ITT examples of legitimate film criticism
Pic unrelated
>>67453772
Gadot and Adams were crap, and the movie was fun enough. Agree with the rest. 3/10 movie.
>>67453826
>Adams
I tend to like her in other stuff but I hated her as Louis in MoS. She doesn't fit the character at all and is about as miscast in the role as Jesse Eisenberg.
>>67453772
>6.8/10
>Okay
Fuck off. 5 is okay, 5 is average.
6 is above average, 7 is good.
>>67453772
You won't find any on /tv
Gal Gadot was fucking awful
>>67454104
Game journalism relies on over-inflated scores.
IGN is the worst when it comes to this.
>>67453772
they should've just casted fassbender
>>67453772
?"Just your typical brutal Batfleck, just as you've all come to expect."
This guy is an imbicile.
>>67453772
KURVA
>>67453772
Make it a 6.0 and you got a deal, this is more or less the only criticism of this movie I've seen that I really agree with
>>67454104
Whats 8, 9, 10 respectively?
> a movie needs to be """fun""" to be good
>>67454437
film, cinema, kino
Gadot was completely wooden; I cannot for the life of me understand how people are praising her performance.
Adams is completely irrelevant and forgettable.
There is no "philosophy" in this movie. Everyone keeps claiming this, but it isn't there. It's two guys smashing into each other because "they took my mama." It wasn't a battle between ideologies whatsoever, and the resolution was pathetic.
>>67453772
>...not really "fun"
Non-critics BTFO. How can you even compete with such mastery of the English language?
>>67454104
NO.
5=50%
50%=F
70%=C
C=AVERAGE
>70%=BETTER THAN AVERAGE
ARE YOU RETARDED?
>>67454547
This isn't a math test you dumb faggot.
5 is the halfway mark between 0 (absolute trash) and 10 (perfection). It is the definition of average.
>>67454597
Its not math, you're grading a movie
>>67454677
And using the grading scale of the educational system is dumb as fuck.
>>67454756
It makes perfect sense as opposed to rating a movie like a measuring cup
>>67454949
No it's retarded.
>>67453772
>Gadot was good
She was one of my only complaints about the movie. She was just so shoved in and out of place. There was no reason for her to be there. It would have been much more interesting if Batman and Superman had to team up and beat the bad guy on their own. She was just "there" because she was going to be in later movies which took me out of the movie I was currently watching. She should have just been another folder with Flash and Cyborg and shit.
>>67455096
Literally not allowed to insult the jewess
Every review I've seen goes out of their way to talk about how much they liked the jew.
>>67454949
No because it basically makes ratings 1-5 irrelevant because they're all the same "failing" grade you fucking retard.
>>67455208
Think of it like an exam. That nigga that gets 50% is stupid, the nigga that gets 30% is retarded, the nigga that gets 10% is a fucking laughingstock.
>>67453772
>Story's themes
THOSE THEMES ARE
>>67453772
>legitimate criticism
>IGN
10/10, your post is shit.
>>67453772
Gadot was fucking terrible, Irons was barely used, Ben's Batman had like two scenes that I can remember.
>>67455373
UNEMPLOYMENT, 9/11, CACOPHONY AND LOIS LANE!
>>67455096
I'm guessing that people were just happy to see the character again after so long
What's really pissing me off is the
>it's good to see a strong female character in a major film
reviews.
I really love strong, well-written female characters - but, like you said, WW had no fucking reason to be there.
She's just being flaunted to appease fans/women by studio heads.
Kinda like awhore
>>67455380
He literally said pic unrelated you inbred.
>>67454467
>he thinks fun only means quirky and hilarious
Fun could mean edge of your seat suspensful, which this movie isnt. Its bland narrativly. Sure it looks nice, all of Snyders movies do, but it was such a boring story. The fight scenes and cinematography did not make up for it.
Amy Adams was shit. Damsel in distress in MoS and the same shit in BvS
Step aside, peasants.
I found the idea of this Detroit like Gotham and Batman who was fairly gritty too to be far more interesting than anything else in the movie.
Cavil looks good, but was boring. Adams who cares. Alfred was good. Gadot looks like some weird Israeli alien. Eisnberg could be fun if he didn't seem crazy.
>>67453772
the only real problem with this film was that they didn't have fassbender as any character, come on DC you could at least had him as an extra
>>67453916
I actually like Jesse as an actor, even if he was miscast. Not much of a fan of Amy Adams; it's mean to say, but I actually think she's too ugly to play Lois. She shows so little energy - it's like you can feel her aging on the screen. You can cast an older actress, but at least make her spunky and a good foil to Superman's extreme seriousness.
Also, why is nobody mentioning Gadot? She's horribly cast AND she's a fucking atrocious actor. Does anyone really think her performance was acceptable?
I don't get why people complain about cavills superman being boring or wooden.
Superman is always fucking boring and wooden
>>67455208
No because those are different and you can still figure out the ratio. If it wasn't the case wouldn't ops pic say good instead of okay?
>>67455967
That's the problem with every movie that doesn't have Based Fassbender.
>>67455998
Because
>muh wonder woman
>>67455998
I work with an Israeli and his accent is 10x thicker than hers and 10x more bearable.
>>67453772
why is philosophical drama worse than superhero escapism? it's like the criticism is that superhero movies should just stick to being capeshit and not try to elevate the material
>>67456130
because it's in a cape movie handled by people who have no business attempting that
>>67455658
Does White think Snyder developed the imagery of the pearls falling while Martha Wayne takes one in the face?
If you think that Batman v Superman was a "philosophical drama" then you're almost definitely a fucking idiot.
If that's really what people got against it then it's probably alright.
What I don't like is the Snyder cinematography that makes the movie look like a fucking cartoon or some shit. I get that it's based on a comic book but it's a fucking movie, make it look realistic for fucks sake.
>>67456207
I actually groaned when I saw that because I feel like I've seen it so many times before.
>>67456130
I'm all for a heady, brooding and philosophical capeflicks. But David S. Goyer, Zack Snyder and the people working above them are clearly and absolutely not the people to be bringing us that.
>>67456274
Larry Fong's cinematography is literally the only thing the movie has going for it.
>>67454547
Doesn't work the same dude
>>67456355
its fucking horrible man
>>67455532
I don't have time for IGN bullshit, give me the abridged version.
>>67455658
>By armond white
What's next, taking The Onion seriously?
>>67455967
>come on DC you could at least had him as an extra
They can't afford to have him as an extra.
>>67455208
That is how the real world works.
There is a standard that defines what is an acceptable minimum, and it's not 0. What you're suggesting is actually scaling marks downwards so it fits your autistic criteria of 1/10 being a valid mark, which it simply isn't
>>67456355
His cinematography isn't even that good though. He just tries to make things look pretty or make it murky
>>67456419
Saying it's "the only thing going for it" is pretty much the same as saying "it's the least of this movie's problems". It is not a good thing.
>>67454437
8 is great, 9 is excellent and 10 is perfect.
4 is bad, 3 is crap, 2 is terrible, 1 is atrocious and 0 is irredeemable.
>>67454597
You're assuming the quality of movies is random. People who make movies want them to be good and aim for the higher end of the scale. Thus, the median movie is above the middle score. The average movie is closer to a 10 than it is to a zero, which would be something like a student film with the boom mic dipping into the shots, jump cuts, enormous plot holes, shitty sound quality, and other problems that just don't exist in wide-release films.
>>67457002
>>67454104
- Great
- Good
- OK
- Bad
- Awful
>>67457189
The only way this is true is because idiots don't rate it properly to begin with.
An average movie is 5, a perfect one is 10 and a worthless one is 1. This is fairly straightforward.
>everything under 7/10 is shit
Good to see your autism is still alive and kicking.
>>67457225
>This is how I assign meaning to these unitless numbers
>Anyone who does so differently is an idiot
All a 6.8 means is that the reviewer thought it was better than movies he's rated 6, and worse than those he's rated 7.
>>67457354
And by having 7 is an average rating out of 10, he's either only seeing movies he expects will be good, or he's just handing far-too-generous marks.
You're absolutely right - what you said is truly all his rating means. But it should mean more than that. Collating ratings from various critics is impossible when they're all operating under different understandings of what an average is. If he's rating out of 5 stars, 2.5 should be average. 2/4, 5/10, etc.
Calling 7/10 average is utterly retarded - it can be HIS average, but it's not THE average.
>>67454104
>>67457201
>>67454437
>>67457002
0 - Abysmal
1 - Terrible
2 - Very bad
3 - Bad
4 - Slightly below average
5 - Average
6 - Slightly above average
7 - Good
8 - Great
9 - Excellent
10 - Perfect
>>67457354
>All a 6.8 means is that the reviewer thought it was better than movies he's rated 6, and worse than those he's rated 7.
except he has "okay" written next to it
>>67457354
>>This is how I assign meaning to these unitless numbers
>>Anyone who does so differently is an idiot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_of_one_to_ten
It's what a 10-point-rating system is, retard.
