Were The Critics Looking For Revenge?

[Lightning Strykez!]

Were The Critics Looking For Revenge?​

An Essay By Lightning Strykez​

As I perused the reviews at RT, one of the things that kept catching my eye were the number of critics that mentioned how unfair, 'depressed' and 'disguested' they personally were over 2005's Fantastic Four box office explosion. Quite a few reviewers--both then and now--felt that such a triumph was somehow the ultimate cinematic slap in the face. And it's interesting to note that the critics who were disgusted by that back in 2005 proceeded to go on to rip this year's FF2 to shreds.

Now, I'll tell you something: 05's FF1 was a mess--I won't even lie. Prior to its release I defended it in hopes that I would be vindicated. Not. Granted, I still liked the movie for strictly loyalistic reasons (I'm a fanboy), but not because it was a good film. In fact, deep down, part of me is very glad that this sequel didn't come in with $70 or $80 million last weekend--because it's what FOX & Co. deserve for burning the public with all that 2005 marketing overload and hype...for such a poor film. Hopefully they've learned a lesson.

Not.

However, I genuinely enjoyed the hell outta this sequel--I thought it was a very solid, enjoyable film. And I'm not alone--obviously millions of others thought it was great too (despite its flaws, it has gained a 62% FRESH user rating at RT). Yet, I can't help but wonder if some of these critics already had their minds made up to hate FF2 before they even saw it. Why? Well, quite frankly some of these reviews don't have even an OUNCE of positivity in them, which I find very hard to believe. Surely unbiased critics should be able to locate at least 1 or 2 redeeming qualities in a film, no? I mean, they sure as hell have no problem pulling positives out of thin air for certain other...ahem...high profile comic book movie blockbusters (that sucked worst than this one).

Are some of these critics bent out of shape because audiences have ignored them twice now and continue to support this franchise? Does the continued success of films like this show that the critics' influence on the mainstream moviegoers has waned? Do you believe that critics are simply burned out on CBMs in general since they've become mainstay summer fanfare?

I dunno, it just seems like some of these critical minds were predisposed to hate this film--whether it deserved it or not.

Your thoughts?--Caliph

 

[movies4life]

Doesn't matter if this movie is better or not.

Boxoffice of this movie sucks. And I think we guys should stop dreaming about a sequel and silver surfer spin off.

 

[NQ-B]

I kinda agree with you lightning, I mean I read one review which was absolutely ridiculous. It tore the movie to shreads. And I really mean that, every aspect of it, was met with exxagerated insults.
I had to laugh, it was almost as if the reviewer hadn't even seen the movie and just wanted to insult it. Most of the insults weren't even met with strong evidence

 

[Compi716]

Boxoffice of this movie sucks. And I think we guys should stop dreaming about a sequel and silver surfer spin off.

What? The Box Office intake is far from bad.

I choose to ignore the critics, as do lots of other people. Critics these days are not necessarily viewed as the "End All Be All" of opinion; they're simply people paid to write their feelings, and nobody really gives a damn. This explains why poorly reviewed films do well, and well reviewed films do poorly.

In the end, it's not about the critics. Honestly, they probably are biased against this film.

But who really cares?

 

[NQ-B]

Sometimes the critic can make a difference.
To be honest when I think a movie seems bad and reviews for the movie are bad, I tend to think yeah I was right viewing that movie would be a waste of time. Same applies for when I think a movie is good.
But then again when I think a movie is going to good or bad if the critics view is opposing to mine I tend to ignore it.

 

[Sloth7d]

I mean, they sure as hell have no problem pulling positives out of thin air for certain other...ahem...high profile comic book movie blockbusters (that sucked worst than this one). ​

Huh. But I can't even think of a comic book movie that even sucked except this.

 

[Tony Stark]

Doesn't matter if this movie is better or not.

Boxoffice of this movie sucks. And I think we guys should stop dreaming about a sequel and silver surfer spin off.

Hmm, 23 posts and banned. That's pretty good. Do you happen to know who the record holder is LS? I mean, I hope this guy at least made the top 10. Seems such a waste otherwise.

 

[DACrowe]

Again with critics bashing? Realize when they give TDK glowing reviews next year their views will be flaunted on this website.

I do think some critics go out of their way to attack anything mainstream. Especially if it is a franchise movie with a lot of box office behind it.

but I think many disliked it because it was a technically weak movie in terms of script, character development, writing, directing and cinematography.

A lot were not comic fans growing up so don't get the coolness of seeing Silver Surfer and the step up that this is. But a lot of what made FF1 bad is still present in FF2. It is just a movie that is slightly more faithful and got a lot more eye candy. that doesn't matter to many critics.

I'm not saying their views are more valid. But there is no conspiracy here. At least I don't think so.

 

[Figs]

I believe a lot of critics out there are completely biased. It seems that most instantly don't like movies that aren't indie films and such. The way a number of them write their reviews it makes them sound like they think their opinion is fact, which I can't stand. I believe they had it in for the sequel regardless of how well it was or could have been. One thing I wish would happen someday is for reviewers to be only allowed to review movies in genres that they actually like. Most of the time someone who doesn't like these comic/action movies won't give it a honest and fair review IMO. Sadly that day will never come.

 

[Kelly]

To me, I don't necessarily look at movies like this to prove that the mainstream audience listens to critics or they don't.....I think you can rip 100's of critically acclaimed movies right off of IMDB, that did very little at the box office to prove that.....

but thats just my opinion....

Is it possible that the first movie soured many critics toward the second, sure.....in much the same way that a producer, director, or actors name can turn them to the positive on a movie that the mainstream audience may think "sucks".....

Its a 2 way street, that I tend to not walk on........


BUT HEY, I ENJOYED THE HELL OUT OF THIS MOVIE.......AND I'M GOING TO SEE IT AGAIN TONIGHT..............and thats what matters to me....

 

[DACrowe]

I'd just like to point out that critics should write their opinion as fact because it is the basis of persuasive argument.

It's English 101 simplicity that even if you don't agree with something or it is opinion you state your views as fact to make your argument stronger and more poignant in reading or speaking. When a critic writes an essay on a film (love or hate) that is what they do to make their points stronger.

Maybe not polite. I know when I or any write their opinion strongly and forget to use "I" or "I think" or "IMO" they will get ripped apart on boards. But when writing professionally it is very sloppy to use any of those.

 

[BH/HHH]

It got quite decent reviews here in the UK

 

[Figs]

I'd just like to point out that critics should write their opinion as fact because it is the basis of persuasive argument.

It's English 101 simplicity that even if you don't agree with something or it is opinion you state your views as fact to make your argument stronger and more poignant in reading or speaking. When a critic writes an essay on a film (love or hate) that is what they do to make their points stronger.

Maybe not polite. I know when I or any write their opinion strongly and forget to use "I" or "I think" or "IMO" they will get ripped apart on boards. But when writing professionally it is very sloppy to use any of those.

Totally didn't even think of that aspect I guess.....still gets under my skin as prententiousness.

 

[Tony Stark]

Wheather or not they write their opinion as fact, doesn't bother me. It's the fact, there's a total lack of independant thought. There is so much group think in critical reviews.

The first movie is a case in point. The first movie was not that bad, but Batman Begins was just out a few weeks earlier, and it was a suprise both to fans and to critics. I didn't think Batman Begins looked very good from the previews, but when I saw it, I was pleasantly suprised.

So when FF1 came out, the critics lashed out at it, for the simple reason it wasn't Batman Begins. But comparitively, FF1 is a much better film than Superman Returns, which is nothing but a 2 1/2 hour angst ridden mess, but most of the critics praised it, with a few notable exceptions (Roger Ebert) who wasn't afraid to call it out for the piece of cinematic garbage it was.

Now I don't want to get in a this vs. that debate, but for me as a fan when I see FF1, I saw a film that reminded me of the comics I read as a kid, but when I saw Superman Returns, there was absolutely nothing resembling the Superman I knew as a kid. Instead I saw a bad imitation of Christopher Reeve.

But the main point of it is, very few critics have the oinions to stand on their own opinion. They're to worried about what their collegues think.

That's what's been missing from the old Siskel and Ebert days. Nothing was better when the two disagreed, because they both made arguments for their own opinions. And when they both liked a film, it was because they really both liked it. When they both didn't like it, it was because they really didn't like it.

From what I read of most critics today, more often than not I think they write what's popular, not what they really believe.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I'm not sure they were looking for revenge exactly but i think they were predisposed from the start to have this franchise,the cast and director left it open for them to have a go.......With this sequel they simply continued the trend and hell this year they have hated everything so far

 

[Excel]

critics hate popcorn films like this; no matter how enjoyable they are. a lot of the biggest crowd pleaser blockbusters (armageddon, id4 are the biggies) were mauled by critics.

At the same time its hard to say they walked into the film with an open mind. most hated the 1st, so they had no interest to see this. However, a great film would have surprised them; but they obv. must have had some sort of prejudice,

 

[wobbly]

It got quite decent reviews here in the UK

Yup. Most of the ones I've seen here have been positive.

On the topic question I don't think it's a revenge thing: That implies a critic would take the first films modest success (it was hardly a runaway hit after all) as a personal slight. Fact is though most are surely professional enough to know that an average or even bad film can still do well.

With this one I think those ripping it apart are either earnest in their dislike (there are things to dislike with this one too), or are remembering the first film and prejudging this one beforehand.

Whatever the case good word of mouth will beat the critics every time and this coming weekend will show if the film has any legs.

 

[X-Maniac]

Critics have never liked a more popcorn, comicbook feel when it's live action. If it's in animation (Shrek, Incredibles, etc), it's fine and they forgive it.

A review in the Daily Mirror hated the movie because it wasn't like Batman Begins or Superman Returns. Of course, it was never meant to be like those films. The same critic only liked the London Eye sequence - that was a flawed point because the same acting, FX, cinematography, writing and directing were present in that sequence as in the rest of the movie. So, all that review really said was that the reviewer preferred BB and SR, and liked the London Eye sequence. I also liked the fact the movie had an international flavour and that it featured the UK, but that's not an argument for or against the movie.

As Shrek opens here this weekend (Saturday in the UK), that might hit FF's family audience. But the UK Showcase Cinemas (one of the big cinema chains here in the UK) website gives FF2 an 80% rating, compared with 61% for Vacancy, 37% for Grow Your Own and 26% for Messages. On the UK's Odeon Cinemas (another big chain) website, it gets 4 out of 5 stars - similar ratings went to Pirates and 300.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Perhaps they just reviewed it on it's individual merits and suchlike and there is no conspiracy.....

 

[X-Maniac]

Perhaps they just reviewed it on it's individual merits and suchlike and there is no conspiracy.....

Well, the Mirror reviewer (David Edwards) reviewed it on comparison with BB and SR, and also liked the London Eye sequence but nothing else - this is flawed reasoning because the London Eye sequence was not suddenly a different piece of film-making. All he did was reveal a bias, and not actually review the movie.

The Daily Mail hated it (predictably) but then hypocritically used a gigantic picture of the Silver Surfer on their cinema review page, which was melodramatically entitled 'Surfing on a Wave of Woe.'

If there are indeed objective standards for movie quality (which I doubt could ever be defined), then reviewers certainly are not using them. It's simply not good enough to be biased or sanctimonious. Constructive argument could inform the reader whether the critics' arguments matched their own tastes. But high and mighty dismissal reveals nothing.

 

[Cyrusbales]

The general points I've picked up from reviews, comment on the poor level of writing and the weak development of the plot, especially in the later stages, where it all ends too abruptly.

At the end of the day, pretty much any movie that's well advertised will make money, if it's CB, then it's guarenteed to get a remotely decent haul, especially focusing on one as popular as the surfer.

 

[X-Maniac]

The general points I've picked up from reviews, comment on the poor level of writing and the weak development of the plot, especially in the later stages, where it all ends too abruptly.

At the end of the day, pretty much any movie that's well advertised will make money, if it's CB, then it's guarenteed to get a remotely decent haul, especially focusing on one as popular as the surfer.

I would wish to know where the writing was deemed poor and where the plot weak, so we could analyse that. But, of course, it would be opinion and there are inevitably plot conveniences in fantasy movies. Critics bemoaned those even in LoTR where Gandalf is able to summon an attack of giant eagles at one particular point in the battle, but has never mentioned being able to do so, or never done so, previously - thus the events were down to the whims of the writer. Such things do happen in fantasy movies where enormous powers are at the disposal of the protagonists and cannot be used all over the place! And there is a forum full of arguments over perceived flaws and plotholes in Superman Returns and Batman Begins. Bryan Singer's tendency to shy away from flashy action does not make him immune to criticism or errors.

 

[Cyrusbales]

The wriritn was a mesh of cliche's to be honest. The whole nature of the surfer's dialogue were big speeches rather than communications of dialogue and character. Jessica Alba as the invisible woman was such a stereotypical 'blonde' woman, pandering to the conceptual persona of such.

Mr Fantastic's mood swings seemed irratic and unexplained.

The nature of Human Torch's epihpany and the eventual events following this were tragically obvious, and there was a lack of justification as to why he would care, it was a conlfiction with his established character.

The ending was rather rushed, it seemed the whole Doom part(which could have been very promising to be honest) was more of a filler, and unecessary. Doom is supposed to be intelligent, yet the way in which he fought and acted offered evidence in the contrary, having the power to easily destroy his oppoenents, then not doing so, as well as knowing the imminent destruction of the world and his ability to stop it and prevent his own demise.

Doom's lines were not that of a powerful and menacing enemy, but of a comical light hearted fellow, "let's go for a spin" was rather cringeworthy indeed.

 

[X-Maniac]

The wriritn was a mesh of cliche's to be honest. The whole nature of the surfer's dialogue were big speeches rather than communications of dialogue and character. Jessica Alba as the invisible woman was such a stereotypical 'blonde' woman, pandering to the conceptual persona of such.

Mr Fantastic's mood swings seemed irratic and unexplained.

The nature of Human Torch's epihpany and the eventual events following this were tragically obvious, and there was a lack of justification as to why he would care, it was a conlfiction with his established character.

The ending was rather rushed, it seemed the whole Doom part(which could have been very promising to be honest) was more of a filler, and unecessary. Doom is supposed to be intelligent, yet the way in which he fought and acted offered evidence in the contrary, having the power to easily destroy his oppoenents, then not doing so, as well as knowing the imminent destruction of the world and his ability to stop it and prevent his own demise.

Doom's lines were not that of a powerful and menacing enemy, but of a comical light hearted fellow, "let's go for a spin" was rather cringeworthy indeed.

Interesting.

I thought Doom's line was sardonic and in keeping with the arrogance and peremptory mocking we have seen so far from him, in this movie and the previous one. I don't think he had any true knowledge of the imminent destruction of the world, as only the FF gained that information. Doom was too busy on a power trip, seeking revenge and empowerment, all ego.

Jessica is, of course, not blonde herself. And she's a lovely person, at least she was when I met her and spoke to her. The role she plays is one of a typical modern young woman, but also (as in the comicbooks) someone who has a maturity (to counter Johnny's immaturity and his squabbling with Thing) and a sense of realism and responsibility (to counter Reed's scientific distractions and geeky meekness). Although blonde, she certainly isn't some horrid bimbo like Paris Hilton or Nicole Richie!

I didn't really see moodswings from Reed. He was trying to balance his responsibilities and pressures. He had become more relaxed and confident (as in the dancing sequence) and was trying to move forward with his life. But he doesn't bask in fame like Johnny. His responsibilities divided him between committing fully to the marriage arrangements and committing to helping stop the Surfer. Johnny, of course, discovered that narcissistic spotlight-seeking did not necessarily bring happiness... he was forced to think of others beyond just himself.

That's how I saw it anyway. Others will no doubt chime in with interesting analyses and observations.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Fair enough, but there's no denial over the pure cliche "doom getting the srfer's board" scene, with the BOV shot, eugh!