The Avengers The Avengers Critics Reviews Thread - Part 1

[HighFivingMF]

They left the laugh out.

 

[Splat]

I. Loved. That. Review. Neill Cumpston's amazing.

It's good stuff.

 

[Chewy]

They left the laugh out.

They didn't want to watch any more of it than they had to

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Well then, it figures that I'd love it, because Patton Oswalt is, I do believe, the shizznit. With a capital "S".

Yeah, I like him too.

 

[HighFivingMF]

They didn't want to watch any more of it than they had to

I'll watch you!

 

[Spideyfan93]

I'm on the ferry, read that review and was grinning like a fool for 5 minutes!

Haha! What a read!

 

[Matchstick]

Rotten Tomatoes has definitely impacted how reviews are written. Honestly, professional reviewers should make it a point not to read any other reviews before they write theirs.

Case in point is definitely Roger Ebert's review of "Thor." That one almost felt like a reaction to the positive score Thor had on RT. (I think he even mentions it in his review.)

It's not just: "I didn't like it and here's why." It's: "How dare so many other people write positive things about something I don't like?!?"

 

[TomPiltoff]

Just thought I'd clear something up: Green Lantern was awesome.

Oh OK.

 

[Xeno]

The Guardian (UK) has posted a second positive review. In fact, it's more positive than the first one they published days ago. At first I was confused because I knew that there were two different critics weighing in; I thought that perhaps I was mistaken about the newspaper that published the first one. But no, there are two, which is twice as good. The first was by Henry Barnes (3/5), the second by Peter Bradshaw, with whom I'm familiar and whose opinion I respect (4/5).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/apr/26/avengers-assemble-review?CMP=NECNETTXT8187


Richard Corliss of TIME has weighed in with a positive review, which I pretty much expected. He may be somewhat dismissive of genre films but he is a very fair critic when assessing a film on its merits.

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/...ngers-a-superhero-roundup-thats-almost-super/

 

[Joeyjojo72]

We posted corliss yesterday.
Regarding the recent negative review: that guy is a straight up troll. Not because he disliked the movie (to each his own), but because of his obvious taunting of "fanboys" who he implies are only pretending to like the movie. Totally different animal than Amy whatshername. Her review was rather lazy and poorly written but she didn't taunt the other 96% reviewers (more if you count foreign ctitics). Are there any rules at all against trolling on rt? I predicted a final total of 84% on rt so I guess these kinds of reviews are par for the course.

 

[Disney Man]

VIDEO:

Sam Bathe from "Fan the Fire" acknowledging his site "goes against the mainstream" to generate some hits!

Starts at the 1:08 minute mark:

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7rO1-ljaSw[/YT]

 

[bonzob2000]

The irony of Sam Bathe's review claiming that the only people who like Avengers are deluded fanboys being added to RT back to back with the top critic at the most prestigious paper in the UK giving it a 4-star review makes me smile.

 

[PyroChamber]

Case in point is definitely Roger Ebert's review of "Thor." That one almost felt like a reaction to the positive score Thor had on RT. (I think he even mentions it in his review.)

It's not just: "I didn't like it and here's why." It's: "How dare so many other people write positive things about something I don't like?!?"

Wow, that sounds almost like his Kick-Ass review.

 

[BoredGuy]

I'm not holding my breath for the RT meter to stay as high as it is.
For Thor, it was at like 98% from foreign reviews, and dropped precipitously when the US reviews hit.
I'm expecting around 80-85% after US reviews... I don't know why they're always such *****es when foreign ones are generally positive

 

[Raiden]

I'm not holding my breath for the RT meter to stay as high as it is.
For Thor, it was at like 98% from foreign reviews, and dropped precipitously when the US reviews hit.
I'm expecting around 80-85% after US reviews... I don't know why they're always such *****es when foreign ones are generally positive

I think TA will drop to 90-92% at RT after US critics got ahold of the movie next week, but I doubt it'd drop as far as 80-85%; Iron Man received 94% and so far the reactions are even more positive than IM's. I know some critics will try to be contrarians but I doubt those negative reviews will chip off 10% in the final tally.

 

[Xeno]

We posted corliss yesterday.
Regarding the recent negative review: that guy is a straight up troll. Not because he disliked the movie (to each his own), but because of his obvious taunting of "fanboys" who he implies are only pretending to like the movie. Totally different animal than Amy whatshername. Her review was rather lazy and poorly written but she didn't taunt the other 96% reviewers (more if you count foreign ctitics). Are there any rules at all against trolling on rt? I predicted a final total of 84% on rt so I guess these kinds of reviews are par for the course.

I was away for a day and missed that the Corliss review had been posted. But it's such a great read that it's worth posting twice (or even three times).


One problem I've always had with Rotten Tomatoes is that it has far too many "critics" of the "some guy with a website" variety on its roster. The vast majority of RT critics, in fact, are not mainstream press or even larger, credible websites, but people with tiny niche blogs that have few readers and little credibility. The editors really need to weed out the riff-raff and get that site down to a core of good critics from around the world. They could institute some guidelines regarding readership and Internet traffic rankings that would eliminate most of the mom-and-pop cranks from the list. Just because someone once managed to get listed on RT doesn't mean that they still deserve to be there.

 

[thalidomide]

I'm not holding my breath for the RT meter to stay as high as it is.
For Thor, it was at like 98% from foreign reviews, and dropped precipitously when the US reviews hit.
I'm expecting around 80-85% after US reviews... I don't know why they're always such *****es when foreign ones are generally positive

so basically most US movie critics are cynical *******s? j/k

 

[Xeno]

I'm not holding my breath for the RT meter to stay as high as it is.
For Thor, it was at like 98% from foreign reviews, and dropped precipitously when the US reviews hit.
I'm expecting around 80-85% after US reviews... I don't know why they're always such *****es when foreign ones are generally positive

The Avengers is doing extremely well with the US critics who have weighed in so far. It is 4 for 4 with the top critics, which is a phenomenal start. The two negative reviews are from a critic with no credibility and an obvious troll. Naturally there will be more negative reviews, but probably not enough to drop it to the low 80s.

 

[sgaana]

The thing about that guy is that he wants the scorn. He's hit ****ing for his site.

And I hate saying that usually, I cringed when people accused that first rotten writer of it, but his pull quote for RottenTomatoes is enormously telling

"Sorry fanboys, we hated this one too." = "Come at me, bro."

Oh, agreed.

Interestingly, his pull-quote on the RT site has now been changed to:

"It was right the Avengers shouldn't gel right at once, but how that get-to-know-you period is played out in the script gets massively out of hand."

 

[thalidomide]

Oh, agreed.

Interestingly, his pull-quote on the RT site has now been changed to:

"It was right the Avengers shouldn't gel right at once, but how that get-to-know-you period is played out in the script gets massively out of hand."

lol! really he changed it? hmmmm I wonder why t:t:t:

 

[Kalonthar]

Said sites that post things just to create controversy in order to get increased traffic wouldn't be a problem if people would finally stop feeding the trolls, but I have a feeling people will never learn. It's encoded in our DNA.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Said sites that post things just to create controversy in order to get increased traffic wouldn't be a problem if people would finally stop feeding the trolls, but I have a feeling people will never learn. It's encoded in our DNA.

People gotta get in the last word. NO MATTER THE COST!

Also, unrelated, why do you always show up as

Kalonthar
Guest

Posts: n/a

 

[Iceman]

Said sites that post things just to create controversy in order to get increased traffic wouldn't be a problem if people would finally stop feeding the trolls, but I have a feeling people will never learn. It's encoded in our DNA.

Main thing I'd tell them is to never actually visit the site in question. If you can't comment from somewhere else just let it go.

 

[Iceman]

People gotta get in the last word. NO MATTER THE COST!

Also, unrelated, why do you always show up as

Kalonthar
Guest

Posts: n/a

I think a lot of other people should show up as "Posts: n/a".

 

[Matchstick]

Not really a critic review, but this quote from Robert Downey Jr. is pretty funny:

"Avengers is going to do big business. That's kind of in the cards. But I've been in big movies before that sucked, and you feel kind of dirty when you see them over-succeed for how good they weren't. And I think that Avengers actually really does -- it deserves to succeed because it was a difficult endeavor, and there's a lot of talent all operating at 100 percent, and the story works."

Here's the short inteview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mol57g1p2Y