it appears that ww84 has now dipped below 60% and therefore is officially rotten.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wonder_woman_1984
not sure why (i haven't seen it myself), but i feel like this is a bit of a victory for good in the world. like we should all give ourselves a pat on the back for a job well done.
No doubt another positive review will appear and bump it back up.
And don't bother watching it. It really is bad. Just re-watch the first one. That was actually pretty good.
i assume at some point it will pop up on streaming sites outside of hbomax, & when it does i'll probably give it a try. maybe my rock-bottom expectations will allow me to enjoy it a little.
i agree that the first ww movie was surprisingly good.
That has become my policy - wait until it appears in my monthly streaming service. What I have been doing is watching older movies and shows that I missed during their initial run. Recently I watched City Island with Andy Garcia. Totally missed it when it was in theaters and i thought it was a really good movie.
Why is that youtuber a top critic? Any idiot with a webcam can become one now?
I just checked the summary of the rotten reviews and they read more like tweets from anonymous accounts rather than professional critics. This is why Metacritic is a better website. They have standards.
i definitely agree that metacritic is much better & far more useful.
out of curiosity, what youtuber are you referring to?
Chris Struckman or something like that.
shareWhat is your definition of a critic?
shareSomeone who took film studies courses and got hired by the local newspaper.
shareso only a local newspaper can critic movies?
shareI was being cheeky. Whatever replaced the newsprint media. You know what I mean.
shareNot really. You are making out that because he is on youtube he can't be a critic and calling him an "idiot with a webcam"
Who the hell reads printed newspapers anymore?
Youtube is the new media as you put it. He has 1.8 million subscribers.
I don't need to goto film studies course to critique a film.
Critic = Noun = a person who judges the merits of literary or artistic works, especially one who does so professionally.
If his youtube channel is his full time job which i assume it is then how is he not a critic based on the definition. You can argue if he is a good or bad critic but just because he isn't employed by a local newsaper (which i find strange example) has no merit.
A critic gives his opinion, that is it.
Yes, you need to study to know what you are talking about.
Million Youtube subscribers? Irrelevant. Lots of idiots have them, like Jake Paul.
You don't have to go to school to study something. But if this was the 90's, Chris Stuckmann and Doug Walker would be two of the most read film critics in the world. I don't always agree with either of them, but if you watch their reviews you'll see that they know what they're talking about.
You see, there's a huge difference between someone like Jake Paul who as millions of subs because people like watching douchebags being douchebags, and someone line Chris who as millions of subs because people actually wants to hear what he has to say.
You sound like an elitist boomer.
I don't know about his other reviews, but his critique of this movie is on point.
share"professional critics." you mean the ones that are paid by the studies and are Hollywood ass kissers?
man you have low IQ, time and time again you prove it. LOL
audience scores are the ones people should notice. not the paid "critics"
PIaD cRiTicS!
Do you believe in Qanon too?
Audience scores are brigaded by people with an agenda that haven't even seen what they are critiquing. Remember the faux moral outrage over Cuties?
"I just checked the summary of the rotten reviews and they read more like tweets from anonymous accounts rather than professional critics. This is why Metacritic is a better website. They have standards. "
This didn't age well
Rotten Tomatoes Critic = 60%
Rotten Tomatoes User = 74%
Metacritic Metascore (Critic) = 60
Metacritic Userscore = 3.8
So critics on both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes gave it the same score. How wierd, I thought Metacritic had standards. I guess Metacritic also has "Any idiot with a webcam" to be critics.
I just watched it. I mean, it's not great, but I thought it was watchable. Didn't feel like a total waste of time - as in, I don't regret having seen it.
I regret watching and never will view again. My vastly different brother felt the same.
It was like ordering a fillet steak done medium, and getting a small place card with a picture of sushi on it instead.
Had to rewatch the first one again to get the piss poor WW84 taste out of my brain. DID NOT ENJOY
Why would I care?.. 🙄
I mean, you are saying this like it actually proves something. [shrug]
so, this is how the internet works:
1. you post a perspective relating to you about something for other people around the planet to read
2. they interpolate your experience with their own, then respond with similar, yet sometimes opposite perspective, and that's okay.
3. then you absorb their perspective (which is causality from your first post) and either enjoy or become annoyed at it enough to post something else back in response.
It's a back and forth process human's call "communication" and the internet makes it all pretty cool to use.
Following this simple 3 step process, you can further your enlightenment, learn, and even grow your communication skills.*
* Unless you are a 12 year old living inside your cell phone, then I digress, there is no hope for human interaction in your future. Sorry. Don't shoot the messenger. :)
* Unless you are a 12 year old living inside your cell phone, then I digress, there is no hope for human interaction in your future. Sorry. Don't shoot the messenger. :)
60% seems fairly accurate for this movie - strictly average. Neither too good nor too bad. A one-time forgettable watch
share