First Warcraft Movie Review - SFX Magazine

[Obelisk Kai]

Just got my copy of SFX magazine, for those unfamiliar with it, SFX is a magazine specialising in fantasy and science fiction films, games and books that is fairly popular in the UK.

In this month's issue they have reviewed Warcraft the movie and it's the first review I have seen.

So how did this one, and I emphasise it is only ONE review, judge it?

Three out of Five stars which they define as average.

I am not going to rewrite the entire review but I'll summarise it's main points.

They've tried to create a film that caters to both fans and people being introduced to the story. There is apparently a lot of worldbuilding and threads left open for hoped for sequels. We've all seen films that have tried to birth an entire cinematic universe all by itself struggling under the weight of doing so...Batman vs Superman is clearly the most obvious comparison here.

The reviewer also criticizes some of the dialogue as being overwrought and 'straight out of a 1980's fantasy movie' but conversely states some of the dialogue is nuanced.

He praises the performances and the quality of the CG. He suggests it takes 'bold narrative chances' which I believe refers to how the story of the first war plays out...which as fans we already know.

Long story short, the first reviewer of Warcraft finds it an average film. Now this guy spends his days watching and reviewing fantasy and sci-fi stuff so on the one hand he could be wearily familiar with all he sees on the screen, on the other he have an incisive understanding of the material.

More reviews will be required to paint a fuller picture, as well as our own opinions for when we go see it ourselves.

However...a verdict of 'average' is something I am personally not surprised by. At least it wasn't bad...

UPDATE

Find below the reproduced text of the review...credit of course goes to SFX

"In attempting to make a movie that both please gamer purists and invites in newbies, Moon man Duncan Jones faced an unenviable task with Warcraft: The Beginning. And it's only one he has partially succeeded with.

This tale of warring races - with Humans seeing Orcs as invaders while the green (and grey and sort of pink-ish) meanies are actually fleeing a dying planet - has some impressively performance-captured CG creatures, explores both cultures and occasionally takes bold narrative chances.

But those positives are often outweighed by an overwrought script and acting that ranges from nuanced to the sort of theatrical proclmations that wouldn't sound out of place in an '80s fantasy adventure. Though it's fun to channel that spirit occasionally, Warcraft stumbles over an uneven tone. And the need to cram in lots of world-building while leaving story threads dangling for future is regrettable.

There's talk of portals and dark magic, loyalty and vengeance but chances are you've heard it all before. If this is the beginning, we're not completely convinced we'll be in it to the end."

Apologies to those expecting more. SFX reviews can cover two pages if the magazine deems the work important enough, but the less important it is the farther back in the review section it is relegated. SFX devoted one column out of one page out of four to the Warcraft movie.

Now having said that, the reviewer does cram a lot in. It's his personal opinion also. The film maybe worse, or it maybe better than he has said. I don't like his objection to the dangling plot threads for example. As a fan, I know the story is greater than just one movie could ever cover and anything that didn't at least to allude to the rest of the world would have left a poorer product.

More reviews will come in the next few weeks. This is just one. Not the best we wanted, nor the worst we feared. That picture may yet change.

[OreoLover]

Hope it lands reviews there, but profits enough to spawn a sequel.

[Deleted]

It's average for a sci-fi/fanatasy film. Those films are more often then not regard "bad" in comparison with other gernes... so yeah it probably will be around 2.5/5 over all. Not that I am surprised, they changed a lot of the actual lore around to make a better movie instead of sticking with it and give a real introduction to Warcraft.

[pkdrdoom]

Hey man, care to take a pic of the article I saw some sfx issue that states is from July 2016 but there isn't an 'average' comment anywhere (or any rating for that matter). It could be a different sfx magazine than yours

[Jibjub]

Movie Critics are about the worst people to get movie reviews from...

I mean, the movie Snowpiercer was praised by most critics and it's the biggest steaming pile of trash I've ever seen (unless it's reviewed as a slapstick comedy stoner movie ... then I guess it's just below average, as far as that goes). I don't know if you could write a worse movie.

[Obelisk Kai]

Hey man, care to take a pic of the article I saw some sfx issue that states is from July 2016 but there isn't an 'average' comment anywhere (or any rating for that matter). It could be a different sfx magazine than yours

Can't right now as I'm at my work. The SFX Magazine I have has Dr.Strange on the cover. Last month it was Preacher. I might get it a bit earlier as I subscribe to that magazine.

[Masser]

I don't trust movie critics.

Based on what we've seen so far... it can't be bad.

Oh and Grom Hellscream is in the movie so it will definitely get a 10/10 from me!

[ComputerNerd]

Professional critics do not represent the public I suspect in most cases, if any cases.
Make your own decisions.

[Spriggs]

How did this review come out anyway? The film doesn't come to Europe until May 25th and if this reviewer saw it at a critic's screening, he's under an NDA.

[Deleted]

How did this review come out anyway? The film doesn't come to Europe until May 25th and if this reviewer saw it at a critic's screening, he's under an NDA.

Maybe the NDA date has passed? Maybe he didn't sign one? There are many reasons why the review is out now.

[Queen of Hamsters]

On IMDB with just above 1k voters, it's now at 8.7. That means it could land as low as 6.9 or something like that. Critics are critics for a reason so I tend to ignore them.
Not that I've been one to let other people's voting affect my choices, but it's sad if it doesn't become such a booming success that there will be sequels...especially the story surrounding Arthas.

[Deleted]

These guys rated Civil War a 5/5. CW was good but not even close to a 5/5. THeir opinion holds no credibility imo

[tangocash]

That's still fresh on RT.

[Zulkhan]

It's a fair review IMO, but from what he said I think an overall 3.5/5 would have been more legit.

I still believe that being the first movie of a new franchise, plus the stigma of being a videogame adaptation kinda influences these ratings. This said, we'll wait for more reviews to build a more solid idea on the matter.

[Deleted]

It's average for a sci-fi/fanatasy film. Those films are more often then not regard "bad" in comparison with other gernes... so yeah it probably will be around 2.5/5 over all. Not that I am surprised, they changed a lot of the actual lore around to make a better movie instead of sticking with it and give a real introduction to Warcraft.

People might generally regard them as bad(i dont know if they do, but i'l take your word for it) but i tend to like those kind of movies.

I am however a bit annoyed at the "lets jump to the conclusion that its bad because they made a seperate universe for the movie franchise".

[Kallor]

Movie Critics are about the worst people to get movie reviews from...

I mean, the movie Snowpiercer was praised by most critics and it's the biggest steaming pile of trash I've ever seen (unless it's reviewed as a slapstick comedy stoner movie ... then I guess it's just below average, as far as that goes). I don't know if you could write a worse movie.

Snowpiercer was a good film. Most people liked it, not just movie critics.

[Zulkhan]

I am however a bit annoyed at the "lets jump to the conclusion that its bad because they made a seperate universe for the movie franchise".

Yeah, I don't understand how utter loyalty to the lore was going to outweight an awfully bad movie.

- - - Updated - - -

It's weird though how he acknowledged the amount of world-bulding, the quality of the CGI/performances, the "bold" narrative choices and still gave it an "average" score, just because of "overwrought dialogue" he still acknowledged to be nuanced in other parts. 3/5 is kind of low for such description. It kinda confirms my suspicion that other factors conditioned the rating.

[Zulkhan]

Just think about what that means when decent reviewers rate it then. Probably end up in the 1-2 star category.

That would be a guarantee, at least in a perfect world where reviews are 100% unaffected by personal views.

[Relapses]

Audience approval of "average" movies typically skew a bit higher so I think the movie itself will succeed in its own right. It'll likely recoup at least what was invested into it though I doubt heavily it'll be successful enough to spawn sequels.

[ThiagoTorres]

I will watch anyway