Were The Critics Looking For Revenge?

[I SEE SPIDEY]

IMHO these movies aren't great but they're passable entertainment. I don't think the critics were looking for revenge I just think they don't enjoy these movies...and I can see why. They have bad casting and lame dialogue but I still find there to be more good than bad. Personally I don't understand the like for the first X-Men movie by the critics, it had the exact same problems as both Fantastic Four movies and the second X-movie isn't great either. I've just learn to except that I just don't agree with critics on most films. After the Superman Returns fiasco last year, I've learned to just ignore them completely when it comes to comicbook movies.

 

[*ANTHONY*]

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

FF3 might take a longer time to come out. A Silver Surfer spinoff might not happen. FF2 is not doing great in the box office. It will prolly make more than FF1 but still... not great. I would take my chances with Ghost Rider 2.

 

[Malus]

This isn't meant to speak to FF2's quality or lack thereof (I'm going to see it once more before writing my own review) but rather to address the question of what may have been going through some critics' minds...

Whether it is a good or bad film, FF2 was made with families in mind, more so than any other comicbook franchise to date. And that, in my estimation, is what caused many of the otherwise fence-sitting critics to skew to the negative; they just didn't "get" the family-friendly approach and the lighter tone, because it has not been the norm with superhero films, at least not since the Reeve Superman films.

For family entertainment value, FF2 is easily on a par with the first 2 Spy Kids films, in my opinion, which most critics gave good marks to.
From many of the reviews I've read, it's clear that many critics didn't understand what the FF franchise is supposed to be in the first place, just as many members of the Hype apparently don't "get it." (I'm thinking mainly of the fuss over the PG rating - which USA TODAY, among others, credited with boosting its opening weekend to $7 million over expectations)

I have yet to encounter a single person in my circle of aquaintance (including at the comic shops) who dislike this film. Not saying I haven't heard "This or that could have been better" (just as I heard about Spiderman 3 & Superman Returns) but venom & bile? Nope. Pretty much all I've heard was "It was a fun movie" and "Much, much better than the first one."
All the negativity and snarkiness that I've found is on message boards.
Some of it from people who haven't even seen the damn movie.

But to answer the original question posed: No, I don't think the critics were out for revenge or that they "have it in" for the FF. That's more the province of basement-dwelling messageboard users who want all their genre films to be as dark and joyless as their own lives.

It's very evident to me that out in the real world, people like this movie.

Many of the critics (even some who liked the film) just didn't get it.
But that's nothing new for many of them.
Personally, I started taking critics with a grain of salt over 20 years ago, when I read Roger Ebert give Raising Arizona a total thumbs down.
He was the only reviewer I could find who didn't adore that film.
And Ebert's supposed to be "America's movie critic?"

 

[*ANTHONY*]

Ebert is a terrible crititc. (I still feel sorry for him, hope he gets better). He gave spiderman 1 and 3 a thumbs down. He gave FF a thumbs down. He gave Alpha Dog a thumbs up, wtf? So, really, that is just his opinion. Not like anyone ever really watched his show or cared.

 

[Malus]

Ebert is a terrible crititc. (I still feel sorry for him, hope he gets better). He gave spiderman 1 and 3 a thumbs down. He gave FF a thumbs down. He gave Alpha Dog a thumbs up, wtf? So, really, that is just his opinion. Not like anyone ever really watched his show or cared.

No, the point is that a hell of a lot of people watched his show and did care. Siskel and Ebert were by far the biggest names in film criticism in North America going all the way back to the mid-1970's. No one comes close to their reputation and influence. Along with Siskel, Roger Ebert practically invented the "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" rating.
No critical opinions in movie history ever meant more to a film's box office than a "Two Thumbs Up!" (from Siskel & Ebert) above its title.

But even Roger Ebert can be wrong.

And yeah, I hope he gets better too. I have a friend who's met him a number of times and he's reportedly a really nice guy. Among other things, he was apparently a really good sport about weight jokes.

 

[Memphis Slim]

Many of the critics (even some who liked the film) just didn't get it. But that's nothing new for many of them.
Personally, I started taking critics with a grain of salt over 20 years ago, when I read Roger Ebert give Raising Arizona a total thumbs down.
He was the only reviewer I could find who didn't adore that film.
And Ebert's supposed to be "America's movie critic?"

But if they didn't get it, isn't some of that blame laid at the feet of the messenger? The director???


Critics don't always get it right, for sure. But this movie was not good. Better than the first....but that's all I'll give it.

 

[Malus]

But if they didn't get it, isn't some of that blame laid at the feet of the messenger? The director???

Not necessarily. Tim Story simply made a fun family movie.
The "messenger" would be the markerting department. Depends on what was in the press kit that critics received.

Critics don't always get it right, for sure. But this movie was not good. Better than the first....but that's all I'll give it.

In your opinion. That's all any of us can give and it's worth as much as the next guy's.
I wouldn't rate it great but I sure wouldn't say a film this fun (that so many apparently enjoyed) wasn't "good."

 

[Sentinel X]

No, critics just follow general public opinion. Most thought the first one sucked so they say the second one sucked but now a lot of people think the second one was fun so the third will probably get better reviews because of so. They dont want to lose readers so they dont stray too drastically away from what the general public thinks. Just look at SM3, the movie was terrible yet a lot of critics gave it positive review...more so then FF2 (which is the better film).
Even the Matrix 2, Matrix Reloaded (when it first came out) got a lot of positive reviews but people didnt like it so they bashed Matrix revolutions really hard (which it deserved but still, hopefully you can see where Im going with this)

 

[Nokio]

No, critics just follow general public opinion. Most thought the first one sucked so they say the second one sucked but now a lot of people think the second one was fun so the third will probably get better reviews because of so. They dont want to lose readers so they dont stray too drastically away from what the general public thinks. Just look at SM3, the movie was terrible yet a lot of critics gave it positive review...more so then FF2 (which is the better film).
Even the Matrix 2, Matrix Reloaded (when it first came out) got a lot of positive reviews but people didnt like it so they bashed Matrix revolutions really hard (which it deserved but still, hopefully you can see where Im going with this)

Well I don't see how they followed general public opinion when they got to see the 1st f4 before the general public. The point is the 1st one was a poor film and was lucky to make the money it did. if FOX had done it right it would've probably made 300 million at the box office domestically. The 2nd film has indeed been hampered by the 1st one. ROTSS is a huge improvement over the 1st and FOX is lucky that this one is dong well enough. I really do not want the 2nd one to do very well as it will encourage FOX to further screw up these films cause they will go "we are right and the fans are wrong and we can change things we don't like or to make it easier on the budget" this is the suits thinking. I love the f4 and the SS but I'm willing to sacrefice them if it means making studios do things right.

I did not pay to see F42, and neither did my friends I saw it with. Even though they didn't get what the deal was and thought I was overreacting they still went along with me and we got tickets for Knocked Up and went and seen F4 2.

 

[Malus]

Well I don't see how they followed general public opinion when they got to see the 1st f4 before the general public. The point is the 1st one was a poor film and was lucky to make the money it did. if FOX had done it right it would've probably made 300 million at the box office domestically. The 2nd film has indeed been hampered by the 1st one. ROTSS is a huge improvement over the 1st and FOX is lucky that this one is dong well enough. I really do not want the 2nd one to do very well as it will encourage FOX to further screw up these films cause they will go "we are right and the fans are wrong and we can change things we don't like or to make it easier on the budget" this is the suits thinking. I love the f4 and the SS but I'm willing to sacrefice them if it means making studios do things right.

I did not pay to see F42, and neither did my friends I saw it with. Even though they didn't get what the deal was and thought I was overreacting they still went along with me and we got tickets for Knocked Up and went and seen F4 2.

What a coincidence. I paid for 6 tickets to see FF2 at the early show today and took my kids & nephews to see Evan Almighty.
I did the same thing a few nights ago when my buddy wanted to see
Pirates 3. I bought FF2 tickets and we went to see Pirates instead.
That kinda thing cuts both ways. t:

 

[Pickle-El]

damn lightning. paranoid much? These flicks as mediocre and carelessly put together as they are aren't probably an afterthought to most critics who rightfully bashed the lame first film. (I havnt seen the second and don't ever want to) There are much bigger fish to fry than yet another sequel at a time when hollywood's overrun with them.

Must respectfully agree with Wesyeed here.

 

[Kelly]

I'm so shocked.................................lmao

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Meh.

 

[X-Maniac]

I do think that it is a little bit silly to think critics are conspiring against this movie. It is true they do compare it to other standards in the genre. But when you have Star Wars, Independence Day will come under scrutiny.

I doubt it is tone as the first two X-Men were very dark and serious and got great reviews (as did Batman Begins) but the Spider-Man movies (the first two at least) were light and crowd pleasing entertainment.

They just want good writing and filmmaking. When they don't get it they ***** a lot louder than the mainstream. But they'll lavish Casino Royale for example, so does bashing DAD make them hate Brosnan? Quite the opposite, it was just a bad movie. Same with when critics give great reviews to say Mask of Zorro as a crowd pleaser but hate its sequel. Pirates 1 vs. its respective sequels.

It's when movies fial to live up to their potential or predecessors or peers that critics destroy it. And while I enjoy FF2 and do not think it is a bad movie, I think there is nothing wrong with holding up to movies in the same genre (and even same tone aka Sam Raimi's Spidey movies) and not taking it if it pales in comparison.

Those are interesting points.

Having pondered this, and discussed it with friends at work, I've come to a conclusion that critics do not like any hammy comedy in things that do not belong to a hammy comedy genre. Superhero movies must not have comedy in them in order to succeed. Critics expect comedy in obvious comedy movies, they do not want comedy or a lighter tone in superhero movies. It's almost as if a superhero movie isn't taking itself seriously if it has lightheartedness and humour - at least, that's what the critics think.

Critics want the moviemakers to establish a totally believable world, with limited action sequences or flashy fights, a moody, brooding atmosphere (physically dark and emotionally dark) and characters behaving in a way that is 'emo' - full of angst, internalised conflict, turmoil, darkness, pain, grief, loss, oppression. These factors were present in X1, X2, BB and SR.

The exception to this is Spider-Man, which has outgrossed the four movies mentioned above. It does have its dark/serious tones BUT also has total comicbook moments with Spider-Man and his villains. The emphasis, though, is on drama and character depth.

More difficult for X-Men and Fantastic Four to service their greater number of characters in the same way. X1 and X2 managed it by leaving out much more of the comicbook stuff than it ever included (some of it reduced to icons on Stryker's desktop in X2, for instance...Omega Red, Sentinels, lists of mutants, even Franklin Richards got a mention there). X3's overcompensation in trying to put in most things that Bryan didn't include (Angel, Beast, Sentinel, Danger Room, Juggernaut, Multiple Man, Morlocks/Marauders, more Storm flying scenes) obviously failed to win over critics and some fans of the previous movies...and the addition of some cheesier elements didn't work either. As a result, some character depth and seriousness was perceived to have been lost. It seems people didn't really want Angel, Beast, Juggernaut, Sentinel, Danger room, Multiple Man or Storm flying at all.

 

[Gilpesh]

I doubt this is a problem that the critics don't "get" FF2. Anyone can "get" FF2 but that does not mean they will hop on the "it's partially better than the first, meaning it's the best comic book movie ever!" bandwagon.

 

[Kelly]

I doubt this is a problem that the critics don't "get" FF2. Anyone can "get" FF2 but that does not mean they will hop on the "it's partially better than the first, meaning it's the best comic book movie ever!" bandwagon.

No one here is on that bandwagon either...

 

[Figs]

I doubt this is a problem that the critics don't "get" FF2. Anyone can "get" FF2 but that does not mean they will hop on the "it's partially better than the first, meaning it's the best comic book movie ever!" bandwagon.

Exactly, it wasn't the type of movie where you had to "get" anything. It sure wasn't the best comic book movie ever but seeing what a big improvement it was over the first, I'm not worried anymore if Mr. Story directs the third film. I'm actually looking forward to it.

 

[Sardaukar]

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).​

​

And yet, the first film had a 26% critics rating and a 52% user rating. The second film has a 37% critics rating and, as you say, a 62% user rating. Both ratings for FF: ROSS increased by about 10% (in fact the critics rating increased slightly more), so why blame the critics when they seem to share the popular belief that the second film was a little better? Obviously, millions of others loved the first one (52% is really not much less than 62%), while you claim to really dislike it. Does this mean that your negative opinion about the first one should be disregarded?​

 

[Carp Man]

Because the fact is it was tons better than the 1st, not a little. Far superior in every way. You're just not a fan and dats cool. Any body who has seen both movies, and say this movie was a "little" bit better, went in with their minds made up.

 

[Gilpesh]

Any body who has seen both movies, and say this movie was a "little" bit better, went in with their minds made up.

Two things about that.

1) The term 'little' should apply. Because just being better than the first doesn't make it a great movie.

2) Having your mind made up before the movie is a good way to see if the movie is actually good. If you leave the movie and think the same, it wasn't good enough to change your mind.

 

[Sardaukar]

Because the fact is it was tons better than the 1st, not a little. Far superior in every way. You're just not a fan and dats cool. Any body who has seen both movies, and say this movie was a "little" bit better, went in with their minds made up.

Okay, well you say "tons better". However, the rottentomatoes user rating has gone up only 10% so far (as I mentioned before). Also, the imdb user rating, which is probably even more representative of the general movie-going population, has only gone up 7% so far from what it was the last film. The Metacritic user rating has only gone up 3% so far. I agree these polls are not scientific, but they're sure as hell are better than anything else I've seen. At Box Office Mojo, the second film has so far gotten a B cumulative score, which was what the first was got. So, here are many non-critics, and likely non-fanboys, agreeing that ROTSS was a little better but not tons better than the first. Maybe they're not fans, but neither are they "non-fans". I think most just went to see a film, without their minds made up about it, and judged it from what they saw.

 

[Figs]

Two things about that.

1) The term 'little' should apply. Because just being better than the first doesn't make it a great movie.

2) Having your mind made up before the movie is a good way to see if the movie is actually good. If you leave the movie and think the same, it wasn't good enough to change your mind.

I think what Carp Man meant was that it wasn't just a little better than the first but a lot better. He wasn't saying it was a great movie compared to others but the first one.


The door swings both ways. It's also good to see a movie with a completely open mind without expectations.

 

[Kabuki_Jo]

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.

I completely agree with you, man.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

I have yet to encounter a single person in my circle of aquaintance (including at the comic shops) who dislike this film. Not saying I haven't heard "This or that could have been better" (just as I heard about Spiderman 3 & Superman Returns) but venom & bile? Nope. Pretty much all I've heard was "It was a fun movie" and "Much, much better than the first one."

The truth behind this reaction, however, speaks less about the quality of the movie then it does about people's expectations. I'm not trying to bash FF2, because I enjoyed it, but it's viewed, by most, as disposable and harmless entertainment. People aren't raving about it or crucifying it; it simply wasn't made to elicit any passionate response. SM3 and SR were sunk (and I use this term loosely since box office was enormous for SM3
and criticisms positive for SR) because of people's enormously high expectations. Those expectations simply weren't there for FF2; the first was met (despite good B.O.) with a pretty mediocre response, and I think it's safe to say that no one was expecting FF2 to be the second coming of Christ like they were with SM3. And because of that, despite not being that good, it's getting a decent response out of sheer "well, I'm glad it didn't suck."

 

[matthooper]

Critics hold almost zero influence on moviegoers. Films like FF2 are critic proof. The only films critics have influence are arthouse type films. No one looks at a critics review of a 'blockbuster' type film and decide whether to see it because of their thumbs up or down. In fact, FF2 had many many more favorable reviews than the first one.

Even Spider-Man 3 got hammered by critics. No one cares.

The failure of FF2 lies soley on the reputation of the first one and a less than stellar marketing campaign. No one cared.