Holy fuck, Jon Favreau apparently knocked it out of the fucking park
It also has a 79 on metacritic which is really high
>>68207846
Really looking forward to this.
>>68207846
I thought it was pretty decent. 7.7/10 is about the score I'd give it too.
Good child actor that didn't make me want to pull my hair out. Nice CGI.
>>68207846
And warner brothers takes another L
Its kinda getting sad at this point
>>68207846
Have you seen Chef?
>>68208140
is it like life of pi in terms of visuals/ i fucking love that movie just because of how beautiful it looks
>>68208318
Nah, not like Life of Pi. The visuals were all in the animal actors.
For my own curiosity, I would like to know what rating each of you would give to the following films:
Tomorrowland
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
The Jungle Book
>>68208313
Its a pretty nice movie.
>>68207846
>7.7 average
>out of the park
You're retarded for looking at % instead of average rating.
>>68208346
>Tomorrowland
5/10
>Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
3/10
>The Jungle Book
5/10
>>68208342
why do you consider the jungle book mediocre?
>>68207846
Holy fuck, Disney apparently pays for reviews.
Civil War is also the greatest movie ever made, which is also false.
Saw it last week. Was impressed. 8/10 for me.
It's a long movie but it doesn't feel long. The pacing is very good.
>>68207846
>Holy fuck, Jon Favreau apparently knocked it out of the fucking park
You act like this is surprising. Favreau has a pretty good track record.
Then again, I may be one of the few who liked Cowboys & Aliens.
>>68208402
I didn't, unless we're using the /v/ scale and anything under 9/10 is trash.
>>68207846
This movie makes Avatar's CGI look like a 2005 video game.
>>68208403
Of course they do. Just look at Star Wars Episode VII: A Newer Hope. And keep your eyes peeled for A Newish Hope One: A Star Wars Story.
>>68207846
I saw a prescreening of this, and hot damn. If you are not a boylover/paid shill, I cannot for the life of me understand how this movie could have a 100%. It isn't terrible, but holy mother of Christ, it ain't Citizen fucking Kane, either. The plot was the same as the old one, and the CGI was legitimately fucking laughable. Mogley did well enough, but some of the VO characters (I'm looking at you ScarJo) were not even trying.
>>68208419
I thoughtChefwas pretty decent. Then again, it was probably shit because it was a big ad for Twitter
>>68207846
I hate that fat fuck since Chef.
>>68208346
Tomorrowland: 4.0/10 (it was one of the most anticipated films bc it was first Brad Bird's original live action & he turned down SW for this)
Batman v Superman: 7.2/10 (Only problems were werid transitions and rough editings. Also fuck cringe Amy Adams & Eisenberg)
The Jungle Book: Will see this week
>>68208498
>I cannot for the life of me understand how this movie could have a 100%
It's a kids movie. Literally all they do for this trash is go "should you go and see it if you have kids?" and the answer is basically always yes. Look at any kids film, they've pretty much all got above a 95, because kids will watch any old garbage.
>>68208498
>I cannot for the life of me understand how this movie could have a 100%
If someone asked you "is it worth paying money to see", would you say "sure, I guess"?
If so, it's very obvious how it has 100%. All that percentage means is that all critics reckon it's worth paying money to see. Their average rating for it is 7.7/10. Would yours be much lower?
Does Mowgli murder the entire village like in the book?
>>68208280
They will still win another oscar while Disney gets cucked to eternity with 2 acting nods for the light between the oceans
Favreau is underrated. He and Shane black should have handled the whole mcu slate
>>68208491
>Being this butt blasted.
KYS turkey nips
>>68208280
What does this have to do with WB?
>>68208814
Just scared marvelfags thinking wb is a just studio like Sony
>>68208346
Tomorrowland 6.5/10
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice 6/10
The Jungle Book 7.5/10
>>68207846
>1) Disney gets a pass from critics
>2) All film critics are boy-hungry pedophiles
>3) Jungle Book is quantifiably better than Citizen Kane.
Take your motherfucking pick.
>>68208140
Is there a coherent plot or is it episodic like the cartoon was?
What do you call a black person Bible?The Jungle Book.
>>68208407
What? My local theater lists it as an hour and half long
>>68207846
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/jungle-book-2-works-jon-882624
>>68208814
WB is doing their own Jungle Book motion capture CGI fest that got pushed back a year to 2018 after this got high praise.
>>68208660he stays in the jungle
>>68207846
I saw this movie the other day, and I have to say... I fucking hated it. Not because it was bad (it was quantifiably the best film ever made), but because when I saw it, both my eyes exploded, and I errupted into an ejaculation that I still have yet to recover from. My doctor says that if I do not stop coming within the next hour or two, I will collapse into a singularity of pure cinematic ecstasy. There haas never been a movie as good as this, and there will never be a movie as good as this (that is, of course, until the next cheaply made CGI slogfest produced by DIsney). Goodbye, /tv/. It was worth it. Literally the best movie ever made. Literally.
>>68207846
So when will it be be acceptable to suggest that maybe, JUST MAYBE, Disney films are rated less harshly than other films? Just. Fucking. MAYBE.
>>68210087
>>68209967
>>68209226
Or maybe it is just a good movie? Nah, you're right. Must be a cuntspiracy.
>>68210191
Yeah, no, you're right. It is super fucking likely that the CGI remake of the Jungle Book is literally one of the greatest films ever made.
>>68210191
No, Chris. You're right. Objectively speaking, Jungle Book is PROBABLY one of the greatest films of all time.
>>68210191
A conspiracy implies that people are in on it.
>>68210223
>one of the greatest films ever made.
>>68210252
>one of the greatest films of all time.
>people still don't get how RT's rating system works
It got a 7.7 average. That's not bad, it's far from greatest ever. The 100% just means it wasn't bad enough for anyone to give it under a 6.
>>68210353
Then WTF is the point of the Tomatometer? Is Jungle Book has 100%, and Citizen Kane has 100%, does that not mean they are equal in terms of quality?
>>68208346
Tomorrowland 2/10 simply not good and living up to the hype
BvS 10/10 the rebirth of capekino, or dare I say the dawn of capecinema
Jungle Book 7/10 eh its ok
>>68210500
No, Citizen Kane is not a Disney film. Objectively speaking, that means it's bad.
Shere Khan was probably the best part. He was really menacing. Bagheera and Baloo were great as well.
>>68210500
How fucking dumb do you have to be to not get this?
The tomato meter is a measure of how MANY people like it, not how MUCH those people like it.
100% of critics like Citizen Kane, 100% of them like Jungle Book. This doesn't mean that Jungle Book = Citizen Kane it just means that according to critics Jungle Book and Citizen Kane are both worth seeing.
Also keep in mind that there's not a single set of critics rating all movies, in all likelihood Jungle Book and Citizen Kane share very few critics between them.
>>68211178
nice i was thinking about typing this but then you did it for me. thx
>>68211178
>Non-DIsney films can be "good"
Jesus fucking christ, Capeshit board when?
>>68209263
>implying anon has actually seen it
