Batman vs Superman wasn't a horrible movie. Sure, it was no Captain America: Civil War, but it was no Troll 2 either. It didn't deserve the mere 27% the critics gave it on Rotten Tomato. The 66% audience score was more accurate.
Why such a bad score from critics? It seemed to me like it became a fad to rag on it, nit-pick, and slam every single little detail. It was almost like a conspiracy, how all of the critics formed a coalition against the movie. Maybe it is a conspiracy. With the success of Marvel Studios, the comic book medium has invaded the movie industry and is winning big. Perhaps the studios are collaborating to box out Blizzard from having inter-medium success from their current empire in video gaming. Perhaps not.
Perhaps Batman vs Superman's poor box office sales can be attributed to this inexplicable allied resistance against it. I know dozens of people who didn't go see it in theaters because of the poor critic reviews.
That completely defeats the purpose of reviews. Reviews were conceptualized--first for books, and then for movies when they were invented--so that people didn't waste their valuable time on something that wasn't worth seeing or reading. Sure, if a movie is actually horrible, tear it to pieces. But to underrate a good movie, thus destroying its box office sales, losing the studio millions of dollars, that is not only irresponsible, but that is wrong.
This is why I am so ticked off about the 26% rating critics are giving Warcraft. It wasn't a decent movie that deserved a slightly better rating. It's a fantastic movie that deserves the highest ratings. Audiences are giving it 83%. I personally would give it 95%!
Why?
In my opinion, there are 5 things that make a good movie:
1. Plot
"There are plenty of flaws--the overabundance of storylines chief among them," says Matthew Lickona, San Diego Reader.
I argue that having a singular plot is what children's movies do. Having a main overarching plot, with several intertwined subplots not only is more interesting and engaging, but contributes to the realism and character development with the film. Sure, too many subplots (like in Batman vs Superman) can cause confusion, detract from the main plot, and take up time uselessly; but all of the subplots in Warcraft not only contributed beautifully to the development of the main plot, but also set up the movie for a fantastic franchise of future movies. In fact, many people I have spoken to have expressed that Warcraft has the best plot of any movie they've seen in years, and I have to agree. I would even venture to say that it beats out Captain America: Civil War when it comes to plot.
If Mr. Lickona doesn't like a realistic and dynamic subplot, perhaps he should book his tickets for the world premiere of the next Barney movie.
According to Chris Sawin, Examiner.com, Warcraft is "one-dimensional". Rebecca Murray of Showbiz Junkies furthers "The Warcraft video games apparently have a complex story, but the feature film keeps it all at the surface level." So is the movie too complicated or too simple? Mr. Lickona says one thing and Mr. Sawin and Ms. Murray another. Did y'all watch the same movie?
I don't know how many levels of inception Ms. Murray is used to if she considers the intricate plot of Warcraft as "surface level", but this junkie of showbiz needs to find a new dealer, because she is smoking some real cheap crack.
2. Internal Conflict
Most of us learned in our middle school English class the 5 types of literary conflict: man vs man, man vs society, man vs nature, man vs technology, and man vs self.
It is man vs self—the internal torment of an individual in the crucible of decision-making—when everything is on the line. It is that which is truly intriguing. No good movie or book has lacked it. It is this conflict which truly matters, and to which the audience can relate. I have never faced an enemy Army, fought to survive through a hurricane, or done battle with a supercomputer, but I have been paralyzed by decisions, ones where eternity seems to hang in the balance. So I can relate to the inner conflict of a character.
James Berardinelli, ReelView, claims there is an absence of "meaningful narrative". But seeing as he gave Sex Drive positive reviews—a movie about a friend's quest to help his best friend lose his virginity, and setting him up for a one-night-stand in order to "rectify the undesirable condition"—we can clearly see that his definition of "meaningful" is spot-on.
Every character in Warcraft goes through inner turmoil. Which is more important for Durotan, loyalty to the Horde, or loyalty to his clan? Should Gorona pursue her love interest in Lothar? Should Orgrim betray Durotan? Should Durotan forgive him after this betrayal? How can Callan gain his father's love and approval? How can king Llane unite the kingdoms against the Orcs? Should he play the offensive, or stick to defense?
As you can see, there is definitely not a lack of anything meaningful in Warcraft.
3. Character Development
James Berardinelli also remarks that there is "absence of well-formed characters". I could write an entire paragraph on each of the main characters, based solely on what I know from the movie! In fact, maybe I will:
Durotan is a fierce chieftain. He places honor before all else. He loves his clan and will take any risk to protect them. He will always do what is right, no matter the cost. He has a strong and healthy relationship with his wife; they trust each other greatly. He has a sense of humor and likes to tease those he is close to.
Garona is half-human, half-Orc. Her mother was killed for giving birth to her. Ever since, she has been a slave to Gul'dan. She doesn't feel like she has a home or a people she can call her own. She is confused by her feelings for Lothar, and how the Human culture contrasts with the Orc values she was raised with. She wants to be loved and accepted but is confused about how she can achieve that.
Lothar is the Commander of the armies of the Alliance. His wife died in childbirth, bearing him a son, Callan. He hates his son for this. He is noble, strong, and cunning. He will stop at nothing to protect the king and the kingdom. He is uncompromising and sometimes stubborn. His relationship with his sister, Lady Taria, wife and queen of King Llane, has been shaky in recent years, although he tries his best to reach out to her.
King Llane is wise and respected. He is loved by his people. The safety of his people and his kingdom is paramount. Although king, he is willing to take advice from others, and to adapt if need be.
I could continue with Khadgar, Medivh, Orgrim, Blackhand etc, but you get the point: absolute lack of character development, as can be clearly seen. But James' review makes sense: he is your basic white chick. Based on the no-brand cardigan and Coke-bottle glasses in his profile pic, and the general lack of personality in his writing style, I would say Mr. Berardinelli is the epitome of an ill-formed character.
4. Realism
The CGI, though admittedly not the most incredible in movie history, was realistic and believable.
The complex plot and astounding character development I have already expounded on furthered the realism.
The world, though fantastic, was believable, and it didn't seem to have no rules (such as the Pirates of the Caribbean series), or ever-changing rules (like the Transformers franchise, where they seem to have inexplicable new abilities every movie). Although the movie didn't go into a lot of expository of the world or the kingdoms, you didn't feel confused.
5. Cinematography
Awesome shots. Awesome angles. Great lighting choices. Case closed.
---------------------------
A further rebuttal of some of the poor reviews will also shed light on why the movie was so awesome.
Apparently, the movie was confusing.
David Sims of The Atlantic reports "This is a film that requires an instruction manual going in." Will Leitch of The New Republic adds his two cents, "Warcraft is a language you can't speak, a code you can't crack, a party you weren't invited to." Well, this "leach" can quit sucking the blood of good movies, and go back to the Old Republic, because I am definitely not inviting him to any of my parties. Although I appreciate your clever rhetoric, where I come from, we have to back up our claims, and neither you nor your colleagues have provided any reasons as to why the movie is confusing.
High School dropouts from the hood saw this movie with me, and they understood it. How do two supposedly educated men such as Mr. Sims and Mr. Leach (misspelling intentional) not understand it? Furthermore, both these critics claim that only fans can enjoy or understand the movie. However, I know several people with absolutely no background in Warcraft that understood the movie completely, and said it was one of the best they've seen in a while.
Mr. Leach says he was confused by there being a variety of species in the movie. He specifically mentioned elves. Ugh...it's a fantasy movie, big guy. You're actually surprised that there are elves in a fantasy movie? Perhaps Mr. Sims should lend you his instruction manual so you can figure out what elves are. I mean I know you might not have seen or read The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, you might have even missed out on "The Elves and the Shoemaker" fairy tale, but have you really gone your entire life without hearing about Santa Claus? Wow.
It's ok Mr. Sims and Mr. Leach, I hear that they will be providing instruction manuals at the door when Finding Dory is released. I hope you are able to understand what is happening, with all the variety of fish species.
Scott Mendelson of Forbes says "you'll need a strategy guide to get through this one". Mr. Mendelson must need a strategy guide to take a piss. This movie wasn't confusing at all! Do they only hire imbeciles to do movie reviews? Do people need the plot explained to them like 5-year-olds are told fairy tales? The only thing that is confusing is how these critics are confused by the masterful plot!
Comic Relief
Matthew Lickona continues, saying there is the "occasional slip into silly". But not any more so than any Marvel movie. But the comic relief adds, rather than detracts. Just like in Marvel movies, it adds to the realism of the film and assists with character development.
It Was Boring
Roger Moore, Movie Nation, states, "I was bored out of my skull." And Jesse Hassenger of Brooklyn Magazine, believes "It's probably a minor miracle that only twenty or thirty minutes of its 120ish are outright boring." Moore and Hassenger must be from Syria and see explosions on an hourly basis to find this movie boring. I was on the edge of my seat the entire movie! I hardly blinked! And this is coming from a guy who has blaphospasms, an eye disease causing continuous and intense blinking.
Not a Good Stand-alone
Peter Howell, Toronto Star, says "Ultimately the movie seems more focused on setting up sequels than exploring the abundant source material."
Wait, didn't The Force Awakens do that exact thing? And you gave it 4 stars! Disney threw thousands of awesome Star Wars books and comics in the furnace, declaring them "not canon", then made a carbon copy of "A New Hope", which the only purpose was to set up sequels. I'll never understand Canadians.
My opinion? This movie does not have "closure" in your traditional Disney sense. In the end, there no one clear winner, but also, no one suffered an irreparable loss (similar to the ending of Captain America: Civil War). It isn't a frustrating cliffhanger with no resolution, but it wasn't packaged neatly into a happily-ever-after box either, as enough loose ends were left untied as to allow for plenty of creative liberty developing a sequel. This adds to the realism of the movie. Not every conflict in life has a cookie-cutter happy ending. I left satisfied, yet excited (but not unnecessarily anxious) for the next film. Overall, it's a stupendous stand-alone.
No Emotional Involvement
Aww...our beloved Chris Sawin again. "You feel and remember nothing once it's over." You, like Deadpool's Francis, must have had all of your nerve endings fried to feel nothing after this movie. Without going into spoilers, main characters die in this movie, and you feel it! I've already expanded on inner conflict and character development in this movie, and you feel what those characters are feeling! You empathize. You feel angry at betrayal, frustrated at defeat, joy in love, and sorrow in death. Very few movies have gotten me emotionally involved to this level.
I hope that the adamantium bullet that erased your memories didn't hurt too bad Mr. Sawin. I'm assuming that's what happened. It would be a shame to naturally have such bad memory, being a movie critic and all. Wasting an average of 2 hours per movie and not being able to remember anything when it's over! Dude that sucks! Also...how do you write your reviews?
---------------------------------------
After an analysis of 126 reviews, I have come to the conclusion that the majority of critics have quite a talent for being vague. It may come off as an attempt to avoid spoilers, but really, it's a reflection of a complete lack of writing prowess. Not a single critic who bashed Warcraft provided any solid support for their claims. I, on the contrary, have backed up my opinion, while avoiding spoilers.
Critics shouldn't be allowed to write reviews until after the first 2 weeks in the box office: let the trailers and the viewers do the talking. Furthermore, critics who hate superhero movies shouldn't be allowed to write reviews on superhero movies. Those who hate horror, should be banned from writing reviews about horror. Furthermore, there should probably be critics to critique critics. I've actually kind of already started that here...and it was quite fun!
Coming full circle, Warcraft is underrated, so you should ignore these critics, and see the movie anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment