Wonder Woman - Review Thread [TAG SPOILERS]

[ina_am]

10 from me, I really enjoyed that movie!

 

[Lead Cenobite]

8/10. It was good, not perfect. I felt like the human villains were a little underdeveloped and the

Spoiler

super-gas that Dr. Poison used on Ludendorff came out of left field until the ending revealed that Aries had been subliminally influencing humanity into starting wars and "whispered" the formulas for it and her other chemical weapons to her in order to cause war and destruction.

Although that sort of made up for the seeming randomness of their scenes, it still seemed a little underdeveloped, as if the German villain subplot was meant to be more in-depth but left on the cutting room floor.

And since this is a review-themed thread, can someone tell me why the first several pages of reviews on IMDb are all "worst movie ever!" reviews? Is there some kind of sexist troll campaign to bring the movie down or something, or a backlash from the people who didn't like the movie and hate that it was otherwise having such a positive response?

 

[regwec]

Marvelists.

 

[Bren]

Or potentially people who thought it was the worst film they've seen.
Maybe I'm naive, but it works for me.

I thought it was an average movie but enjoyable.

 

[morningmimosa]

Definitely naive.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

Imdb has been a dumpster fire for a long time.

 

[Flemm]

Imdb has been a dumpster fire for a long time.

I've never paid any attention to the site, but it certainly has a reputation for being very troll-ish.

 

[Micromind]

'Reviews' on IMBD are joke, nobody reads them, which is one of the reasons why review aggregator sites like RT have gained popularity.

Though I don't really subscribe to the idea that movie should be rated by consensus as RT meter does, but it gives a decent indication whether the movie is crowd pleaser or not.

 

[metaphysician]

Why *shouldn't* movies be rated by consensus?

 

[Micromind]

Why *shouldn't* movies be rated by consensus?

Well, that's my opinion. We cannot put All reviewers on same level, I don't pay attention to what some blogger rates or what some obscure web site reviewer thinks about the movie. It's not an election where you have to win majority of votes.

I just look at the reviews of select few reviewers and then go and see the movie with an open mind, why should I be concerned about what 300 other reviewers think ?

 

[metaphysician]

Mainly because it helps avoid bias. In theory, the one perfect reviewer provides the best most accurate score. The problem is, one, finding that one reviewer, and two, dealing with that its not the same person for each movie. Whereas if you've got 300 reviewers, your assured that you've got the perfect reviewer, and great big quantity of "really good" and "good enough" reviewers, without having to choose them or even know the movie beforehand.

Yeah, their reviews will get diluted, but this just means you shift your standard for what you look for as a good or bad rating. After all, *every* review will get diluted, not just the one for the movie your looking at.

 

[Micromind]

If the movie is a crowd pleasing movie then majority of reviewers will rate it high and it will get a good RT score, but if the movie does not appeal to a wider demographic, then RT score tells us little about the quality of the movie.

In that case.. It makes sense to read reviews of few critics that you trust (or Top Critcs) and then decide whether you want to see the movie or not. Make your own opinion by keeping an open mind.

Looking at consensus on RT will not give viewers a good idea about a movie that has a low score just because it failed to please the majority of critics.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

BTDubz, you guys do realize that there is an RT thread for Wonder Woman, right.

I didn't wanna chime in the RT conversation but the average score is always the better metric to judge movies than the percentage score IMO.

 

[metaphysician]

If a movie only pleases a small set of people, it deserves a lower rating than a movie that pleases a much larger set of people to the same degree.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

If a movie only pleases a small set of people, it deserves a lower rating than a movie that pleases a much larger set of people to the same degree.

If that was directed at me, I'm not disputing that. I agree with you. I'm just saying the RT percentage is basically worthless to me when compared to the Average Rating or the Top Critic Rating, which is more indicative of the actual quality of the movie.

 

[scotyb91]

8/10. It was good, not perfect. I felt like the human villains were a little underdeveloped and the

Spoiler

super-gas that Dr. Poison used on Ludendorff came out of left field until the ending revealed that Aries had been subliminally influencing humanity into starting wars and "whispered" the formulas for it and her other chemical weapons to her in order to cause war and destruction.

Although that sort of made up for the seeming randomness of their scenes, it still seemed a little underdeveloped, as if the German villain subplot was meant to be more in-depth but left on the cutting room floor.

And since this is a review-themed thread, can someone tell me why the first several pages of reviews on IMDb are all "worst movie ever!" reviews? Is there some kind of sexist troll campaign to bring the movie down or something, or a backlash from the people who didn't like the movie and hate that it was otherwise having such a positive response?

I saw the bombardment of 1/10 ratings on imdb and thought maybe a bit of it was trolling.