I don't get it. If you like it that's perfectly fine, but 90%? That doesn't make any sense. Nostlgia goggles/prequel hate can't possibly be that strong. There's basic film making flaws that critics should point out, but 90%? It's ridiculous.
>>63854956
Star Wars was "the thing" of the year. 90% of movie critics have no guts, and so will just go along with the flow. Just the Avengers was the big thing of 2012, or Game of Thrones is the big thing on tv.
Shit, I wouldn't be surprise if for most reviews 80% of it was written before seeing it.
>>63854956
We're still in the honeymoon phase, OP. I'll give it a month or two before people begin reflecting on it and more accurate reviews start coming in.
you underestimate paid reviews and shit taste!
>>63854956
those sites have shit opinions
Wait a few months or years. The film isn't even out for more than 3 days, everyone's still hardcore inebriated with this drivel.
The movie is fine. Deal with it.
>>63855324
The movie is terrible. Deal with it parrot
>>63855158
>>63855262
This. Look at the last JJ Abrams movie. Critics fell over themselves praising it, and yet now it's regarded as a weak movie that even he admits it has huge problems
>>63855371
Right, like you didn't decide to hate it before you even saw it.
>>63855390
I never gave a shit about Star Trek. I watched JJ's reboot and enjoyed it. I watched Into Darkness a couple months ago and fell asleep.
>>63854956
you do understand how rotten tomatoes works right?
its not people give it a score of 90+/100, its 90% of people saying "they liked it"
so - 90% of people gave it a 5.1 (6?) or better.
>>63855390
Critics fell over themselves praising Abrams' first Star Trek movie too, but that was actually decent.
>>63855432
Right, like you didn't decide to like it before you even saw it.
>>63855505
>he calls me the parrot
>>63855606
>The movie is fine. Deal with it.
You are
>i dont like it so it sucks
>>63855390
I still don't think this movie was bad.
Some critics are on the hype train, some are Disney shills, some are deathly afraid of what Disney could do to their careers.
>>63855483
still has an 81 on metacritic which means "universal acclaim"
>>63856499
not to mention when phantom menace came out it was pretty immediately panned.
>>63856952
No it wasn't you fucking revisionist
>>63855390
I thought this was much better(as a movie, not necessarily a star trek movie) than TFA
>>63856429
And none could possibly just legitimately think it's a good film?
>>63857004
Roger Ebert was full of contrarian reviews. His praise means nothing.
And if you can't see the difference between fans' reactions to this and episode I, you're blind.
>>63854956
How was it bad, obviously they had to cut a ton of scenes because it's a little disjointed but they basically just revamped the original themes of Star Wars, shuffled some people around, and let them all run around doing Star Wars shit. No prequel crap or horrendous stilted dialogue like I HATE SAND IT'S ROUGH AND COARSE
It was more like Abrams' giving his own spin on the original trilogy. Lots of goofy explosions and the girl is about as charismatic as a plank of wood but as a film it is extremely enjoyable.
that said i don't think i'd watch it again. it's like 2+ hours and it retreads the originals quite a lot
>>63857085
It was his contemporaries that praised it too you /v/ child. And this thread is about critics, to say that to prequels are "universally panned" is to ignore the greater portion of the cinema going audience that gets distracted by lights and explosions and come away with no negative impression, nor even significant recognition of anything that actually happened in the film. And also children.
There are more people in the world who enjoy the prequels than dislike them. There are more people in the world who enjoy a Michael Bay Transformers movie more than the latest Scorsese movie.
You do not live in a world that reflects facebook meme opinions you adopted from youtube critics.
>implying it's the only film with that problem
And this was released this year
>If everybody says it's good, it's good
Maybe you should go out of your way to actually read those reviews, OP. They give it good reviews just because it's Star Wars.
>>63855324
Not 90% fine
>>63854956
The problem is the way RT measures things. Look at the review score. It's quite literally a B Movie according to the critics.
>>63856952
>TPM
>immediately panned
LOL, were you born in 1998?
>>63857250
Mad Max Fury Road was a near perfect film, though
It was actually really good
>>63854956
Imdb was at 8.9 last night with 90,000 now it's at 8.8 with 130,000. That's some pretty fucking consistent voting.
Do you think they are blocking negative reviews or even reviews that are 6 and under??
Seems to me they are.
>>63857036
Some on the hype train certainly do. We are in the poptimist era.
>>63857600
How would you know that?
>>63856952
The phantom menace really was widely praised at the time of release. It was both a critical and financial success and fans loved it. The online hate for it did not really manifest until a few months later, and then a whole generation grew up thinking it was always hated which simply isn't true.
It's 3rd week at the box office was actually bigger than it's first week which (and it's first week broke all kinds of records). It only started to slow down on the fourth week. Some star wars fans went as far as claiming it was second only to empire.
Episodes 2 and 3 dropped off far more quickly and likewise critics were not nearly as forgiving. Episode 3 was especially disappointing for a lot of fans for "ruining vader".
Now it is fashionable to hate on all three but at the time TPM was released it was very well received unlike the other two films.
The current RT score includes mostly newer reviews from the 2012 3D re-release which dragged the original score down, but in 1999 it was a better than average popcorn flick among critics.
Look at average scores instead of freshness rating.
Ratings are based on reviews of critics. The critics themselves aren't even the ones who set the rating for their review.
>>63857597
Really weak b8
>>63857651
How would I know what? I saw the rating last night and I saw it just now.
>>63855032
wait people here don't like Avengers 1 either? seriously?
how cynical do you have to be not to enjoy that movie
>>63857714
No, why are you even coming to the conclusion that IMDB is hiding bad scores?
>>63857721
Avengers 1 sucked dude. Literally how new are you? People here have been ripping on the first movie since it came out.
It has an average rating of 8.3/10. Most critics liked it but of those critics it wasn't them calling calling it absolute perfection.
>>63857721
Fuck off already
star wars 7 isn't an invitation for you to post here jesus christ
>>63857750
>sucked
Oh man, I guess that retroactively invalidates the fun I had watching it then.
>>63854956
>"If you like it that's perfectly fine"
>Complain about people/critics liking it
Nice one faggot
the tomatometer is just a measurement of how many people said it was good or bad, it doesn't take into account the actual score of the reviews
if you look at the average rating, it's closer to 8/10, which is more reasonable
>>63857831
>fun
>>63857831
This just shows how much terrible taste you have in movies, you're free to go back from wherever you came from if you don't like the atmosphere here.
>>63857695
How is this a bait? Mad Max was one of the best (if not the best) film of the year.
I think it is great how anyone that says anything negative about the film has constantly apologize for pointing out all the flaws. Everyone wanted to like this movie so bad and it ended up being average JJ, all flash and no fire.
>>63857882
so no one is allowed to like movies here if it's unanimously decided that they are bad? that must dry up a lot of potential topics then
>>63854956
You do realize how RT aggregates right?
95% doesn't mean it got an average score of 95%, it means 95% gave "positive reviews" with positive meaning anything in between "Best thing ever" and "Eh, it was alright"
>>63857939
you're arguing with a fucking buffoon. do not sanction it.
>>63857939
>literally a newfag
Top kek, go away faggot.
Please tell I am not the only one that pretty much hated this movie.
>>63857994
>literally is the new word of /tv/ look i use it everywhere hehe xd
>>63857925
>le road warrior rehash
>best film of the year
man from uncle and ex machina where better
>>63854956
Name the one main thing that makes you think the movie doesn't deserve praise.
>>63857721
>avengers 1 was good
>>>/trash/
>>63857831
Nice buzzword you low IQ
>>63858057
THERE'S LIKE 50,000,000 THREADS ON THIS VERY BOARD, RIGHT NOW, WITH PEOPLE ACTIVELY POSTING IN THEM, WHICH ARE MADE SOULY TO BASH THE MOVIE. AND YOU SIT THERE, IN YOUR CHAIR, LIKE A FUCKING DULL CRETIN, AND DECIDE TO USE 5 SECONDS OF YOUR PRECIOUS, BEAUTIFUL LIFE TO ASK IF YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO DIDN'T ENJOY THE NEW STAR WARS MOVIE?
>>63858065
>implying people haven't been using the word literally for years on this website
How about you go back to reddit
>>63858071
no they weren't retard
Mad Max is the best movie of the millennium so far
>>63858098
more like you fished that rebuttal out of the trash
>>63858071
You don't get it. It's considered literally the best film of the year. Not only the best mainstream film of the year.
It seems like you just don't understand it.
>>63858158
dumb capeshitter pls leave
>>63858134
calm down, caps lock is cruise control for cool
>>63857721
the avengers was terrible
fuck off back to /co/ cunt
>>63858151
No it hasn't.
>>63854956
>8.3
>>63858153
No that would be boyhood, kiddo
>>63855505
I came out of the theater feeling like I had watched a Star Wars movie, in stark contrast to how I felt leaving Episode 3 (angry and disappointed)
>>63858153
This has to be b8
I can name five of the top of my head better right now
>>63858175
It's an average blockbuster film. The only thing that was special was the practical effects, that's it
>>63858151
To be fair there has been a massive influx of 'literally' being used in the last few months.
>>63858208
This post just shows how much of a retarded newfag you are. Fuck off already, idiot.
>>63855032
same is true of TDK
>>63858260
Tell this to the critics.
http://www.metacritic.com/feature/film-critics-list-the-top-10-movies-of-2015
This is based on their best films of the year lists.
>>63854956
See, here's the thing. It better not get a better rating than Empire Strikes Back, because it's not a better movie. It's not even better than a New Hope.
BUT, it is very well made. Made by professionals who knew exactly what they were doing. Look at the plot, it's so simple and safe. Look at each scene, this movie is probably at least 70-75% action, the rest is just quippy and quick paced dialogue. It's hard to give a movie like that a bad review because technically there's nothing wrong with it, and it's entertaining. However, it's not good film, and it doesn't promote more thought than "I wonder what's going to happen in Episode 8!". You look at Empire, and you want to rewatch the first movie, and watch Empire again to pick up all of the clues, gain insight on the characters. Obviously it leaves on a cliffhanger, but it makes you want to know more about the universe, not just the story.
I don't know, I'd give this movie a positive review, but like I said, it's too safe. Obviously dollars were more important than telling an amazing story with this movie.
>>63857750
I just found it odd because the voting is so consistent and I've not met anyone that actually liked the movie except one guy and he said it didn't feel like star wars.
I know meta critic blocked low reviews for fallout 4 for a few days.
>>63858260
>I can name five of the top of my head better right now
let me guess:
Avengers, Avengers 2, Captain America, Guardians of the Galaxy and Thor
>>63854956
I don't get it. If you lhate it that's perfectly fine, but its shit? That doesn't make any sense. Nostlgia goggles/prequel love can't possibly be that strong. There's great film making that critics obviously point out, but its shit? It's ridiculous.
>>63858342
Playing too safe is my biggest complaint with the movie. I hope they just did it to get old fans back on board and will try something a little different next time.
>>63857662
'82 old fag here. Yeah, this. TPM was basicaly well received outside of Jar Jar, but it was AotC that really cemented the disatisfaction. We kinda got that it was messy, but we were excited for a new triology and just interpreted it as a somewhat flat footed first act. Visually it was VERY impressive in parts for the time; and everyone just figured anishit would grow out it.
>>63858331
Right
Because the artist and malik at his worst is also great
http://www.metacritic.com/feature/movie-critic-best-of-2011-top-ten-lists
>>63857721
I liked it, but it wasn't a good movie.
>>63858366
Diving bell and the butterfly, the lives of others, Mulholland Dr, armour, and a separation
>>63858448
The Tree of Life is the best film of this decade.
The issue is that the film was reviewed based on first impressions.
No matter how hard critics try to be objective, it's extremely difficult to remove yourself from the hype if you're a Star Wars fan and are secretly hoping this won't turn out like the prequels.
Remember, the majority of the critics are Gen Xers who undoubtedly saw the first film in the cinema and were swept up by its marketing.
And then you have your usual dumb fuck Gen Y/millennials who are little more than shills for the herd.
>>63854956
>https://youtu.be/uOdBcvtVZbs?t=17m15s
>It's the best movie of the seven by far.
>A different league than every single one including Empire
/tv/ BTFO
>>63858517
this is a movie discussion board not foreign cultures
>>>/int/
>>63858524
Tree of life is great, but defend the artist being that high. You can't
>>63858655
>I'm a pleb who only watched capeshit-tier blockbusters
None of those films are remotely inaccessible either
>>63858742
>I'm an artsy faggot who watches French and Iranian shit to feel smug
>>63854956
I JUST FUCKING SAW THIS TRASH PILE.
WHAT THE FUCK. I FUCKING CAME IN EXPECTING NOTHING, AND I WAS STILL FUCKING DISAPPOINTED. I'M ABSOLUTELY FUCKING TRIGGERED RIGHT NOW.
>>63858342
SAFE is the defining word here. It was good, but not amazing. On the whole, the entire film seemed like a setup for the next one.
>>63858893
You could have always seen "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Road Chip".
>>63858823
>I'm a pleb
>>63858823
Is french and iranian what you fly over state hicks consider high class?
>>63856353
For you
>>63857939
/tv/ is literally one of the worst boards on 4chan. Even worse than /b/ and /v/, and that's hard to do.
I would give /tv/ one one-hundredth of a portion, at best.
>>63859158
Why are you still here then? Its not like anyone actually "from" this board wants more of you new users here
>>63859087
helllooo?
>>63859087
>>63858823
Damn, btfo
>>63854956
Movie was a solid 6, that's the best I can do.
>>63858342
It is NOT well made. That is plain fucking wrong. It is a schizophrenic roller-coaster with scenes that look like they were slapped together in a couple week of post. The dialogue was so rushed and full of exposition to piggy-back on references because they couldn't be bothered to write something original. It's not the worst movie I've ever seen but there is no way you could say it was "well made". It's very poorly planned and executed. I'd be ashamed if I worked on this for ruining a chance at something great.
>>63860483
The only dialogue I thought was pure exposition was the Han and Leia shit. The rest seemed pretty natural.
And if you think it's poorly made, rewatch the prequels. There is a difference in quality. Maybe the prequels had more passion but they were not better crafted.
>>63860609
The prequels being bad doesn't mean this one can't be bad either. Yes, the prequels were shit but so is this.
>>63861465
I don't see why it's bad though. I see why it can be disappointing because it's not really a patrician film, but it's a fun film.
I don't see why it's objectively bad. Yes it's derivative, yes it's safe, but that's really the only complaints you can make about it. It's still well made.
>>63858235
of course you'll feel that way since you just watched what was basically a remake of the first movie.
>>63854956
It is ubelieviable. They don't even care the fact that they copied ep4
>>63858430
the way the movie ends, it feels like they're going to get a lot of ESB minus the parts in Hoth (Rey training with Luke like he did with yoda, the First Order counterattacking and taking advantage of the the power vacuum after Coruscant buys the farm, and some situation/crisis that will be left to be resolved by the 3rd movie)
>>63857600
In IMDB message boards the fire is rising
Our brothers are fighting the good fight and the rat shills are getting BTFO
>>63862044
but he said he hated the first movies
>>63854956
The percentage is just the amount of overall 'positive' reviews. The high score is just due to mass appeal, most film 'critics' today are literally just normie bloggers. Same reason why Shawshank is #1 on imdb.
>>63857597
>Shite dialogue, shite characters, mediocre action
ITS PERFECTION
>>63858342
I hope they just went 'safe' because the prequels were porrly received and they're banking on this movie setting up the SWCU. Considering the next one will be the "Empire" of the trilogy I'd like to think it will have more balls.
