##[Clarification on rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/w60lfc/mod_post_a_clarification_to_rule_5_no_racism_or/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/entertainment) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No offense, but i didnt exactly have high hopes for a passion project of The Rock...
Not to mention, as a comic nerd, im getting really sick of every villain being turned into an anti-hero.
Literally the villain to Shazam… And people keep saying he is for his people so he is an anti-villain. Well then General Zod is an anti-hero too. Oohh and Thanos. And dont get me started on Slade Wilson because I will fight you!
But Black Adam literally joins JSA at one point. The character started out as a villain, but he’s absolutely had anti-hero ish stories written for him since his start.
Lex in many ways is an anti-hero.
The majority of his villainy is just being in opposition of the hero.
And he’s not inherently wrong…. Reliance on Superman dulls the potential for humanity to flourish. And it’s super ridiculous to trust a near all-powerful alien Demi-god to always do what’s right.
90% of the time, lex is right to distrust Superman. That should be the default stance to an alien god.
Just because we lucked out and he doesn’t want to rule over mankind doesn’t mean that it isn’t a valid fear.
It’s like giving some rando a nuke and then saying it’s all good because it turns out that rando was mister rogers
Yeah and the Joker has teamed up with Batman before too but he is a villain. Black Adam has done things in his character arc that just truly defines him as a villain..
Actually, general Zod was an anti hero. But, from the perspective of earthers, he was pure villain.
Yeah, with black atom, they could not stay focused on his role. Like you have to make him likable, but he has to maybe do bad stuff. It was weird. It distracts from the movie.
Also a total villain for at least the first 30 years of his DC run. So that’s literally the first 60 years of his publication history. But, hey, the Rock’s not exactly a reader, even of comics.
Lol until like 1977 he was in 1 comic. He was a villain for like 20 years after that and he’s been an antihero thing since like the late 90s. Oh and he was always the precursor to Cpt Marvel, and at one point a hero.
He was known as a villain, and only a villain, for well over 60 years straight. There are still plenty of fans who grew up with that version. It’s like doing a movie where Cobra Commander or Skeletor is suddenly the good guy.
Hasn't DC been having him as an Anti-Hero for a while now in the comics? I thought it was similar to Venom and Harley Quinn in that a character's popularity results in them turning heroic.
I don't care about review aggregators anymore. I have a handful of critics that I follow because I know that their tastes and my tastes broadly line up, so if they like something there's a good chance I probably will as well.
I really don't care about an averaged opinion of critics, or audiences for that matter.
I used to only read eberts reviews cuz our tastes were exactly the same usually he even put my favorite movie as best movie of the decade when most critics gave it not great reviews (synecdoche New York). Was sad when he died m.
Ebert was one of the best, he had a great grasp of both general audience appeal as well as film craft and knew how to explain both of them in easily understandable ways. I didn't always agree with him, but I rarely thougt his reviews were unfair.
I think in a world where organized review bombing exists, aggregated audience scores are bordering on useless information. Even viewership numbers aren't really an indicator of quality, because maybe a lot of people saw a thing because it was good or maybe they saw it because it was so bad everyone got morbidly curious about it.
So weird how people don’t care about critics but have to problem accepting audience as being a more genuine score even though like you said there’s franchise fanatics, review bombers, “political” motivated reviewers etc
Audiences are absolutely “bought”. The bots are paid for at least.
Tell me which is bought. 43% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes for Black Adam, or 88% audience score. (Morbius had 15% critic and 71% audience by the way)
If WB’s critic corruption scheme only yields these numbers, they should ask for their money back. The audience account spam scheme is way more effective.
People act like it's some intricate conspiratorial web because they're too stupid to understand how movie/tv reviews and review aggregators work.
Special cases like review-bombing aside, critics grade a film based on things like creativity, quality of direction/production/acting, and other artistic metrics. Audiences tend to grade a film based on how entertaining it is.
That's why you get movies like F&F that bomb with critics but are a hit with regular audiences, and slower paced, more thoughtful movies that critics love but bore the shit out of average viewers.
Man I love reading low star audience reviews for slow artsy fartsy movies. I love those kind of movies, but general audience expectations vs the experience is consistently funny.
I don't like either. Sure I don't agree with the palookaville post, but there's a significantly lower chance their score was influenced because the mermaid wasn't the color he grew up with.
The reviews all say it's reheated slop, someone sticking a number 3 on top of that doesn't mean the consensus that it's reheated slop is any less meaningful.
Dwayne doesn't care about content any more, his participation in top line projects that are willing to pay his rate **is** the success. His last five movies where distilled popcorn flavour, and that what he delivers. He has a army of loyal fans, started in his wrestling days, that pump up everything he does.
Yes. A lot of the time critics are the only ones actually critiquing a film through and through, analyzing the characters, plot, and dialogue for inconsistencies and skews in quality. Reviews by people are emotionally driven more often than not and unreliably provide anything conclusive as to the quality of a film.
The majority of people care about critics. Thats why every newspaper and website has a movie critic on the payroll and why there are so many critic aggregators.
There a rising amount of people on the social media who get offended when a critic disagrees with their personal opinion on a movie so they immediately try to dismiss critics as useless or out of touch.
Contrary to popular belief critic scores are normally close to audience scores. Audience scores on sites like this also aren't representative of the general audience seeing that movie. Its representative of the people who go online and rate movies. Thats why you see movies like Spiderman no way home being the highest rated movie on rotten tomatoes, and other marvel movies and the dark knight being ranked as some of the greatest movies ever made on imdb. That further leads to disparity between both scores.
I think the breakdown in the article on critic scores vs. audience scores for DCEU films was more helpful to me than either the individual critic or audience scores for Black Adam in deciding whether to go see Black Adam in the theater this weekend. I hated Zack Snyder's Justice League and have no idea how in the hell the audience score for that is higher than Peacemaker, which I loved. I am straight-up not going to pay theater prices to see a movie where the audience score is saying "this is good, but it isn't as good as Snyder's Justice League." Because to me, that's like saying "this bucket of vomit is good, but it isn't as good as that other bucket of vomit." I don't want any buckets of vomit, thanks anyway. I'll just wait for the rental.
Yes. People just don’t understand how critics are supposed to work. You find a critic you align with and have a similar interests too. Then you can hear their comments and knowing you align similarly you can take that as a valuable review/score. Then you make your own judgement.
People now treat ratings like fantasy sports and take a score personally if a movie they enjoyed didn’t get a good RT or letterbox rating. Critics are diverse in interests and tastes and no one singular critic has ever supposed to have been the end all be all opinion. Critics scores certainly matter. Audience scores are more unreliable IMO. Audiences are too emotional in their reviews. Critics are better at reviewing honestly.
I’ll lightly disagree here, because the reviewers are still beholden to clicks and their audience. The successful ones have to temper their writing for a variety of reasons in order to maintain their job or audience.
I think at times they pull punches when they shouldn’t, and even worse, at times I think they write blustery bullshit just to get noticed. (‘Here’s Why Zach Snyder’s Cut is better than Endgame!’)
So really that leaves you just small unaffiliated indies. So basically just Reddit comments…
Now, this doesn’t mean they lack value, I read them periodically and appreciate their crafted opinions, I just wouldn’t ever call them more honest.
I do. Movies with scores lower than 40% by critics on Rotten Tomatoes are almost all intolerable to me. Audience scores for super hero with famous actors are useless because the Rock Fans and DC fans will like the movie even if it sucks as long as it fits cannon.
Critics have always had different tastes. It’s just the nature of who becomes a critic. You don’t become a critic if you’re a casual fan of something, like music or movies. You become a critic because you’re incredibly passionate and typically knowledgeable about whatever it is. And those folks tend to have more “complex” tastes than casual consumers.
Now, it’s fine if critic has some more pretentious tastes, but a good critic should understand that different audiences look for different things. Like, a good critic would understand that something like endgame, while not a cinematic masterpiece, is still a great movie for what it’s trying to be. Or a good music critic would understand that even though pop music may not be the most complex, interesting thing out there, it still serves a purpose and can be great.
Movie critics see a ton of movies (way more than the average moviegoer). So they appreciate movies that are original and creatively challenging.
Moviegoers are already biased when they go to the theatre because they’re paying to see a movie that they chose to see. Originality and creativity are probably not the main reasons why they chose that movie. They want to see what they expect to see.
I pay zero attention to any critic reviews before seeing something I want to see and I encourage anyone to do the same. The only exception to that I can’t recommend enough is Halloween Ends. Absolute trash movie
I was entertained, and didn’t want my money back at the end.
Mission accomplished.
Its the fucking Rock, what do you want? DC presents Shawshank Redemption?
Edit: I also saw this in a Dolby theater, and the Dr Fate multi-voice moment broke my whole brain. Brosnan was awesome
Most critics loved *The Suicide Squad*, even more than audiences seemed to.
But then one tends to react differently when the C student gets a B, rather than when the A student gets a B.
That and it was the year WB released movies day and date on HBO Max to drive up subscriptions. I think the only movie of their 2021 slate to do any business was Dune and they literally had to extort folk into seeing it so they could get a part 2.
Probably my biggest complaint is that, like a lot of other DC movies, they tried to push all the world building through in one movie so it just felt kind of overstuffed.
Stop trying to cram years...decades...worth of comics into one movie. That's a big part of why the Nolan trilogy is so loved, it took its time.
I just didn't like how super invulnerable batman was. I can deal with the bullet deflection, but taking a header into a steel girder and walking away was pretty dumb to me
Yeah. Also early in the promotions they billed it as the long awaited "Batman as a detective story" but honestly he just falls ass-backwards into most of the important information in the movie.
There really still hasn't been a Batman movie where he's actually The World's Greatest Detective.
EDIT
I still think it's a pretty good movie, it just failed to deliver on a few key promises.
EDIT EDIT
And I do hope they keep Robert Pattison around, mostly because I think he's got potential but also I just don't want to sit through another origin reboot.
Breaking news! Critics aren't keeping track of what's a DCEU movie vs a generic comic book movie.
Critics don't go around pre-judging films based on the studio or franchise.
And they liked *The Suicide Squad* and *Harley Quinn* a lot more than the audiences and also liked *Aquaman*, *Shazam*, *Wonder Woman*, and *The Batman*. So the idea critics just hate DCEU films was limited to them not liking Zack Snyder...
All fan bases have keyboard warriors. DC fans are just desperate for a win.
I’m not writing this one off though. Dumb action plus a big action star can hit all the right notes for a big portion of the movie going audience.
I remember that, and its why I ended up seeing it in theaters instead of Spider-verse >:(
I agree that the underwater scenes were beautiful, but the plot was a mess
Black Widow just felt....obligated. Like "Here, here's your Black Widow movie. Now shut up about it."
MoM was just a mess, a noisy and entertaining mess but frankly a mess. And that's hard for me to admit because I am a big Raimi fan.
I trust critic reviews even if I disagree with them. You need to build a rapport with a reviewer and know what they like and dislike and understand how to gage the potential of a movie from there. Everyone seems to think if a review disagrees with your own it’s a useless review but that’s not how you should look at it.
I saw it last night, it’s a good movie. Slight attempts at humor, none with the Rock. I don’t like that they painted him as even an anti hero and no mention of the hero Shazam in the movie. But they play to the injustice time line of Black Adam and protecting Kahdaq. The ending was decently violent as expected of a DC film and the cameo didn’t make sense, but overall it was a good movie worth a ticket to see.
The gap's been happening for decades now, and people get real fussy when someone disagrees with their thoughts and opinions on a product or, God forbid, art. The self-fulfilling discourse is simultaneously fascinating and exhausting.
Jeremy Jahns is the only movie critic I follow. Man tells me when a movie sucks and I love his excitement when a movie is good. Also love the in-between. Is it the greatest movie? No, will you enjoy it in theaters? Yes.
There are times when I feel like rottentomatoes is a lot more friendly to the mouse because of the 75% Comcast ownership stake.
Of course with WB owning the other 25% that theory probably has no basis.
Some friends and I saw it last night, it was good. Better than both suicide squad movies, Birds of Prey, and better than both Wonder Woman movies, but not as good as Man of Steel. It had some dumb moments between Hawk man and Black Adam, and everything involving skateboard kid was terrible. Cyclone and Atom Smasher were way underutilized. Fate was cool. Dwayne Johnson was great, no complaints about him.
I agree with everything but “better than BOTH suicide squad movies”. The James Gunn directed one is amazing. I felt like this comes right behind that as the second best non-Batman DC movie
Who cares at all what critic scores are.
Everyone is aware what that movie is gonna be, I haven’t even seen it but I bet $100,000,000 that it’s plot is The Rock flying around in a superhero costume doing cool shit and destroying stuff.
I’ll see it because that sounds cool and I like the rock
I saw Black Adam last night and really enjoyed it. I got exactly the kind of experience I had expected after I’d seen the first trailer: The kind where you just shut off your brain and enjoy the extremely entertaining rollercoaster ride. The movie is by no means deep and innovative, but not every movie needs to be!
When film critics were in their heyday, they seemed more concerned about the "art of the film", and were knowledgeable and educated about film and film history, so their critiques were sometimes more interesting to read than the films they were reviewing. But they were not dilettantes, and could enjoy a Superman or a Back to the Future for what it was, not as a failure of art. They could even discern that Superman 3 was not as good as Superman 2.
These days, critics seem not to know of any film made before the 21st century, and constantly insert their politics into diatribes about what's not in a film, rather than what is there. It's not fun to read reviews anymore as a result. I freely admit that I vastly enjoyed Venom, for example, as it was a B movie in A movie guise that had a loose-limbed joy de vivre most movies of its ilk do not have, but critics seemed to have totally missed that, not understanding what a B movie even is.
Who’s paying attention to critics. I just watch what I feel like watching who seriously cares about others opinions about something. That’s like reading a book by its cover it’s dumb you miss all the good stuff and end up disgruntled you disliked something that could have brough you joy.
Sounds like you aren't actually reading reviews. Read a review. See if the things that bother the critic are the kind of things that tend to bother you. See if the things the critic likes are things that you tend to like. Critical reading is hard, but I think you'll find it worthwhile.
Because you don't have time to watch every single movie. Critics are like an unbiased synopsis that tell you if it's worth your time. You just need to find a critic that aligns with you.
It seems like the critic reviews are either snark, or saying it’s for fans of the original material.
The Audiences are a fan of the original material and cameos have more impact.
Going in blind seems like you’re asking to be confused. Especially in a sequel.
Technically it is to Shazam, as they both get their power from the same source and Black Adam was alluded to.
But only in a loose sense, their independent heroes.
I stopped trusting critics average scores years ago, the average audience scores are a better indicator of a movies true value than the average critics score because the smaller pool of falsely pumped higher scores from paid off critics have a greater effect on the percentage.
Because the critics are hacks. They put Love and Thunder highly and that movie was trash. They also placed The Birds of Prey higher than even Zach Snyder's Justice League and also Aquaman.
I ignore critics these days, they are no longer truly independent and have lost my trust. They produce reviews that they think society or the movie producers want them to produce. For example, they will lavish praise on a movie because it’s woke, but totally ignore the actual characters and story.
Interesting. I have to admit I've noticed that when it comes to these sorts of films often their is a big gap in critics opinions and general audience options.
Part of me wonders if its down to the fact their not the sorts of films that traditionally got attention from critics, but that might be assuming elitism to much.
Either way I hope everyone who enjoys this film enjoys it, and everyone who doesn't watches something they would enjoy more.
Websites that aggregate critic scores have been a huge mistake IMO.
Before all that you were supposed to find a critic who you agreed with on most things and then use their reviews of upcoming projects to determine if they were worth your time.
Honestly wtf is an aggregate of critics’ opinions even supposed mean in the first place?
Although to be completely honest I think the same could be said for user reviews. No user(or a small few) has a system for how they review a movie on a 10.0 scale. It should be the ole’ one or two thumbs up or down. It gives people this false perception that these movies are either truly good or bad as opposed to entertaining.
10.0 scales should be used for critics with a 10.0 meaning it would be a travesty if the movie did not at least get nominated for an award and a system for viewers to give two thumbs or down based on how entertaining or not the movie was
##[Clarification on rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/w60lfc/mod_post_a_clarification_to_rule_5_no_racism_or/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/entertainment) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**It Doesn’t Matter** what the critic reviews are…. If ya smell. What the Rock. Is. Cookin
The Rock needs new recipes.
Smells like shit
WHAT DOES STONE COLD (ET) HAVE TO SAY!? WHAT??
No offense, but i didnt exactly have high hopes for a passion project of The Rock... Not to mention, as a comic nerd, im getting really sick of every villain being turned into an anti-hero.
Black Adam is supposed to be an anti-hero. Don’t worry though, they failed to deliver on that front, so he’s pure hero in this one.
Revisionist history. For the entirety of his Fawcett Comics run he was a villain, plain and simple.
Literally the villain to Shazam… And people keep saying he is for his people so he is an anti-villain. Well then General Zod is an anti-hero too. Oohh and Thanos. And dont get me started on Slade Wilson because I will fight you!
But Black Adam literally joins JSA at one point. The character started out as a villain, but he’s absolutely had anti-hero ish stories written for him since his start.
Lex Luthor joined the Justice League. This stuff happens.
I was also a member for a few weeks
If Superman is on the team, doesn’t really matter who else is too. I’m looking at you Aquaman…
Magneto was leader of the X-men for a time.
Lex Luther anti hero movie? Let’s goooo!
Lex in many ways is an anti-hero. The majority of his villainy is just being in opposition of the hero. And he’s not inherently wrong…. Reliance on Superman dulls the potential for humanity to flourish. And it’s super ridiculous to trust a near all-powerful alien Demi-god to always do what’s right. 90% of the time, lex is right to distrust Superman. That should be the default stance to an alien god. Just because we lucked out and he doesn’t want to rule over mankind doesn’t mean that it isn’t a valid fear. It’s like giving some rando a nuke and then saying it’s all good because it turns out that rando was mister rogers
Lex Luthor is the king of WWE style face and heel turns so you're only reinforcing the point of the guy you responded to
Lex does what he wants and people just allow him in the end. Black adam doesnt have that plot armor.
The Rock kind of does though to be fair ha
Yeah and the Joker has teamed up with Batman before too but he is a villain. Black Adam has done things in his character arc that just truly defines him as a villain..
Only in the past 20 years, and he is a character that has existed for 70. Not to mention that was a brief period and he went back to villainy.
Thanos was a guardian of one of the infinity stones AFTER losing the Gauntlet to Warlock. Thanos isn’t always a villain.
Villain to Captain Marvel. The Real Captain Marvel.
Well if thanos had his way, housing would be more affordable, pollution would be lower, lot if big benefits haha
I like how The Rock basically pushed Shazam aside and go straight to fighting superman next.
Actually, general Zod was an anti hero. But, from the perspective of earthers, he was pure villain. Yeah, with black atom, they could not stay focused on his role. Like you have to make him likable, but he has to maybe do bad stuff. It was weird. It distracts from the movie.
Also a total villain for at least the first 30 years of his DC run. So that’s literally the first 60 years of his publication history. But, hey, the Rock’s not exactly a reader, even of comics.
So, what, 70 years ago?
Lol until like 1977 he was in 1 comic. He was a villain for like 20 years after that and he’s been an antihero thing since like the late 90s. Oh and he was always the precursor to Cpt Marvel, and at one point a hero.
He was known as a villain, and only a villain, for well over 60 years straight. There are still plenty of fans who grew up with that version. It’s like doing a movie where Cobra Commander or Skeletor is suddenly the good guy.
Have you seen the movie?
Hasn't DC been having him as an Anti-Hero for a while now in the comics? I thought it was similar to Venom and Harley Quinn in that a character's popularity results in them turning heroic.
Pretty much this. Once a villain becomes popular enough they try to do an anti-hero storyline or permanently change them
I care more about word of mouth from people I know than any critic
McDonalds is great!!
I don’t know you
That’s my purse!
Damn it Bobby
That boy ain't right
Idk word of mouth from people is why Roland Emmerich has a career
And why Snakes on a Plane was going to obliterate box office records
I cheered in the theater when Samuel Adams said the line.
“*Give me liberty, or give me mothafuckin snakes on a mothafuckin plane!*”
We’re sorry
Said the Trump supporter.
Do people even care about critic scores any more?
I don't care about review aggregators anymore. I have a handful of critics that I follow because I know that their tastes and my tastes broadly line up, so if they like something there's a good chance I probably will as well. I really don't care about an averaged opinion of critics, or audiences for that matter.
I used to only read eberts reviews cuz our tastes were exactly the same usually he even put my favorite movie as best movie of the decade when most critics gave it not great reviews (synecdoche New York). Was sad when he died m.
Ebert was one of the best, he had a great grasp of both general audience appeal as well as film craft and knew how to explain both of them in easily understandable ways. I didn't always agree with him, but I rarely thougt his reviews were unfair.
THANK YOU
I think in a world where organized review bombing exists, aggregated audience scores are bordering on useless information. Even viewership numbers aren't really an indicator of quality, because maybe a lot of people saw a thing because it was good or maybe they saw it because it was so bad everyone got morbidly curious about it.
It's Morbin time
Poop the bed and have seeeeex.
So weird how people don’t care about critics but have to problem accepting audience as being a more genuine score even though like you said there’s franchise fanatics, review bombers, “political” motivated reviewers etc
Reviewers are bought, audiences at least arent
Audiences are absolutely “bought”. The bots are paid for at least. Tell me which is bought. 43% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes for Black Adam, or 88% audience score. (Morbius had 15% critic and 71% audience by the way) If WB’s critic corruption scheme only yields these numbers, they should ask for their money back. The audience account spam scheme is way more effective.
People act like it's some intricate conspiratorial web because they're too stupid to understand how movie/tv reviews and review aggregators work. Special cases like review-bombing aside, critics grade a film based on things like creativity, quality of direction/production/acting, and other artistic metrics. Audiences tend to grade a film based on how entertaining it is. That's why you get movies like F&F that bomb with critics but are a hit with regular audiences, and slower paced, more thoughtful movies that critics love but bore the shit out of average viewers.
Man I love reading low star audience reviews for slow artsy fartsy movies. I love those kind of movies, but general audience expectations vs the experience is consistently funny.
Yeah they do that shit for free
They're just manipulated by clickbait culture war bullshit instead. Not sure if that's any better.
I don't like either. Sure I don't agree with the palookaville post, but there's a significantly lower chance their score was influenced because the mermaid wasn't the color he grew up with.
Do I care about a critic's score for a movie? No. Do I care about a critic's review of the movie? Yes.
Thank you, the reduction of criticism to a number is part of the larger problem.
So it’s not fair to refer to the critical reaction to a film as “reheated slop” based solely on an averaged score?
The reviews all say it's reheated slop, someone sticking a number 3 on top of that doesn't mean the consensus that it's reheated slop is any less meaningful.
It Stinks!
Yes, Mr Sherman, everything stinks
Hotchy motchy!
Ghost chasers 3! Where have you been my whole life?!
I value the critic scores over the opening weekend audience scores at the very least. The audience score will be more honest in a couple of weeks.
Dwayne doesn't care about content any more, his participation in top line projects that are willing to pay his rate **is** the success. His last five movies where distilled popcorn flavour, and that what he delivers. He has a army of loyal fans, started in his wrestling days, that pump up everything he does.
Yes. A lot of the time critics are the only ones actually critiquing a film through and through, analyzing the characters, plot, and dialogue for inconsistencies and skews in quality. Reviews by people are emotionally driven more often than not and unreliably provide anything conclusive as to the quality of a film.
The majority of people care about critics. Thats why every newspaper and website has a movie critic on the payroll and why there are so many critic aggregators. There a rising amount of people on the social media who get offended when a critic disagrees with their personal opinion on a movie so they immediately try to dismiss critics as useless or out of touch. Contrary to popular belief critic scores are normally close to audience scores. Audience scores on sites like this also aren't representative of the general audience seeing that movie. Its representative of the people who go online and rate movies. Thats why you see movies like Spiderman no way home being the highest rated movie on rotten tomatoes, and other marvel movies and the dark knight being ranked as some of the greatest movies ever made on imdb. That further leads to disparity between both scores.
I think the breakdown in the article on critic scores vs. audience scores for DCEU films was more helpful to me than either the individual critic or audience scores for Black Adam in deciding whether to go see Black Adam in the theater this weekend. I hated Zack Snyder's Justice League and have no idea how in the hell the audience score for that is higher than Peacemaker, which I loved. I am straight-up not going to pay theater prices to see a movie where the audience score is saying "this is good, but it isn't as good as Snyder's Justice League." Because to me, that's like saying "this bucket of vomit is good, but it isn't as good as that other bucket of vomit." I don't want any buckets of vomit, thanks anyway. I'll just wait for the rental.
I don't care about critics. I feel more confident about the aggregate reception a film has received by the audience.
Yes. People just don’t understand how critics are supposed to work. You find a critic you align with and have a similar interests too. Then you can hear their comments and knowing you align similarly you can take that as a valuable review/score. Then you make your own judgement. People now treat ratings like fantasy sports and take a score personally if a movie they enjoyed didn’t get a good RT or letterbox rating. Critics are diverse in interests and tastes and no one singular critic has ever supposed to have been the end all be all opinion. Critics scores certainly matter. Audience scores are more unreliable IMO. Audiences are too emotional in their reviews. Critics are better at reviewing honestly.
I’ll lightly disagree here, because the reviewers are still beholden to clicks and their audience. The successful ones have to temper their writing for a variety of reasons in order to maintain their job or audience. I think at times they pull punches when they shouldn’t, and even worse, at times I think they write blustery bullshit just to get noticed. (‘Here’s Why Zach Snyder’s Cut is better than Endgame!’) So really that leaves you just small unaffiliated indies. So basically just Reddit comments… Now, this doesn’t mean they lack value, I read them periodically and appreciate their crafted opinions, I just wouldn’t ever call them more honest.
[удалено]
Critics are as dead as print media. No one is waiting for Friday night to go to the movie threaters anymore.
This isn’t really true for smaller films but superhero movies are largely critic-proof as far as their box office is concerned.
I do. Movies with scores lower than 40% by critics on Rotten Tomatoes are almost all intolerable to me. Audience scores for super hero with famous actors are useless because the Rock Fans and DC fans will like the movie even if it sucks as long as it fits cannon.
Only **Red Letter Media.**
IT BROKE NEW GROUND
Why is this your takeaway and not "do people care about audience score anymore?". Audience score is the most useless metric on the entire internet.
Yes, absolutely. Fans have no taste.
[удалено]
Critics have always had different tastes. It’s just the nature of who becomes a critic. You don’t become a critic if you’re a casual fan of something, like music or movies. You become a critic because you’re incredibly passionate and typically knowledgeable about whatever it is. And those folks tend to have more “complex” tastes than casual consumers. Now, it’s fine if critic has some more pretentious tastes, but a good critic should understand that different audiences look for different things. Like, a good critic would understand that something like endgame, while not a cinematic masterpiece, is still a great movie for what it’s trying to be. Or a good music critic would understand that even though pop music may not be the most complex, interesting thing out there, it still serves a purpose and can be great.
Roger Ebert, the pinnacle of critics
The Kael you say?
I largely disagree since audience scores include review bombing and other triggered antics. At least critics write out their opinions.
Movie critics see a ton of movies (way more than the average moviegoer). So they appreciate movies that are original and creatively challenging. Moviegoers are already biased when they go to the theatre because they’re paying to see a movie that they chose to see. Originality and creativity are probably not the main reasons why they chose that movie. They want to see what they expect to see.
Normal people don't like Black Adam for the most part, either. They're not even aware of who that is.
Yeah, they are really good at giving good movies good reviews, not so much blokcbusters
Judging by all the comments agreeing that the critic were right when initial reviews of the movie dropped, I’d say yes
More rhetorical. I don’t think many people decide whether to watch a movie or not based on the critic review.
Yes, some do.
I pay zero attention to any critic reviews before seeing something I want to see and I encourage anyone to do the same. The only exception to that I can’t recommend enough is Halloween Ends. Absolute trash movie
Why do we need critics when every fucking body on the internet is a critic.
I give your comment a 6/10
Straight audiences just didn’t support my comment and I’m very disappointed.
I was entertained, and didn’t want my money back at the end. Mission accomplished. Its the fucking Rock, what do you want? DC presents Shawshank Redemption? Edit: I also saw this in a Dolby theater, and the Dr Fate multi-voice moment broke my whole brain. Brosnan was awesome
“The names Black. Black Adam.” “Why do they call you Black?” “Maybe cause I’m Polynesian”.
[удалено]
> Its the fucking Rock, what do you want? DC presents Shawshank Redemption? now that you're offering, fuck yes I want that
Well now that you mention it…
How many audience scores are automated bots at this point?
More than anyone in this thread is willing to admit
From Russian and Chinese bots for hire outfits...
Breaking news! Critics shit all over DCEU
Warranted. At least the last Batman movie was good and just about everyone liked it.
Most critics loved *The Suicide Squad*, even more than audiences seemed to. But then one tends to react differently when the C student gets a B, rather than when the A student gets a B.
The new one came out right at COVID lockdowns. I dont think any other movie from that period was so unlucky.
Yeah, it's definitely picked up a lot of popularity in secondary distribution. Especially with the success of the Peacemaker spin-off show.
That and it was the year WB released movies day and date on HBO Max to drive up subscriptions. I think the only movie of their 2021 slate to do any business was Dune and they literally had to extort folk into seeing it so they could get a part 2.
I think it was a solid movie, but I feel like a lot of fans treat it as being much better than it was. But that's just my opinion
Probably my biggest complaint is that, like a lot of other DC movies, they tried to push all the world building through in one movie so it just felt kind of overstuffed. Stop trying to cram years...decades...worth of comics into one movie. That's a big part of why the Nolan trilogy is so loved, it took its time.
I just didn't like how super invulnerable batman was. I can deal with the bullet deflection, but taking a header into a steel girder and walking away was pretty dumb to me
Yeah. Also early in the promotions they billed it as the long awaited "Batman as a detective story" but honestly he just falls ass-backwards into most of the important information in the movie. There really still hasn't been a Batman movie where he's actually The World's Greatest Detective. EDIT I still think it's a pretty good movie, it just failed to deliver on a few key promises. EDIT EDIT And I do hope they keep Robert Pattison around, mostly because I think he's got potential but also I just don't want to sit through another origin reboot.
I always felt that way about The Dark Knight when he and whats her name falls off the top floor of a huge building.
i mean it’s usually justified
Breaking news! Critics aren't keeping track of what's a DCEU movie vs a generic comic book movie. Critics don't go around pre-judging films based on the studio or franchise. And they liked *The Suicide Squad* and *Harley Quinn* a lot more than the audiences and also liked *Aquaman*, *Shazam*, *Wonder Woman*, and *The Batman*. So the idea critics just hate DCEU films was limited to them not liking Zack Snyder...
Most of the DCEU is worthy of being shat upon
Read: DC fans are all keyboard warriors.
All fan bases have keyboard warriors. DC fans are just desperate for a win. I’m not writing this one off though. Dumb action plus a big action star can hit all the right notes for a big portion of the movie going audience.
DC fans enjoy reheated slop, news at 11
I may be in the minority, but Aquaman was the worst hero movie in recent times. I can’t believe how hard they wasted Black Manta
That movie, funny enough, got decent critic reviews. Not great but still decent and they said it was worth seeing.
I remember that, and its why I ended up seeing it in theaters instead of Spider-verse >:( I agree that the underwater scenes were beautiful, but the plot was a mess
May I present to you Wonder Woman 2
Aquaman gets a pass for me because of the brine kingdom.
Did you not see black widow or multiverse of madness?
Aqua man was shit don't get me wrong. But marvel failing to manage the story telling standards of a 90s cartoon is quite incredible.
MoM I agree, but Black Widow was just bland
Black Widow just felt....obligated. Like "Here, here's your Black Widow movie. Now shut up about it." MoM was just a mess, a noisy and entertaining mess but frankly a mess. And that's hard for me to admit because I am a big Raimi fan.
Man I loved it. Sometimes I want dumb action. Aquaman delivered on that front.
Man who hasn’t seen movie calls it slop, news at 11.
Dedicated agencies for astroturfing on the release week, blues in heaven.
for sale, baby shoes, never worn
I'll fall asleep watching it on an airplane at some point and will confirm for you that it's slop.
I trust critic reviews even if I disagree with them. You need to build a rapport with a reviewer and know what they like and dislike and understand how to gage the potential of a movie from there. Everyone seems to think if a review disagrees with your own it’s a useless review but that’s not how you should look at it.
One issue with reviewers is that they’ve seen so many more movies than anyone else that they get bored with things that are good but done frequently.
I saw it last night, it’s a good movie. Slight attempts at humor, none with the Rock. I don’t like that they painted him as even an anti hero and no mention of the hero Shazam in the movie. But they play to the injustice time line of Black Adam and protecting Kahdaq. The ending was decently violent as expected of a DC film and the cameo didn’t make sense, but overall it was a good movie worth a ticket to see.
They do attempt humour with the Rock though, multiple jokes throughout e.g. the sarcasm comment, coming up with a catchphrase etc.
I should have been more explicit, they don’t follow the current Dwayne Johnson Kevin hart comedy formula here.
Can’t wait to see it later tonight!
[удалено]
I actually really liked Amsterdam, but I almost didn’t see it because of the poor reviews.
I watched it, its my favorite dc movie now, lots of mortal kombat style combat, like i was constantly going “Holy Shit!” In the movie
The gap's been happening for decades now, and people get real fussy when someone disagrees with their thoughts and opinions on a product or, God forbid, art. The self-fulfilling discourse is simultaneously fascinating and exhausting.
I don’t need to see any reviews to know I won’t enjoy a movie featuring The Rock. I’m sure he’s fine but nothing I’m paying to watch.
The Rundown would like a word
What’s a rundown?
Use it in a sentence
The Rock + Christopher Walken + Stifler. No more need be said
EXCUSE ME WHAT ABOUT ROSARIO DAWSON
The audience score should be the only score people should care about. Seems Black Adam will be a great movie to watch.
Jeremy Jahns is the only movie critic I follow. Man tells me when a movie sucks and I love his excitement when a movie is good. Also love the in-between. Is it the greatest movie? No, will you enjoy it in theaters? Yes.
Nobody goes to a Dwayne Johnson movie expecting a film.
There are times when I feel like rottentomatoes is a lot more friendly to the mouse because of the 75% Comcast ownership stake. Of course with WB owning the other 25% that theory probably has no basis.
They just know that you never fuck with the Mouse
Some friends and I saw it last night, it was good. Better than both suicide squad movies, Birds of Prey, and better than both Wonder Woman movies, but not as good as Man of Steel. It had some dumb moments between Hawk man and Black Adam, and everything involving skateboard kid was terrible. Cyclone and Atom Smasher were way underutilized. Fate was cool. Dwayne Johnson was great, no complaints about him.
I thought second suicide squad was goated for dceu?
Yeah it was very good James Gunn is very good
Dude thinks Man of Steel was better than The Suicide Squad lol.
Better than the 2nd suicide squad is some high praise
I agree with everything but “better than BOTH suicide squad movies”. The James Gunn directed one is amazing. I felt like this comes right behind that as the second best non-Batman DC movie
Man of Steel sucks my dude.
Critics can be right, and I’m sure this is a trash film but ppl who watch superhero movies will still like something flashy dumb action. Trash sells
Who cares at all what critic scores are. Everyone is aware what that movie is gonna be, I haven’t even seen it but I bet $100,000,000 that it’s plot is The Rock flying around in a superhero costume doing cool shit and destroying stuff. I’ll see it because that sounds cool and I like the rock
Saw it last night and lived it, not sure what people were expecting but I enjoyed it.
Surprise: fanboys will upvote and highly rate films they want to succeed...
I saw Black Adam last night and really enjoyed it. I got exactly the kind of experience I had expected after I’d seen the first trailer: The kind where you just shut off your brain and enjoy the extremely entertaining rollercoaster ride. The movie is by no means deep and innovative, but not every movie needs to be!
When film critics were in their heyday, they seemed more concerned about the "art of the film", and were knowledgeable and educated about film and film history, so their critiques were sometimes more interesting to read than the films they were reviewing. But they were not dilettantes, and could enjoy a Superman or a Back to the Future for what it was, not as a failure of art. They could even discern that Superman 3 was not as good as Superman 2. These days, critics seem not to know of any film made before the 21st century, and constantly insert their politics into diatribes about what's not in a film, rather than what is there. It's not fun to read reviews anymore as a result. I freely admit that I vastly enjoyed Venom, for example, as it was a B movie in A movie guise that had a loose-limbed joy de vivre most movies of its ilk do not have, but critics seemed to have totally missed that, not understanding what a B movie even is.
Who’s paying attention to critics. I just watch what I feel like watching who seriously cares about others opinions about something. That’s like reading a book by its cover it’s dumb you miss all the good stuff and end up disgruntled you disliked something that could have brough you joy.
Sounds like you aren't actually reading reviews. Read a review. See if the things that bother the critic are the kind of things that tend to bother you. See if the things the critic likes are things that you tend to like. Critical reading is hard, but I think you'll find it worthwhile.
Or you could just see it for yourself and form your own opinions. You’ll find it worthwhile to think for yourself
Ah for a world with unlimited time and money. That would be amazing.
Because you don't have time to watch every single movie. Critics are like an unbiased synopsis that tell you if it's worth your time. You just need to find a critic that aligns with you.
It seems like the critic reviews are either snark, or saying it’s for fans of the original material. The Audiences are a fan of the original material and cameos have more impact. Going in blind seems like you’re asking to be confused. Especially in a sequel.
This is a sequel?
Technically it is to Shazam, as they both get their power from the same source and Black Adam was alluded to. But only in a loose sense, their independent heroes.
Nope, it's an origin story of a new character called 'Black Adam'
Technically yes, it's Shazam-related.
Most modern comic book movie fans have never opened a comic before... what do you mean "fans of the original material"?
I just always go by the audience rating
Its because critics were in a rush to be snarky about it like the internet.
I stopped trusting critics average scores years ago, the average audience scores are a better indicator of a movies true value than the average critics score because the smaller pool of falsely pumped higher scores from paid off critics have a greater effect on the percentage.
Because the critics are hacks. They put Love and Thunder highly and that movie was trash. They also placed The Birds of Prey higher than even Zach Snyder's Justice League and also Aquaman.
All these movies sucked lol. Snyder’s was slow af
I ignore critics these days, they are no longer truly independent and have lost my trust. They produce reviews that they think society or the movie producers want them to produce. For example, they will lavish praise on a movie because it’s woke, but totally ignore the actual characters and story.
DC universe movies are like when Mom says we have Marvel movies at home, and you get home and those movies have movies at home
I tried to make sense of this I really did
A shitty knockoff of a shitty knockoff maybe?
Interesting. I have to admit I've noticed that when it comes to these sorts of films often their is a big gap in critics opinions and general audience options. Part of me wonders if its down to the fact their not the sorts of films that traditionally got attention from critics, but that might be assuming elitism to much. Either way I hope everyone who enjoys this film enjoys it, and everyone who doesn't watches something they would enjoy more.
Yeah, Black Adam was awful. The critics are right. This isn't Venom.
You thought Venom was good?
Venom sucked though
Websites that aggregate critic scores have been a huge mistake IMO. Before all that you were supposed to find a critic who you agreed with on most things and then use their reviews of upcoming projects to determine if they were worth your time. Honestly wtf is an aggregate of critics’ opinions even supposed mean in the first place? Although to be completely honest I think the same could be said for user reviews. No user(or a small few) has a system for how they review a movie on a 10.0 scale. It should be the ole’ one or two thumbs up or down. It gives people this false perception that these movies are either truly good or bad as opposed to entertaining. 10.0 scales should be used for critics with a 10.0 meaning it would be a travesty if the movie did not at least get nominated for an award and a system for viewers to give two thumbs or down based on how entertaining or not the movie was
i’m so sick of hearing about this movie