Movie reviews


I think my parents saw Watchmen and didn’t like it. They’re generally not sci-fi/fantasy/comic book fans (No idea where I got it from) but from what I remember they just didn’t really get it: Watchmen is weird because it is totally a deconstruction of the superhero concept, so if you’re not thinking of that it may just come off as a mess.

As you said, it might have done better today, although it suffers a bit because there’s so much criticism and parody of superheros out there.

V for Vendetta is kind of similar in a way.


I may have a couple of shorter reviews of movies that came out during the past few months, but due to the efforts of people trying to do a coordinated “bombing” of Captain Marvel, Rotten Tomatoes decided they would not accept reviews until a movie premieres. The way it’s being presented, it isn’t just locking the barn door after the horse has bolted. It was more like they suddenly realized, “Hey! You know what? Maybe we should think about locking that barn door. Oh, by the way, where’d the horse go?”

What’s happened is that people were posting poor reviews of Captain Marvel because they didn’t like the main character being a feminist and/or because they want Shazam to do better at the box office. Both movies are opening on the same day, leading to a Marvel vs. DC showdown.

If you want a humorous take on this, check out the Real Life comic from earlier this week.


The main thing I read on Captain Marvel was the typical “Right wingers won’t watch ‘X’” that some people throw out every time a movie with a woman, or minority, or whatever staring. Which is usually a couple dudes with twitter accounts complaining between Klan meetings or hood fittings.

It didn’t get bad until the star started talking about social justice and doing things like insisting on gender and racial parity in her press junkets. Selecting who gets to interview her in a pool based on race and gender triggers some people. Because of her interviews a lot of people are expecting a MAry Sue character like Rae, with the plot basically being men are bad and dumb and women are smart and all powerful, like Star Wars.

I don’t know how much of it was coordinated, but I also thought it was the want to watch rating that tanked, and if the star says crap that people don’t want to hear then people will lose interest.


And…why is any of what she did a bad thing and worth review-bombing a movie that hasn’t even come out yet?


Short answer: It wasn’t.

Longer answer: There are some men who have such incredibly fragile egos that they cannot handle a strong woman. Or a strong black man. Or a strong anyone who isn’t “us”.
And there are also just some arseholes.


Less simple answer.

There are people out there who think that an individual who picks their fellow employees based on their race, gender, and sexual orientation has some serious issues.

Especially when that person goes as far as to pick who gets to interview them based on that criteria. And tells anyone who will listen about these choices and how she has required anyone who works with her to subject themselves to the same criteria.

And it wasn’t a review bombing, at least not initially, it was a “want to watch” bombing.

It’s not her strength that’s an issue, it’s her backwards opinions of equality that I find stupid.

Race and gender quotas are bad. This shouldn’t be a question or an issue.

Now, I’m also pretty certain this is just like the people who supposedly boycotted the first starwars sequel because of a black man or a woman as a lead. I and my right wing nut job friends are going to see the movie. Four Chan or /pol or whoever the hell is likely having fun down voting the crap out of whatever they can get their hands on.


Except she didn’t exclude white men from interviewing her or refuse to be interviewed by them. And yeah, as the star of the movie, she does get some latitude in requesting certain people interview her just as, I’m sure, Samuel L. Jackson, Robert Downey Junior, etc. get to request certain people interview them.

From this article.

Brie Larson insisted that even though she’s not against 40-year-old white men reviewing the film and asking her questions during the press tour, she would much rather have women of different ethnicities in the mix as well:

“About a year ago, I started paying attention to what my press days looked like and the critics reviewing movies, and noticed it appeared to be overwhelmingly white male. So, I spoke to Dr Stacy Smith at the USC Annenberg Inclusion Initiative, who put together a study to confirm that. Moving forward, I decided to make sure my press days were more inclusive. After speaking with you, the film critic Valerie Complex and a few other women of colour, it sounded like across the board they weren’t getting the same opportunities as others. When I talked to the facilities that weren’t providing it, they all had different excuses.’”

And this one:

As press coverage for Captain Marvel ramps up ahead of the film’s release, star Brie Larson has clarified earlier remarks about increasing the diversity of reporters covering the Marvel Cinematic Universe film.

In an interview with Marie Claire published over the weekend, Larson had expressed a desire for more inclusive press coverage. After the comments drew backlash, Larson clarified her stance with a television interview with Fox 5, noting she was simply looking for increased representation among the press coverage.

“What I’m looking for is to bring more seats up to the table. No one is getting their chair taken away,” explained Larson. "There’s not less seats at the table, there’s just more seats at the table.”


Sure they do, but to do so simply based on gender/race/orientation is prejudiced by definition.

There aren’t enough black people here implies that there is a number that makes it ok and that the individual isn’t picked for their ability but simply for their skin color. It implies that if they hadn’t been picked out of the bucket of minorities they couldn’t have made it there themselves. It also says that somehow a black man will automatically have a different opinion of something than an Asian or Hispanic woman. As if one’s opinion of a movie is different just because their skin color is different.

RT takes critics by their publications, or by application.

The number of minority or female film critics is smaller than their population representation across the market. There just aren’t as many minority film critics, so by seeking them out she is indeed inflating them over their non-minority small market counterparts.

It is her right to do so, and it’s other people’s right to call her out for it. It’s affirmative action on a small scale, I don’t like it no matter how it’s packaged.

But this is a movie thread and I don’t want to fill it up with this crap.

The reviews are coming out and it’s looking rough to OK. I’ll still see it, but it looks like they would have been better off just making another superhero movie instead of making a “female hero movie” there shouldn’t be a dang difference, isn’t that the point?


It’ll be difficult to separate the valid reviews from the ones written by people who are upset about a leading woman super hero, or upset that the movie wasn’t made to their specifications, or upset over the star’s handling of the media.


Just like every damn movie in the last 40 years…

I’ve had to read reviews based on bias like that for forever it seems. Usually because of false positives


If I based whether or not I liked a movie on the beliefs of individuals involved in the production, I’d have a lot less movies that I would like. I know some people that can’t keep that separated and I find that kind of sad.


The only one I can’t watch is Tom Cruise.

Usually in can separate the person from the film, but he’s a special case. I just can’t stand him.


That’s understandable.


Yep, I also understand that, he’s a complete nutjob. But some of the movies he’s been in are actually really good. I’m a bit foot in both camps. Some of the time I can separate him from the film, other times not.


Right there with y’all. The Jack Reacher movies were great. Somehow, I can forget what a douchenozzel he is when watching those.


Edge of Tomorrow/ Live, Die, Repeat was one of the few i really liked with him in it.


For the longest time I couldn’t stand him, mostly because of what he did to my beloved Mission Impossible, amongst other things. Then he started showing up as a guest on The Graham Norton Show and I gained a lot of respect for him watching him there, which went a long way to softening my stance on his movies. I actually liked MI: Ghost Protocol - mostly because of Jeremy Renner :slight_smile:. And I do like the Jack Reacher movies - the last one, with Cobie Smulders is my favourite.


I don’t believe I’ve seen that one. Doesn’t even ring a bell.

I also liked the movie where the aliens in the “tet” were harvesting water and he was a mechanic for the security bots. Was that Oblivion? “Jack… are you an effective team, Jack?” Oh, so creepy.


One of my favourite movies. My wife almost has it on repeat she’s watched it so often :slight_smile:

I’d thoroughly recommend it too.


His whole deal with Scientology and his treatment of his ex is what does it for me.

I’m pretty good at separating politics from my movies, hell I’m conservative/libertarian, I have to be. But when you really are a giant douche-canoe it makes it harder.