https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/boondock_saints/
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sev...seven%20pounds
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/law...ding%20citizen
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/but...he%20butterfly
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/equ...?search=equili
I could go on.
This isn't the first time where there is a huge disparity between the critics and the audience.
Watched it. Would have been fine if it wasn't called Warcraft.
It, naturally, defecated on the Warcraft Lore as i expected it to. Also lol, buff fistfighter Gul'dan. GGWP. If that's not Mythic Phase 4 for him in Legion i'm going to flood the WoW forums about it.
The only reason you're saying this is because it resonates beautifully with your own opinion of the movie, which is more or less what a lot of people do here: they have a set opinion about something and defend the side of the spectrum in line with said opinion. I prefer to avoid this by not pushing my own opinion of the movie and simply looking around me and what different people say/think of this movie. The result is that this movie is hilariously polarizing. There are Warcraft fans who either love or hate this, among the general audience there's poeple that liked it a lot and others not at all and there are critics that are either harsh, cautiously optimistic, somewhere in the middle or outright praising this for what it attempted to achieve.
Believe what you want to believe, but there's clearly more than our individual opinions here.
Ooh, that's a great measure. Well spotted!
Think I could use that to pick up some hidden gems I haven't watched yet.
And, yes, while I played WoW a very long time ago, I wouldn't consider myself a hardcore lore fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I thought Warcraft was very good.
It is also rapidly becoming a global hit everywhere except in the US. They'll easily recoup that $160 million budget (in revenue terms they already have).
Last edited by mmoc83df313720; 2016-06-12 at 07:17 PM.
Give up, the people that agree with the Warcraft negatives critics will never understand that RT or "official" review means nothing for the movie.
Point is that anyway a lot of people don't understand that "official" critics are just "normal people" that publish their review on the web, often thinking they're superior because they watch a lot of movie or that they "studied" cinema.
But the point is that cinema is an art, so that call for the feelings of the moviegoer. And trying to categorize a movie only by his technicals characteristics (like 75% of the "pro" are doing) and neglecting the way people could "feel" it is like considering that a paint could be judged by a mathematical equation.
Technically Warcraft is maybe far from perfect, maybe even "mediocre" (at worst) but that's not the only point to judge. And actually, critics don't see anything else than this, and clearly DIDN T want to see anything else than this.
Idk if I exprimed my thought well, that would be far better in french, but meh, I tried.
I think Batman Begins is a good example. It cost about the same production and advertising cost and yet grossed far less. Still got a sequel (because potential and good reception).
By the time a Warcraft sequel arrives, China Box office will have grown +50%. That alone makes the sequel have a lot of potential.
Oh, then you don't know the numbers? Universal isn't the biggest investor, they only paid for 25-30% of the production plus the P&A (the atrocious marketing) outside China. The rest was all chinese investors, including Legendary's owner Wanda.
Let say 30% of production and 30M P&A, that's around 80M. Rule of thumb, 160M is what Uni needs to break even.
At the end of the day, it will be a mild profit for Universal.
Last edited by mmoc516e31a976; 2016-06-12 at 07:25 PM.
IGN's E3 show is sponsored by the movie, so there's that advertisement XD
Last edited by mmoc516e31a976; 2016-06-12 at 07:41 PM.