Why do these movies have such low metacritic scores? The first one is a sixty-something but I would say it's at least an 80. I personally liked the first one the best but I've found that most people like the sequels better. But I'd still rate them in the 60-70 range. I was pretty surprised when I saw the second and third ones were only 50's. Any reason why these movies aren't very critically liked, but they still have a huge fanbase?
shareThese movies have no plot, or barely grasp on the idea of storytelling because they're based on the theme park rides as such they're conveyed like theme parks, where it's basically set piece after set piece tied together with a shoe string plot and obnoxious characters.
They're great movies to go into retard mode and enjoy the specticale... supposed, but as movies they're incredibly dull, bloated and visually ostentatious.
That sounds about right. Usually critics don't like movies like this that are big shallow action packed blockbusters, despite the fact that movies like this rake in money at the box office. I think I'm just a little more generous than others when it comes to ratings, I could never be a critic haha
share[deleted]
I agree.
The first time I watched At World's End I felt like it missed depth. One of the reasons is indeed the visual ostentatiousness. This morning I watched the movie again (total of 4x) and actually felt that this movie had a lot of depth. What I wonder now is if it really is there if you look hard enough, or that I looked hard enough to create depth for myself. Making analogue comparisons of character interaction to make them more relate-able. Combining that with stunning visual thrill makes for a very pleasant experience!
critics are bitshes, this one is a master piece in cinematic history, i didn't like the first two, and the fourth one is crap
shareBecause it was boring
share