To what extent was this legitimately worse than the first one?
And on a related note: Has anyone else noticed it's harder to find out if a movie is good ahead of time because reviewers are all trying to use their little soapboxes to push social agendas now?
>>67796696
who cares, the first one is garbage
>>67796696
>Has anyone else noticed it's harder to find out if a movie is good ahead of time because reviewers are all trying to use their little soapboxes to push social agendas now?
What does this even mean? How can anyone say if something is "good ahead of time" in its time, that defeats the whole purpose
I liked Superman vs. Batman too!
Those critics and their biased marvel ideals! I'll get them yet!
>>67796696
They're both pretty bad, but Chloë was hot in both so still watchable
>>67796696
a lot worse
>foul-mouthed loli is no longer a loli
>stupid highschool drama and jokes
>terrible villain and fight scenes
also nicholas cage >>>>>>>> jim carrey
Uninteresting plot destroying Mintz-Plasse character arc
No symbolism in the story or moral to empathize how dangerous it is to actually carry on a super hero type of life that it's continually shown in the comic
No actual humor, violence for the sake of violence
Jeff Wadlow can't write for shit. We have no reason to care about the characters or their drivels at this point
shall I go on
>>67797112
please do
>>67796957
>How can anyone say if something is "good ahead of time" in its time, that defeats the whole purpose
You're either overthinking or just jacking off to semantics.
The point of reviews is ostensibly to help people who a movie is aimed at decide how likely it is they will enjoy it. Bitching about violence/misogyny/profanity in this movie does not accomplish this goal because if you enjoyed the first one violence and profanity probably didn't bother you and if you're worried about a movie's 'misogyny' you've probably already blogged about it on your tumblr.
So when half the negative reviews I see are just 'I was really upset about the violence/misogyny/profanity in this movie' that's not helping me decide whether to see it. It's blogging at best and a shitty abuse of a soapbox at worse. Which is why I came here and asked for opinions.
>>67797577
The point of a review is to express an opinion. If the critics' opinion is that the film is excessively violent why shouldn't they write about it? If a potential viewer would be put off by that violence wouldn't that want a reviewer to tell them that?
>It's blogging at best
You're an idiot. What should criticism be, a list of plot points with no input from the writer?
>>67797178
Top kek
>>67797178
It's simply a poorly translated version of an already bad part of a comic. Wadlow is left to dealt with an already worse budget than the first part and a script that goes nowhere and can't make sense of it; You got a mish mash of character arcs that really go nowhere and we're in no reason left to care about them. The satyre (if you can call it that) from the first part about the nuisances and irreality of a super hero life are gone and what you're left with is an assortment of super heros which completely (going back to the already dumb plot from the comic) defeats the purpose of the first part: The dangers of taking comic books and superheros too seriously. There's no jokes, only a vomit gag that fails to surprise or amuse. The action is great, I really can't complain but the whole movie is so inconsistent in so many areas that it's no wonder it was such a disastrous film that didn't understand for a second what it wanted to be
>>67797766
The only reason anyone gives a shit about your opinion is if they think it will tell them something about whether they will enjoy it. If I decided to review a rom-com knowing ahead of time I disliked rom-coms and then just spend my review bitching about how boring romance is and the negative social consequences rom-coms have on culture I'd be a shit reviewer doing nothing to inform anyone.
>What should criticism be, a list of plot points with no input from the writer?
Some kind of critical evaluation of whether the film accomplished what it attempted, you retard. It's in the word. Not just "hurr here's what I felt walking out of theatre and I assume everyone else will agree".
>>67798109
I think we just fundamentally disagree on the purpose of criticism. You think its solely a consumer guide, I think it's its own form of creative writing and expression. Subjective taste will always factor in, and should to make for interesting writing.
Again, what do you want out of a critic. "It has guns and the little girl swears, two thumbs up"? Why is examining the violence in the film, how its shown on screen and the implications behind it, a bad thing?
>"hurr here's what I felt walking out of theatre and I assume everyone else will agree".
You're making a lot of weird presumptuous leaps in logic here
>>67798400
The purpose of reviews is to help a consumer judge whether to pay for something. That's why they have the numbers at the end.
Blogging about your feelings and your social convictions is another thing you can do but it's not important to a review and it's not the reason anyone is reading your review. People look up a review because they want to see if they should see a movie, not because they're curious what some fucktard entertainment journalist is feeling. A movie critic should remember that and realize that people go listen to a sociologist if they want to understand society and a movie critic if they're considering watching a movie.
>Again, what do you want out of a critic. "It has guns and the little girl swears, two thumbs up"?
No, that's just being a shitty blogger in the opposite direction. You can evaluate media in ways other than how you feel about it. That's why literary criticism isn't just people stamping one of those "how I'm feeling today" smiley faces.
>You're making a lot of weird presumptuous leaps in logic here
If that's not what they're doing then they're forgetting their purpose.
>>67798820
>That's why they have the numbers at the end.
I have no idea if this is a joke but its the funniest thing I've read all night
I've never seen someone so firmly opposed to serious film criticism before, while likening any effort to do so "blogging" as if its low brow. It seems like they can't win either way with you. Were you molested by a film critic as a child?
>You can evaluate media in ways other than how you feel about it
What's the value of any media other than what you feel about it? Especially since sociological importance is taboo apparently.
>>67798978
The real joke is that self important movie critics apparently think that by stating their feelings they're somehow turning into intellectuals. They are consumer guides and if they want to be anything more they should go into academia.
It's not "serious criticism". If it was you couldn't pick any retard off the internet, tell them to write their feelings half on the movie and half on some cultural issue, and publish something equivalent.
I dunno man. Maybe you should get into literary criticism and revolutionize it by showing them how they can be replaced by a collection of stamps.
>>67796696
jim carrey is the best character in the this whole shit crap of a film. I know in the comic has him die but they could have change that
>>67796696
The first one had really good first two thirds, then it turned into complete schlock in the last one. The second movie is like if you took that last one third of the first movie and made a feature length movie out of it.
It doesn't help that the original comic is hilariously terrible as well.
>>67799772
Not only does he die, they ripped off A Storm of Swords and had his dog's head sewn onto his body like Robb Stark. It was so shit, Mark Millar fucks goats.
>>67796696
>"I don't like movies because of their social messages"
Eat a dick.
wasnt there some controversy with jim carrey? i forgot exactly what he did or said
>>67796696
It wasn't as clever.
The first satrized the idea of being a superhero with kickass caught up in bullshit with the Mob.
The second became an actual superhero movie, instead of a satire it was a parody, not quite the same thing.
That said I still liked it.
>>67797766
A good critic will discuss what the movie is trying to achieve, how it does that (both referring to the concepts and plot, and the filmmaking/acting aspects of it) then try to gauge what kind of audience will like it.
Not "I hate it, it's bad, let me say that again with an analogy or pun" and that's the end of it. There needs to be a level of unbiased assessment, which is blatantly missing from most film reviewers and critics.
>>67798400
The point of a review is to dissect the subject to give the reader as much information about the topic as possible (just like when you "review" study notes) and let the reader form an opinion, not write a fucking blog.
>>67798400
Critising something someone else put made, something that you yourself couldn't do better is a form of creative writing. This is exactly what is wrong with humanity. Everyone is so self important. You don't have the right to "criticise" something if you couldn't do it better yourself. Not professionally anyways. Sure you can express your own opinion but acting like your opinion is more important than anyone else's is just crazy. Why can't people get this.
>>67800216
He moaned about all the swearing and violence after collecting a paycheck. Shitheel move.
