Slashdot Mirror
Marvel Tweaks Their Superhero Film Formula With Ant-Man
An anonymous reader writes: Over the past decade, Marvel has been rolling out superhero film after superhero film. They've found a successful formula, and each of the last half-dozen films has brought in over a half-billion dollars in ticket revenue. Today they added to the franchise with Ant-Man, based on a superhero who can shrink himself to the size of an ant (while maintaining normal strength), and control insects. But where the spate of Avengers-related movies only occasionally interjected humor into their world-preserving plots, Ant-Man focuses more on being funny and simply entertaining. Reviews are generally positive, but not overwhelmingly so — Rotten Tomatoes has it at 79%, with a 91% audience score while Metacritic has it at 64/100, with an 8.4/10 user score. The LA Times calls it "playful." Vox has good and bad to say about Ant-Man, but notes that its failings are very common to Marvel's other films. Salon says, "...in its medium-stupid and mismanaged fashion it's not so awful." Wired posted the obligatory physics of Ant-Man article, as did FiveThirtyEight.
Uncle-Woman.
Comic book movies are about as nerdy as it gets, so this definitely qualifies as "news for nerds".
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
How many times have we seen this with everything from Ant-Man to the same issue in the other direction with Far Cry 2? "Critics" hate something because it doesn't pander to their agenda while people love it, or they fall over each other fellating it because it does pander to their agenda or they got paid while actual consumers despise it because it's crap.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Some people spend all day watching Fox-News, others try and catch every speciality program on NPR. The great thing about critic reviews is that it segregates two groups of movie goers, one who go for entertainment, and the other who demand something intelligent and unique from the experience.
Having both allow people with different tastes to judge the same film, or people with common tastes to judge different films. For the linkes of Ant-Man and Jurassic World I followed the user scores. For the likes of the Pianist or Saving Private Ryan I follow the critics. The formula allows you to judge movies like this:
Good Critical Review - Poor User Review : A likely Oscar nominee, a strange unique story, something that requires you to think.
Poor Critical Review - Good User Review : Senseless action, comedy or general entertainment value. It won't make you question your life but it'll keep you happy.
Poor Reviews from both : Usually not worth seeing unless it's for the B-Grade story, but even then some B-Grades attract good critical review for their B-ness.
Great Reviews from both : A rare gem, entertaining and intelligent. Could be the kind of movie that sticks with you for a while.
So no, keep the critical reviews coming. They represent an important component of the reviewing system.
the last one i paid to see by sitting in an actual theatre which got good reviews from both: Schindler 's List.
the last one i paid to see by sitting in an actual theatre which got good reviews from both: Schindler 's List.
The last for me was Ex Machina. I think it got good user reviews because the trailer accurately depicted the film, so most people who wouldn't like it, didn't go see it, and the user reviews were skewed by selection bias. I thought it was a very good film, but my kids would not have liked it (they didn't see it).
I mean, unless he's a drone ... Although, given the actor, that might make sense.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --