MovieChat Forums > Warcraft (2016) Discussion > Mark Kermode hopes that some other criti...

Mark Kermode hopes that some other critics will reassess Warcraft

posted 8 years ago by DrNarud
13 replies | jump to latest

So, Mark Kermode made another blog post in a video posted on Youtube, where he says that he's hoping that some other critics might change their minds about Warcraft after a second look when it comes out on DVD:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPX6TNOhVYI

I personally don't think that most will change their minds though some might. The only time critical consensus on a movie is ever usually reversed is if a better well received extended or directors cut comes out later, which I think is unlikely at this point. Still, it would be interesting to see if Mark is right about this and some critics do change their minds.

[–] sens_death 8 years ago

Why would they change their mind when the movie cut on DVD/Blu-Ray is no different than the theatrical one? If they do change their mind, that only means that they're insecure at their job for reviewing the same cut differently upon second viewing. I think they pretty much made it clear that Warcraft is a biggest crime in history of mankind, you know.. right after Hitler.

[–] DrNarud 8 years ago

It's possible to change your mind about something you liked or didn't like on second viewing, actually. Though what you said is actually why I said in my post that I think that most won't change their minds.

[–] taikero 8 years ago

The movie has obvious flaws in its second half related to studio/production meddling. Creativity was obviously stifled at some point, and that hurt the movie. I doubt the critics will change their tune now.

[–] jayoungr 8 years ago

It's flawed, but a lot of the critics were giving it 1 star out of 5 or even 1 out of 10. Or saying it was on a par with Battlefield Earth. Those opinions are so extreme that there's plenty of room for revision without having to say it's perfection.

[–] sens_death 8 years ago

Which is mind-boggling to me. It goes very much with bias, and the stigma against WoW. I think movie was rightfully panned but not in the way I mean it. Reading these reviews makes me feel that these reviewers decided to rate it 1/x before watching the movie. They just went to watch the movie waiting for something flawed to pop out so they can justify their ratings.

[–] jayoungr 8 years ago

Eh, I don't think it deserved to be panned. There was more good than bad in it, IMHO, and it at least deserved credit for trying to tell a more complex story than most summer blockbusters.

I do wonder if Kermode's theory that critics were hostile because of the embargo was a factor.

[–] DrNarud 8 years ago

The embargo might of been a factor but we all know why the embargo happened. Universal didn't seem to have much confidence in the movie at the time. At least they didn't in November last year when we were hearing rumours about them considering Warcraft a "problem movie".

[–] sens_death 8 years ago

What's there more good than bad? Only good I can think of in the movie is CGI, I dare to say that's great, not only good.. but other than that, I felt story was simple due to lack of strong dialogues. Basically story-telling of the movie is like "Orcs are that. We must go there" then action pops out, some short dialogue again and action, action, action. Whilst there's a lot of things regarding the story to catch up with, it felt almost like there was no room for fine story-telling. Everything was squashed into two hours. When reviewing a product, you don't give credit for trying, but for successfully adding important factor in the product such as story. I don't entirely blame Duncan Jones for this mess. In fact, it's the studios who're responsible the most.

I doubt critics were hostile because of embargo. If any reason why's that, it's probably that they couldn't wait to pan Warcraft. But Alonso Duralde broke the embargo, so anything's possible.

[–] jayoungr 8 years ago

What's good about it?

It looked great--not just the CGI, but the practical elements too. I particularly loved how they handled the magic effects.

It has a story that's amazingly relevant for today's world: a clash of cultures that isn't simply the good side vs the evil side (although Gul'dan is a villain you can love to hate).

There's a sense of a far bigger world outside the specific storyline that's happening onscreen.

The battles were exciting and looked epic.

Durotan's great--the noble warrior caught up in a war he has serious doubts about. Garona and Medivh also stood out for me as interesting characters, and Khadgar was a likeable protagonist even if not deep and complex. Lothar was solid; I don't really have any special praise or complaints about him.

Most of the main human characters could have used more fleshing out. That's really my main complaint. But at least I didn't mix them up with each other, and at least I actually want to know more about them. Some "character moment" scenes would give the pace a little more room to breathe as well.

[–] ns1crr 8 years ago

I don't think it will receive much of a reassessment. The reviews giving it 1/5 or 1/10 were unjustified, but I think any reassessment would be in the region of upgrading it to 2/5 or 4/10.

Reassessment requires the film to have qualities that were either not apparent on a first viewing or an aesthetic which was too out-of-the-ordinary and turned people off. Neither of these things apply to Warcraft: it's a fairly straightforward in its presentation, and it's look and ideas are highly reminiscent of other CGI-heavy fantasy franchises, like the Hobbit trilogy or Disney's Chronicles of Narnia.

The themes of father-son relationships were the most interesting things in this film for me, but they're only a small part of a rambling narrative that tries to do too much.

[–] DrNarud 8 years ago

Well, there is the issue of trying to get the audience to empathise with both sides of the conflict instead of just having one side the bad guys, which is quite unusual. In that regard, many reviewers just criticised it for not having a main protagonist but in light of the fact that they tried to be even handed in portraying both sides and telling the story from different perspectives, I don't think that there was meant to be a main protagonist. If you look at Mark's review of the movie, he claims to actually of liked the even handed approach in contrast to some other reviewers who just complained about "not having someone to root for" and that's surely something to consider in reassessment because it makes it interesting in a way that it's not given enough credit for.

[–] jayoungr 8 years ago

Yeah, I really wonder how many critics went in expecting a good-vs-evil brainless popcorn flick and were thrown off when they didn't get that.

[–] DrNarud 8 years ago

Well, to be fair, they are criticising it on the basis of traditional narrative storytelling which does normally require a main protagonist. However, for every rule there's also an exception and I can give you examples of novels as well as other movies that do not have a main protagonist but multiple protagonists that have equal weight (usually utilising an ensemble cast).