Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I want movies that make me (and more so my young boys that watch these) care about characters and learn good lessons. Captain America did that. Ironman did that. Thor did that.

The movies now...... don't.

I'm not sure I can agree that the movies now aren't giving people characters to care about or lessons to learn.

Did your boys not care about Peter Parker? Did they not learn good lessons in NWH?

[Gumble]

I'm not sure I can agree that the movies now aren't giving people characters to care about or lessons to learn.

Did your boys not care about Peter Parker? Did they not learn good lessons in NWH?

Spiderman is the one exception recently.

However that movie made me lose my respect for Dr Strange's character. They made him an idiot to make the plot happen and it ruins him the same way if you saw Captain America compromising on his morals or Stark going back to selling terrorists weapons. They continued it into this movie, making him an idiot so their plot can happen.

[Darththeo]

I'm not sure I can agree that the movies now aren't giving people characters to care about or lessons to learn.

Did your boys not care about Peter Parker? Did they not learn good lessons in NWH?

There is a lesson in Multiverse of Madness, several to be the case.

Spoilers explaining below.

The "Are you happy?" line is repeated, and if you pay attention at the end you get the lesson that often people lie about the answer to this question and sometimes you have to admit to yourself that you are not happy. And you don't need to be happy for other people, just yourself.

Strange always having to "hold the knife." Strange had to learn that he doesn't need to to be the one to solve everything. While this is somewhat repeated from the first movie, Strange needed to see he had to trust more people and not always have the plan himself. He needed to put his faith in others.

It also built on the ending of Wandavision dealing with grief and not allowing oneself to spiral into darkness and become someone they are not. It doesn't do that good of a job here with how the end it with Wanda, but it does end with Wanda recognizing she has to end the Darkhold's threat and take responsibility too. That is yet another lesson.

I honestly haven't seen a Marvel movie where it was devoid of lessons, so I don't get their complaint.

- - - Updated - - -

Spiderman is the one exception recently.

However that movie made me lose my respect for Dr Strange's character. They made him an idiot to make the plot happen and it ruins him the same way if you saw Captain America compromising on his morals or Stark going back to selling terrorists weapons. They continued it into this movie, making him an idiot so their plot can happen.

He isn't really an idiot in the movie. He is the character as he has been shown in Dr Strange, Infinity War, Endgame, and No Way Home. He has the answers, and he knows what is best so he does what he feels like. It isn't idiocy, it is arrogance.

[Claymore]

Honestly, I didn't really like the movie.

I fully acknowledge I have a weaker stomach than most, but it really was too graphic for my liking. From the gruesome level of detail of the monster's eye being "plucked" at the beginning, to an absolutely horrifying series of deaths for the Illuminati, I genuinely felt nauseous.

There's no way in hell this movie should've been PG-13, though. That's the easiest R I've ever seen.

Of course, the movies aren't made for me specifically, and I imagine most people are totally fine with that stuff. It just kind of crossed the line for me, personally, where I was no longer really "enjoying" the movie. Those scenes were shocking and disturbing enough, it just kind of ruined the rest of the movie for me.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Honestly, I didn't really like the movie.

I fully acknowledge I have a weaker stomach than most, but it really was too graphic for my liking. From the gruesome level of detail of the monster's eye being "plucked" at the beginning, to an absolutely horrifying series of deaths for the Illuminati, I genuinely felt nauseous.

There's no way in hell this movie should've been PG-13, though. That's the easiest R I've ever seen.

Of course, the movies aren't made for me specifically, and I imagine most people are totally fine with that stuff. It just kind of crossed the line for me, personally, where I was no longer really "enjoying" the movie. Those scenes were shocking and disturbing enough, it just kind of ruined the rest of the movie for me.

Use spoiler tags please.

[Fencers]

And yes, the audience does dictate. They always do. If you aren't saying something people are interested in, they don't listen.

An audience is still incapable of dictating the presentation despite being uninterested in listening.

There is no getting around this- it is the literal meaning of audience. An audience does not dictate the opinion. It has never been such since like, B.C. times.

Except that is the exact purpose for movie and book critics

Nope.

Otherwise, all it is someone stating an opinion

Yup.

and no one needs to listen to an opinion.

They don't. Wanting to hear it is wholly your prerogative. if you want to seek out a review that's up to you. The critic offers it to those interested in listening.

The audience of the critic listens for the purpose of hearing their thoughts and for a wide group is is for recommendations.

This is not the case.

Wrong, again. The audience chooses who to listen to. That dictates what is provided. If a critic isn't providing the audience something they want, they don't listen.

Dude, no. You're just choosing not to listen. You are not dictating the opinion. These are two different things.

Quite incorrect.

No, I am completely correct. You don't know what you are talking about, frankly. There is no professional outlet or media studies curriculum that follows the logic you present.

Even critics in the past have admitted they were out of touch with the general audience. Or that they had misjudged a movie for various reasons that they audience saw and they didn't.

Uh, sure. That's just changing your mind. I have changed my mind on films as well. Siskel & Ebert did so on their show on occasion- I recall Ebert changing Siskle's opinion midshow once. I also recall a critic from the LA Times (IIRC) having a change of mind on a David Lynch picture.

People don't have to keep the same opinion. They can and do change their minds.

This is where you are a hypocrite, because that isn't what I mean and you know that. This isn't what I explained to you.

But it's essentially what you want. Agreeing or disagreeing with someone "judging" a film on the same criteria as yourself is already a confirmation that what you think is important is the same as the reviewer.

That isn't their purpose. Katie Walsh reviews a film based on her criteria, sends it to her publisher for distribution. You, the reader, are free to read this review or not. The impetuous of reading Walsh's review, critics are given by-lines for a reason dude, is for her perspective. Maybe she loves these types of films, maybe she doesn't. But the intention is, "I wonder what Katie Walsh thinks of this picture?"

And that is historically the entire point of art criticism. To the point of being a trope- the particular critic whose review can make/break an endeavor. For example, Ratatouille or Malcom & Marie.

[Devilyaki]

3/5 it had some good moments but overall not the best. Seem less a Doctor Strange movie and more about the others in the film.

[Darththeo]

But it's essentially what you want. Agreeing or disagreeing with someone "judging" a film on the same criteria as yourself is already a confirmation that what you think is important is the same as the reviewer.

No, you do not get to be dishonest person. You do not get to say what I technically want because you have chosen to demand I listen to you and you get to pretend what I said. I was going to continue this but because you don't care to listen to what I said, we are done.

And the fact you seem to be two people judging on the same criteria means confirmation makes be believe you don't review anything. Because there are tons of reviewers who use the "same criteria" as each other, but get wildly different opinions. We are done, because you appear to have to lie to make your point.

[ClassicPeon]

This doesn't make sense. I am not sure why you would even want that out of a professional review. I can not think of any scholarly or professional critic with such an agenda.

?? Makes perfect sense. I'm not sure what agenda you are talking about but the literal reason why those people have jobs is so people can get an idea what they are going into. Otherwise literally what would the point of the job be? Why would people pay other people for that ?

I am not sure what is the intent, purpose, or value here.

Ok. Its pretty straight forward so i'm not sure how it can miss that much. The intend is to show how far off the general critique is from the publics opinion. The reason is stated in my previous paragraph.

This doesn't make sense either. Entertainment is an art. Art is entertaining. It is why humans make and enjoy art. There is no difference between reviewing Citizen Kane or Fargo and Gunpowder Milkshake.

In the year 2021, I saw 163 newly released motion pictures. 140 in 2020, 171 in 2019, 193 films in 2018. None of this inclusive of films I watched later (ex. perhaps not released in my country in that year) or watching an older film. That is strictly newly released in the US films of that respective calendar year. And that isn't even close to the number of films people I know who work in the industry see in a year.

I greatly enjoy cinema. Critics greatly enjoy cinema.

As I said, a professional review is essentially an editorial. Not a recommendation engine or confirmation click. What you might be looking for, wrongly as well, is a conversation in film critque. Which is not the purpose. That is what things such as this thread are for.

It makes perfect sense but you misunderstood the point. The point wasnt to divide critiques into 24 sub categories. The point was to divide critiques into 2 categories - people mostly in line with the public opinion and people who are not. The people who are not can then slowly loose their job because why would they even have one to begin with. As much as you want to say that a professional review is an editorial and not a recommendation - that is however the only actual value the review has. Its literally the only reason they get paid.

It sounds like some people are trying to put themselves on a pedistal here tbh. Its review making - its not rocket science.

I have never seen a professional reviewer do such a thing ever in their film critique. I have been an avid filmgoer and cinephile for over 35 years, went to film school, wrote reviews professionally, and follow the industry closely.

I've seen plenty. Filmmakers aswell. Here is an example of Martin Scorsese:
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-a9154621.html

The Academy Award voters nominate and vote for stuff they think are good films. Work they think is particularly remarkable. They are not there to reinforce things that are popular, per se. Only a relatively small number of box office blockbusters have ever even been nominated historically. So it's never been a thing the AA were nominating all the most popular films of the day.

Their highest & best ratings in recent years had several fairly marginal box office performers nominated and winning.

The academy is dying because people are tired of art movies winning all the prices. Movies people literally dont see. Going to completely avoid all the agenda bs stuff because thats just useless. People would definitely tune into the Oscars again if they started giving away oscars to movies people actually want to see.

- - - Updated - - -

What a utilitarian and pedestrian way to look at art. "If their interpretation isn't useful to the vox populi, it is invalid" is literally the opposite of what art is about, and thus the review/critique of art.

Being an artist is a privilege. You are an artist because people give a shit about what you make. If you dont make anything interesting - feel free to call yourself an artist but also do not expect social welfare.

An artist is not an uberhuman.

[Makabreska]

The academy is dying because people are tired of art movies winning all the prices. Movies people literally dont see. Going to completely avoid all the agenda bs stuff because thats just useless. People would definitely tune into the Oscars again if they started giving away oscars to movies people actually want to see.

Oh ye, we all member Scorcese calling MCU movies "not cinema". I think some of them are too high up their arses.

[Dystemper]

Was not good. Saw parents take their kids out because of the graphic violence.

[Kiria]

Honestly I liked the movie but it was far too graphic than what I was expecting especially the illuminate... genuinely shocked with this movie.

[Fencers]

Otherwise literally what would the point of the job be? Why would people pay other people for that ?

That's not the point of their job. Art critics are not recommendation engines. That has never ever been the purpose of the Art Critic.

Do not confuse the platform of publication for the Art Critic. These are separate things and because you may have an intake of amateur reviews on modern platforms does not mean Kael or Lemire wrote pieces of critique to recommend My Dinner With Andre to you.

Ok. Its pretty straight forward so i'm not sure how it can miss that much. The intend is to show how far off the general critique is from the publics opinion. The reason is stated in my previous paragraph.

Yea, but it doesn't make sense because it is not a thing critics care about or are aiming to service. By the way, critic and audience reviews are not far apart on Doctor Strange 2- the average rating between audience and critic is only a half grade apart currently.

It makes perfect sense but you misunderstood the point. The point wasnt to divide critiques into 24 sub categories. The point was to divide critiques into 2 categories - people mostly in line with the public opinion and people who are not. The people who are not can then slowly loose their job because why would they even have one to begin with. As much as you want to say that a professional review is an editorial and not a recommendation - that is however the only actual value the review has. Its literally the only reason they get paid.

This absolutely is not the case. Critics do not even get "paid" for such a thing either. I highly doubt an editor at the LA Times is going to have this criterion for a professional art critic under their employ; because they don't, Ben Welsh would laugh at your notion. Dave White or Tony Lane aren't going to lose their jobs because they fail to reflect public opinion either. LOL

Also, there are only actually two types of art criticism; academic and journalistic.

I've seen plenty. Filmmakers aswell. Here is an example of Martin Scorsese:

Yea, that is not Scorsese giving a review. He was not offering a critique of a film, Scorsese was making a contextual statement on his view of current cinema trends.

I have never seen a professional critic do what you suggest, ever.

The academy is dying because people are tired of art movies winning all the prices. Movies people literally dont see. Going to completely avoid all the agenda bs stuff because thats just useless. People would definitely tune into the Oscars again if they started giving away oscars to movies people actually want to see.

Yet I just told you their highest ratings did not typically feature "popular" movies. The years Braveheart and Titanic released were the highest-rated Oscars in the 70+ year history of the event.

This also has nothing to do with art critics. The academy awards are awards Hollywood gives to themselves. It's their own thing.

Professional Critics have their own yearly award events such as the LA Film Critics Association or New York Film Critics Circle.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you do not get to be dishonest person. You do not get to say what I technically want because you have chosen to demand I listen to you and you get to pretend what I said. I was going to continue this but because you don't care to listen to what I said, we are done.

And the fact you seem to be two people judging on the same criteria means confirmation makes be believe you don't review anything. Because there are tons of reviewers who use the "same criteria" as each other, but get wildly different opinions. We are done, because you appear to have to lie to make your point.

You don't know what you are talking about, brother.

[eschatological]

Being an artist is a privilege. You are an artist because people give a shit about what you make. If you dont make anything interesting - feel free to call yourself an artist but also do not expect social welfare.

An artist is not an uberhuman.

Every artist I know is an artist because they're compelled by something they want to say inside them. They don't make art to be appreciated by others, but almost as a cathartic release, for themselves. I know that's how I feel when I write.

Your attitude is just pretty philistine in general.

[Fencers]

Doctor Strange 2 is second lowest Cinemascore, THE industry standard of audience reception, among all the MCU films. General audience gave Strange 2 a B+ (3.3).

[exochaft]

Every artist I know is an artist because they're compelled by something they want to say inside them. They don't make art to be appreciated by others, but almost as a cathartic release, for themselves. I know that's how I feel when I write.

Your attitude is just pretty philistine in general.

It depends on the artist, as they are as varied as any human. I know I'm with you when it comes to things I create: it is a cathartic release, and I make it for myself in general... although if people ask me to create for them, I can do both enjoy my craft and give the customer something they want.

However, there are some artists who are more depraved in their nature, where they thrive on the affirmation of others. Classic example is Hollywood actors/directors/writers: I would consider some of them artistic in their craft, but many cannot live without believing they are the center of the universe... and this can get to the point where they want everyone else to affirm as much. They lack any sense of grounding, changing their identity every day because they seek the attention and validation by others. I just mentioned Hollywood because it's the most visible to the average person, but such a mentality extends into anything that could be considered an artistic field. Now, this should not discount everyone in Hollywood, because there are some rare exceptions who don't let the success go to their heads.

Anyways, more on the movie: I'd describe it as an amalgamation of two competing visions. The first was Raimi, as you can tell via the visual presentation, camera use/angles, and just general execution and flow of the scenes... if you've seen his works, especially films like Evil Dead, it's so obvious where his hand had control in this film. The second was... well, best described as the trite MCU we've come to expect with heavy overtones of executive/corporate manipulation.

Without going into every single detail about the film (as that would be a looooong post), the only thing that was remotely interesting were the parts of the film that were obviously Raimi's work... because they were interesting and engaging. You could tell to fully embrace what Raimi probably wanted to do if Disney Marvel wasn't interfering, the movie probably needed an R rating... I mean they kind of flirted with it, and I wouldn't doubt if the original cut would've been considered R if rumors are to be believed. You can tell Raimi reeeeeeally wanted a horror film for MoM, and that's what we were sold initially. Yes, this would likely cut out the younger crowd from the film, but honestly I don't see kids really being interested in this film to begin with. You're more likely to get parents dragging along kids because they want to see it... I couldn't even convince my kid to come who actually wanted to see No Way Home.

With respect to the plot and writing, movie's bad... very bad. You can absolutely tell that Raimi was only told some highlights (not all of them) concerning Wandavision, and you have to basically ignore the implications of the Loki series and the mechanics of time/multiverse as they presented it (to be fair, Loki series was very inconsistent with its own rules, so expecting this film to be consistent is asking for a lot). The worst parts of the film reek of the Disney Marvel corporate sludge, and this includes the writing and plot points. It's very inconsistent in general outside of the mechanics of the multiverse itself, with the Disney Marvel standard of characters having to be out-of-character dumb to make their plot happen. But when you watch how things play out, you can tell the script is more concerned about agenda and messaging, not having the movie make sense.

There was a reeeeeally funny scene, and myself and others busted out laughing when it happened. It was the bee scene... and those who have seen the movie know what I'm talking about, and how this scene was not meant to be funny. However, this is just par for the course for the Marvel writing in this current phase, where they end up being ironically funny when trying to be serious, and also being not funny when trying to be funny. What Disney Marvel is giving us is sinking to B-movie levels of writing, they just have a larger budget and established franchise name ID to keep it rolling in the cash. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that while the movie will make money compared to other films on the market right now, it's not going to make nearly as much money as Disney would want and likely projected.

If there ever was a Raimi cut of this film, I'd actually be more interested in seeing that than seeing this version of MoM again.

[Ielenia]

First time we see Xavier and Reed Richards in the MCU and they get absolutely jobbed by Scarlet Witch - do people even like her?

Take solace in the fact they're not in the main MCU universe, just from another dimension.

That said... I was expecting to see Charles Xavier in the movie, but I certainly wasn't expecting to see him in the iconic hovering golden chair from the 90's show, and hearing the iconic X-Men music from the same show?!

I almost squealed. Nah, that's a lie. I did squeal.

That said... I think a few things in this movie were either severely underutilized, but also misused. Wanda, controlling a multi-dimensional being like Shuma-Gorath? As for underutilized things, I think "evil Strange" and the "Illuminati" thing could've been its own movie. They were felt... rushed.

Also, god damn, Wanda was so unnecessarily brutal and monstrous in killing the Illuminati. Poor Mr. Fantastic and Black Bolt....

[Makabreska]

Take solace in the fact they're not in the main MCU universe, just from another dimension.

That said... I was expecting to see Charles Xavier in the movie, but I certainly wasn't expecting to see him in the iconic hovering golden chair from the 90's show, and hearing the iconic X-Men music from the same show?!

I almost squealed. Nah, that's a lie. I did squeal.

That said... I think a few things in this movie were either severely underutilized, but also misused. Wanda, controlling a multi-dimensional being like Shuma-Gorath? As for underutilized things, I think "evil Strange" and the "Illuminati" thing could've been its own movie. They were felt... rushed.

Also, god damn, Wanda was so unnecessarily brutal and monstrous in killing the Illuminati. Poor Mr. Fantastic and Black Bolt....

I was under the impression that John Krasinski was supposed to play Mr F, in upcoming F4. Because if he does, then it would be awkward. Why not bring back Ioan Gruffudd for that small role? MCU is not bothered with tapping into "less then stellar" movies, as we seen in No Way Home (no Miles Teller though, that would be too much :v). I am not bothered that alternate universe versions of already established characters got owned, I have problems with the new ones that got introduced. It was HORRIBLE first impression for Mr F and Blackbolt. Like, both huuuuge and powerful Marvel characters, yet they got owned so easily while they powers weren't even properly shown.

[Vakir]

The hand wringing over the content is the funniest shit I've ever seen.

1995 Jumanji was more intense than this.

[VMSmith]

I've not seen the film, but I did end up thoroughly spoiled. From what I've learned I have no interest in watching this one right now. I'll probably give it a go when it comes to streaming, but I'm not excited about it. This is just not what I want from comic stories. For me, this film has ruined a bunch of characters and soured me on the MCU, in general, though I imagine Thor L&T will cure that.

I'm sure many people enjoyed this, but it just doesn't sound like I'm the intended audience for the movie.