small doses, possibly because the lines of wisdom he must speak sound as if they should be sung to a tune by Jimmy Van Heusen.



I'm also puzzled by the praise that some of my colleagues have heaped on the work of Irvin Kershner, whom Lucas, who directed "Star Wars" and who is the executive producer of this one, hired to direct "The Empire Strikes Back." Perhaps my colleagues have information denied to those of us who have to judge the movie by what is on the screen. Did Kershner oversee the screenplay, too? Did he do the special effects? After working tirelessly with Miss Fisher to get those special nuances of utter blandness, did he edit the film? Who, exactly, did what in this movie? I cannot tell, and even a certain knowledge of Kershner's past work ("Eyes of Laura Mars," "The Return of a Man Called Horse," "Loving") gives me no hints about the extent of his contributions to this movie. "The Empire Strikes Back" is about as personal as a Christmas card from a bank.



I assume that Lucas supervised the entire production and made the major decisions or, at least, approved of them. It looks like a movie that was directed at a distance. At this point the adventures of Luke, Leia and Han Solo appear to be a self-sustaining organism, beyond criticism except on a corporate level.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/film/061580empire.html



To read comments or replies open here.

Moronic negative review for SWESB strikingly similar to AOU backlash

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2395427/board/flat/243125018?d=243128174&p=1#243128174

 

[First Avenger]

Interesting.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

There is going to be a complete meltdown in here if the film drops below 75% I see. I mean it's already starting...

 

[Webfoot Hero]

I'm finding that the RT scores and average ratings from both critics and fans are not the most consistent. Here are the scores for all MCU films:
IM1: 93% RT, 7.6/10 Critic Rating, 4.2/5 Fan Rating
IM2: 73% RT, 6.5/10 Critic Rating, 3.7/5 Fan Rating
TIH: 62% RT, 6.2/10 Critic Rating, 3.6/5 Fan Rating
Thor: 77% RT, 6.7/10 Critic Rating, 3.8/5 Fan Rating
CA: TFA: 79% RT, 6.9/10 Critic Rating, 3.7/5 Fan Rating
The Avengers: 92% RT, 8/10 Critic Rating, 4.4 Fan Rating
IM3: 79% RT, 7/10 Critic Rating, 4/5 Fan Rating
Thor: TDW: 66% RT, 6.2/10 Critic Rating, 3.9/5 Fan Rating
CA: TWS: 89% RT, 7.5/10 Critic Rating, 4.3/5 Fan Rating
GotG: 91% RT, 7.7/10 Critic Rating, 4.4/5 Fan Rating

 

[Pond]

There is going to be a complete meltdown in here if the film drops below 75% I see. I mean it's already starting...

 

[BoredGuy]

how did TWS end with only a 89%??
that right there says all I need to know about RT
Blasphemy!

lol

 

[spider-neil]

I think the movie is going to drop into the low 70's when it hits America.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

American critics are not easy on these films, at all. So we will see what happens.

I'm putting on a helmet if it drops into the 60's.

 

[m4st4]

If 78% is considered to be great/excellent, then I'm happy. Im cool with anything in the mid 70s up for AOU.

Add the mega box office takes to that and we'll be stylin and profilin once again.

Mid 70s is very good.

I'm sure box-office will look excellent no matter what.

 

[BoredGuy]

yeah, American critics just gotta prove how smart and superior they are but smack talking anything popular

damn Hipster Critics

 

[MyDudeSpidey]

Calling it, ends at 69%.

 

[spider-neil]

America critics are not easy on these films, at all. So we will see what happens.

I'm putting on a helmet if it drops into the 60's.

Yep. Films nearly always take a hit when it hits America. I see AoU falling to the low 70's rather than rising to low 80's when America gets their hands on the movie. I think the audience rating will remain in the high 80's, however.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I think it is going to end with a score similar to IM2. When US critics come in, normally the score goes down. Only in rare cases like TFA does it increase.

 

[hafizbat]

I'll be genuinely surprised if it falls to the 60's. That usually means the movie has serious flaws and I haven't seen people say that. The worst criticism of AoU seems to be that it's not as good as TA, but still very fun.

 

[spider-neil]

I just wonder how many critics are fairly judging the movie and how many are coming down hard because they have an axe to grind with the Superhero genre.

 

[hafizbat]

I don't know, that's like making excuses for MoS' reception because people wanted the Reeve/Donner Superman and I didn't support that excuse, so I'm not gonna blame AoU's lower scores on superhero fatigue. Besides, TWS, GotG, and DoFP all say differently.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Yep. Films nearly always take a hit when it hits America. I see AoU falling to the low 70's rather than rising to low 80's when America gets their hands on the movie. I think the audience rating will remain in the high 80's, however.

I could see that happening.

 

[I Am The Knight]

At that point Luke Skywalker flies off to find Yoda, a guru who will teach him more about the Force, Yoda being the successor to Ben (Obi-Wan) Kenobi (Alec Guinness), the "Star Wars" guru who was immolated in that movie but whose shade turns up from time to time in the new movie for what looks to have been about three weeks of work.

 

[mace1]

Mid 70s is very good.

I'm sure box-office will look excellent no matter what.

Mid 70's(75%) translated to 4 stars out 5,so that's still considered a great movie,and 74% to 65% is just very good.
That would be 3 out 5 stars.
If google a movie for rt you could see how many stars they give the movie.

 

[Tony Stark]

Two things, first the film has remained a 7.3/10 average review. TDW, MoS and TASM2 were already in the 6's at this point. Critics are saying it has problems, but it's not terrible.

Second there is already a critical consensus, that is positive. The consensus was up almost immediately when the reviews were coming in. I'd be more worried if there was a "no consensus" up there.

 

[BlackDoomShadow]

Two things, first the film has remained a 7.3/10 average review. TDW, MoS and TASM2 were already in the 6's at this point. Critics are saying it has problems, but it's not terrible.

Second there is already a critical consensus, that is positive. The consensus was up almost immediately when the reviews were coming in. I'd be more worried if there was a "no consensus" up there.

Rotten Tomatoes adds a consensus by default after X number of reviews (not sure what the exact number is). They can and will change the consensus as more reviews come in. I've seen it happen all the time.