[Movie] Warcraft (June 2016)

[Faltemer]

I wish you dummies would get it through your heads that RT doesn't represent reviews from around the world.

Don't insult other users, keep it civil regardless of your viewpoint or theirs.

[Deleted]

Italian review:

http://www.badtaste.it/recensione/wa...nsione/175675/

2/5 stars because "everything is CGI and it's so well done that it looks like nothing is CGI", "Ben Foster is the worst in the cast and looks like a bully". Reviewer has clearly not played the game because he compares it to LOTR and GOT but says zones reminded him of Snow White.

What the fuck?

[ravenmoon]

I haven't seen the movie yet, it's released the 3rd here. But from my understanding, Jones tells these events and ideas through the characters. Instead of having a narrator or a bunch of text like Star Wars (terribly tacky in my opinion), he chooses to shape the world around Durotan, Lothar and Garona. Which is great, it's the kind of storytelling that elevates Warcraft, an otherwise generic fantasy tale with shiny visuals, into something a bit more unique.

However, unlike event-focused stories, if the audience doesn't connect with those characters, the whole thing becomes an unstable house of cards. That's why the lack of proper character and world building scenes at the beginning may have hurt this movie more than it would have others, because this is a character-driven story, one that's supposed to introduce you to two worlds and four or five different factions no less.

So it's not about what happens that may be boring, it's that what happens is seen through the eyes of people you may not have grown fond of.

And again, I haven't seen the movie and when I do, I'll do it through the eyes of a fan. None of this matters if you already know these characters and events, because you'll fill in the gaps. It's people who may not know enough about Warcraft, or fantasy in general, who may have trouble feeling immersed in this world.

.

Agreed, it's why I am trying to get the impression from non-fans. Fantasy has more of a burden to show something relatable because of the alien stuff, it needs to show character story more, because this is an alien setting, it was important to show Garona and co as relatable but not necessary, you could have shown them as the incomprehensible alien monsters, but you'd have to show the humans as very relatable so you can connect with something.

To that effect, movies like this need that character focus, playing an important role, rather than showing from the persepctive of an event, you have to show from the perspective of person caught up in these events. The game can work from an event basis, tehrte is no pressure to understand or relate, because the fun is in the gameplay and mechanics, that's what makes the game. Story is just context that's nice and certainly helps the gamers get into the game, but the game is made by its gameplay. Not so for the movie.

A video game movie, and a fantasy one at that, cannot afford to or should be event focused, it should be character focused.

[PurSisstant]

After avoiding all the hype and wow websites for months I went to see the movie yesterday with my other half and we really enjoyed it. The CGI is fab and the acting was good having never read any of the books I know very little of the lore so I thought it was a good story. My bf who has read them all and is very keen on the wow story said they changed it slightly but not enough to stop him enjoying it too. I play horde so know more of their story but I can honestly say I actually liked the alliance in it and it has made me want to explore their story more and I so want a griffin now. As a non lore person I'd recommend anyone who likes fantasy to see warcraft and I'm looking forward to getting the dvd I want to watch it again and to the next one let's hope they make it. Sod the reviewers.

[quras]

What are the chances sequels will be made? From what I understand there are quite a few negative critics, but up until now the movie is a financial success(?), and I can imagine quite a few people will visit due to the popularity of wow/warcraft. Are good financial results by themselves reason enough for sequels? (I'm not familiar with the way the movie bussiness works)

To early to say just yet.

Financial gains are a big cause for sequels so that one is still way up in the air but yea. If it was to do really well financially, it could get a sequel. However, reception is also taken into account. Warcraft is all over the board so you can bet thats being talked about.

[Theoris]

For anyone who has already seen the movie: are there any Shattered Hand orcs other than Kargath Bladefist in it? Because from several trailers etc you can clearly see their banner.

Not sure. Gonna see the movie again in a few hours so I'll keep an eye out.

[Anduin94]

Again, what do you expect them to compare a high fantasy film to? Eragon and the D&D movies?

No, but if I want to make a movie about mafia, the reviewers would give it a bad rating because it's not as good as The Godfather?

[quras]

No, but if I want to make a movie about mafia, the reviewers would give it a bad rating because it's not as good as The Godfather?

Don't be shocked if you are not compared to outstanding mafia movies. Same thing here.

[Anduin94]

Nope, but they might give it a bad rating if it is on the level of something like Knockaround Guys while comparing it to something much better like Goodfellas. So if they see this as something bad like Eragon or D&D(they seem to think it's closer to Eragon at this point) then they'll rate it poorly while comparing it to properties in the genre that were more successful in what they were trying to do. Like GoT and LotR.

What if the reviewers are exaggerating? Warcraft may not be as good as LotR, but to compare it with D&D or Eragon...
Anyway, I will see the film tomorrow so I will clear a lot of doubts in my minds, I guess

[lonely zergling]

I dont understand all the love for Lotr... sure it was "good" (if you care to sit 11 hours). The lotr movies are low fantasy and very slow and boring at many parts with useless filler scenes. Dont get me even started on the plotholes and the missing violence.

[Arrowstormen]

I dont understand all the love for Lotr... sure it was "good" (if you care to sit 11 hours). The lotr movies are low fantasy and very slow and boring at many parts with useless filler scenes.

Lord of the Rings are the best movies ever made, and I'll stand by that.

[lonely zergling]

Lord of the Rings are the best movies ever made, and I'll stand by that.

Maybe if they add some more violence and plottwists... no one dies, no magic.... the eagles could just fly them there boring boring. The battle scenes were good though.

[Zexz]

Lord of the Rings are the best movies ever made, and I'll stand by that.

I would agree, but in my opinion only the third movie aged well. I thought the first one was decent, the second I loved, and then the third was "hype is real" and it kinda filled that hype, but it didnt beat the second.
But after watching the last year with my GF I just found the first and second movie have aged bad, and I found myself liking the third movie more then the first and second.

[jdbond592]

Again, what do you expect them to compare a high fantasy film to? Eragon and the D&D movies?

I know right. A movie with guns and tanks and actual magic vs a movie with "3000 year old wizard" who does no magic. I know it is a radical concept to understand that "magic" or "Orc" doesn't make everything LOTResque. Harry Potter has magic in modern setting. Recently released Shannara Chronicles had trolls and elves in post apocalyptic modern world. Perhaps I expect too much. High Fantasy is just a world. I wonder what these critics would do if something like A Malazan book of fallen was made into movies/TV. Likely commit suicide.

[Kathranis]

Again, what do you expect them to compare a high fantasy film to? Eragon and the D&D movies?

300, Thor, and Hellboy would be fairer comparisons, I think, in terms of tone and aesthetics.

[Anduin94]

Anyway... shouldn't we have news about the box office numbers from the UK?

[Arrowstormen]

Maybe if they add some more violence and plottwists... no one dies, no magic.... the eagles could just fly them there boring boring. The battle scenes were good though.

No one dies: false.

No magic: false.

The eagles could just fly them there: false.

"add some more violence and plottwists" There is plenty of "violence" in the movies, and the plot is fairly solid.

Lord of the Rings and Warcraft are both high fantasy, but they differ in that Lord of the Rings is epic fantasy, while Warcraft is heroic fantasy.

- - - Updated - - -

300, Thor, and Hellboy would be fairer comparisons, I think, in terms of tone and aesthetics.

I don't find many similarities between those and Warcraft, having actually seen the movie.

[Deleted]

While everyone struggle to tell if this movie is the best of all time or the biggest crap ever made (which is not ffs), let's all agree that Ramin Djawadi nailed the soundtrack.. Pieces like "Honor" or "For Azroth" are great, he really manage to keet the sound of Warcraft..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzeG6bPrwV0&t=1254s

Espacially moments like 11:49 to 12:07, I get chills everytime those notes come in ! (espacially when Orgrim remove the Durotan's tusk at the end with that music in the background :'( )

[Anduin94]

Okay, just found this. Looks like Warcraft made in the UK first day (a strange day to start, but whatever) $1.5M, which is good (as far as I know)

http://www.screendaily.com/news/x-me...ontentID=40562

[Kathranis]

Maybe, but both of those were better received than Warcraft so the comparison wouldn't be positive.

Well, if they went in expecting an experience like Thor: Dark World or Hellboy 2 instead of Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones, their expectations might be more in line with the film they're actually reviewing.

Comparing Warcraft to LotR is like comparing Star Trek to Apollo 13. They have some shared themes but they're completely different tonally and aesthetically.