Duncan Jones' Warcraft - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is a difference between disagreeing with critics or consensus, and suggesting that because a film is a certain type of film, it has no chance of being praised. Also, comparing quality arthouse to something like Mortal Kombat of course misses the point by a lot. Namely that Mortal Kombat was a fun for kids/teens, but poorly made movie overall.
I just think WC is a very geeky fan-oriented film, that's why I think critics won't like it. And they don't so far. I think they didn't succeed at making a film, that is both appealing to fans and non-fans. Visuals are quite specific, designs are REALLY faithful, but they aren't quite made with GA in mind. That's why I didn't dismiss critics before seeing the footage. Who knows what liberties with source material filmmakers will do? They were really faithful and it's part of the reason film not being too appealing to critics, IMO.
 
Last edited:
I dont buy because it's a geek/fan oriented film that means critics wont like it. There are a large number of "geek" films that still have a good critical reception
 
collider crew quick thoughts seems like Denis and campea really liked it but kristian thought it was just ok
https://***********/ThinkHero/status/735278405042638848

I usually like what Dennis and Campea like. Specially Campea. He described Deadpool, CW, WS exactly like I would. I even his BvS knew from what he was coming from (even though it's not good movie), and explanation of "Martha" scene

So I hope streak continues.
 
Last edited:
kotaku had a weird funny negative review they basically said it sucks because it take itself too serious and should be silly because its a video game movie

http://kotaku.com/the-warcraft-movie-is-not-good-1778550679

Warcraft, which comes out June 10, is a whirlwind of CGI effects and snazzy costumes that never quite coalesces into a watchable film. Longtime fans of the series might get a kick out of seeing the likes of Medivh (Ben Foster) and Durotan (Tony Kebbell) played by Hollywood actors, but it’s tough to get invested in a movie that feels so soulless. Warcraft has very few redeeming qualities. The performances are mediocre, the writing is full of cliches, and the cinematography is confusing when it’s trying to be clever. [BLACKOUT](Both the orcs and humans speak real-life English, but the movie attempts to persuade us, by means of a clumsy transition halfway through the film, that the orcs are actually speaking their own language. It’s not very good.)
[/BLACKOUT]
The fundamental flaw in Warcraft is the same flaw we find in most video game movies: It takes itself too seriously. These games are set in a world full of in-jokes and surreal humor, one that’s inhabited by a race of giant panda bears because the developers at Blizzard really liked one of their own April Fool’s jokes. Even when the Warcraft games get dark, and they do get dark, they’ve always been adept at having fun with their players. The film does no such thing. If only this movie had the charm of a Warcraft unit who’s been clicked too many times.

It is a well written review, that explores Warcraft as a movie and an adaptation of its source material. And the reviewer believes it fails on both accounts.
 
Last edited:
I just think WC is a very geeky fan-oriented film, that's why I think critics won't like it. And they don't so far. I think they didn't succeed at making a film, that is both appealing to fans and non-fans. Visuals are quite specific, designs are REALLY faithful, but they aren't quite made with GA in mind. That's why I didn't dismiss critics before seeing the footage. Who knows what liberties with source material filmmakers will do? They were really faithful and it part of the film not being too appealing to critics, IMO.
There is literally nothing geekier then Star Wars. Nothing. And even the horrible prequels got over with the critics. The Matrix was a love letter to anime. It doesn't get geekier, but critics still liked it.

It such a false argument, in a world where Heath Ledger won an Oscar for playing the Joker.
 
I dont buy because it's a geek/fan oriented film that means critics wont like it. There are a large number of "geek" films that still have a good critical reception
Sure, one doesn't exclude another. The film can be geeky/fan-oriented and still be welcomed by critics. Honestly, I have no idea why Dredd got such a high rating on RT. 78%... Holy crap. It was as cliched as possible, short and primitive. Action was pretty limited. Very cheap and visually not anything special. I don't see any reason why the film was rated that high. Even though I loved it.
 
There is literally nothing geekier then Star Wars. Nothing. And even the horrible prequels got over with the critics. The Matrix was a love letter to anime. It doesn't get geekier, but critics still liked it.

It such a false argument, in a world where Heath Ledger won an Oscar for playing the Joker.

There is nothing niche about Star Ears. From the first film on it has consistently been one of the biggest successes of all time . Sports teams have star wars nights. Batman and the Joker are completely main stream.
 
It's from Jason, who is pretty legit.
I visit Deadspin and Kotaku everyday, and still don't know the writers. :funny:

He also mentions way too many characters that lend nothing to the movie, and seems completely unconvinced by anything involving Patton's character.

Also, I was reading RT. They have it listed with a 100min runtime. That can't be true. Does anyone have the runtime for this?
 
There is nothing niche about Star Ears. From the first film on it has consistently been one of the biggest successes of all time . Sports teams have star wars nights. Batman and the Joker are completely main stream.
That does not make them any less geek properties. They are main stream because of their quality.
 
Sure, one doesn't exclude another. The film can be geeky/fan-oriented and still be welcomed by critics. Honestly, I have no idea why Dredd got such a high rating on RT. 78%... Holy crap. It was as cliched as possible, short and primitive. Action was pretty limited. Very cheap and visually not anything special. I don't see any reason why the film was rated that high. Even though I loved it.
Dredd is great because it has a mood, was directed incredibly well and has strong performances.
 
There is literally nothing geekier then Star Wars. Nothing. And even the horrible prequels got over with the critics. The Matrix was a love letter to anime. It doesn't get geekier, but critics still liked it.
It such a false argument, in a world where Heath Ledger won an Oscar for playing the Joker.
Maybe poor choice of words on my part. But I mostly meant fan-oriented. And the material and presentation are quite specific.
 
Maybe poor choice of words on my part. But I mostly meant fan-oriented. And the material and presentation are quite specific.

GA and critics liked Matrix not because it's a love letter to anime.
So basically what we are saying is things that will please fans and their limited scope. Because honestly, that does not make a great film.
 
That does not make them any less geek properties. They are main stream because of their quality.

It literally does make them less geeky. Everyone knows Star Wars. Devotion to Babylon 5 is another matter.
 
Dredd is great because it has a mood, was directed incredibly well and has strong performances.

I adored Dredd. It felt like a throwback to movies from long ago. 90 minutes of pure cliche action movie with a lead that owned his part in it. I wish more movies would come out like that actually.
 
Well, it looks like the mediocre video game adaptations will continue. Maybe we'll get lucky and Assassin's Creed will break the mold.
 
Well, it looks like the mediocre video game adaptations will continue. Maybe we'll get lucky and Assassin's Creed will break the mold.

Don't curse Assassin's Creed like that. That's like saying 'so and so' will be the nxt Star Wars or Harry Potter. It's a bad omen!
 
Don't curse Assassin's Creed like that. That's like saying 'so and so' will be the nxt Star Wars or Harry Potter. It's a bad omen!
They cursed themselves when they spent 200m on that. :o
 
Does anyone have the official runtime for Warcraft? RT sometimes puts up the wrong time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"