|By date||Most helpful reviews||By my score||By metascore||By user score|
Average User Score: 2.8Aug 19, 2016Why Kevin...Just Why? This is beneath you. It's one thing for a big name actor to help out an indie film to get traction by having a big nameWhy Kevin...Just Why? This is beneath you. It's one thing for a big name actor to help out an indie film to get traction by having a big name attached. But this garbage? This? WHY KEVIN WHY!?!?… Expand
Average User Score: 8.0Dec 22, 2015Ok I really don't know what Pixar cocaine reviewers are smoking. Don't get me wrong Pixar makes great movies there is no doubt about that butOk I really don't know what Pixar cocaine reviewers are smoking. Don't get me wrong Pixar makes great movies there is no doubt about that but there is a definite pattern of movies that aren't made by Pixar getting reamed in reviews around awards seasons. Almost to the extent where you can't help but wonder if some strings are being pulled behind the scenes. Is this movie better then Inside Out? No it isn't. However it is one of the better animated films I have seen in awhile.
Most of the critic complaints I see talk about the movie being too tame. This is just sad. This is more then film this is art. This movie was so well put together and so many critics are not so much crapping on it as they are saying "it was nice for a few minutes and then it got old.
I want to make something very clear here. I am not usually a fan of tame movies. There are critics giving this a positive review BECAUSE it plays it safe and is family friendly to the tamest extent. Then there are critics who crap on it because it plays it safe and doesn't have too many risque jokes for adults like so many kids films usually sneak in. I have never been a politically correct person. I have never cared what a movie does or does not contain all I care is that the film is good. This movie is great. Yes it is family friendly and quite tame compared to most G and PG films nowadays. Why is that suddenly a bad thing?
I love to play Grand Theft Auto and Assassin's Creed just like any other hardcore gamer. Does that really mean absolutely everything we watch and interact with in life has to be depressing? This movie had me leaving the theater genuinely feeling good. It had some nice positive messages. Why is that a bad thing? I don't consider myself a religious person by any means hell if anything I am anti religion, This movie taught good values though. Why crap on a movie simply because it was too safe?
As a critic when you review a film you are supposed to review it off of the merit of the film not your own closeminded views.I will say it over and over again. This film was so well put together and executed. I genuinely don't understand where my fellow critic's are coming from.
Now I don't know about you but when I see someone write a review this long I generally check their profile to see if they are just diehard fans of a series or hate something for no reason. You all know the accounts I mean the throwaways giving zeros to hated films and 10s to films we know aren't as good as they are saying they are but they can't help but give the series perfect scores. So I checked my own profile and unfortunately found that for some reason only 2 of my previous reviews show. I don't know if it was a Facebook linking issue or what but 50 something reviews I have written for this site since the site was first online are just gone. I remember writing those two reviews on my cellphone so maybe it synced to a new account or something. So I have no proof of my credibility to offer because apparently it has disappeared into the void.
From the first 10 seconds of the film all the way through to the end this film is true to Peanuts. Everyone who complains about how safe it is? This is an accurate recreation of a comic strip that has been in the public consciousness since the 1950's. A time when frankly far less was considered corrrect or allowed in entertainment. They could have updated and revamped Peanuts changing it entirely throwing in Spongebob type jokes everywhere. If they had done so though would we really be watching Peanuts? Personally I applaud the film creators for staying true to source material OVER SIXTY years old. That takes some serious cajones. I find it a very sad state of affairs that unless a movie has content A,B,C, or doesn't contain content E.
As mentioned in the beginning I am not religious at all quite the opposite. There is a 2 second moment in the film where Charlie Brown makes a somewhat religious yet ambiguous comment. I guess hardcore atheist reviewers who feel like a 2 second inspirational message in a 90 minute long film is "pushing the christianity agenda" so therefore the film should get points docked. I used to be a professional reviewer I stopped I don't even remember why. I am so pissed off that these "critics" get paid to be so biased towards films over the tiniest things. It is very rare you read a film review that doesn't get a good third of its overall score docked because one instant in a film doesn't agree wtih them. There is no realistic scoring method they use. They just throw their comments in and make up a plausible number at the end. Oh wait that is why I left I remember now. Was sick of people dictating to me what I could or could not rate scores because of studio influence.
This is a great movie. Yes it "plays it safe" The source material is SIXTY years old. If it didn't stay true to the original it wouldn't be Peanuts it would be something else. Watch it then judge for yourself.… Expand
Average User Score: 5.2Jan 17, 2015Where to begin brief intro. One this review only reflects first 30 minutes as I couldnt watch anymore 2 I generally feel critics are too harshWhere to begin brief intro. One this review only reflects first 30 minutes as I couldnt watch anymore 2 I generally feel critics are too harsh on some movies they rate poorly. I have reviewed films myself in the past and used to work for a movie theater I love movies and will generally watch anything I am even remotely interested in regardless of whether I think it is reviewed well or not. I am a firm believer of never walking out of a movie before it ends giving the full runtime to the film to come out with an accurate review. I am being a hypocrite right now this movie is godawful I couldn't watch another second of it. That is enough of an intro on to the actual review.
In the first 30 minutes next to nothing happens now if this was setting up the origin of the story or characters that is fine I really dont mind when a movie starts with a slow pace but there is a difference between a movie with a slow pace and a movie that does almost nothing in the first act of the film. Here are some random things that happened. Someone causes a virus to infect chinese nuclear systems to cause a core to overmelt. This is expressed in two ways a 5 minute scene of data running through wires in what is some of the worst cg I have ever seen in a film and actors staring dramatically at eachother with a few nods. A hacker looks at the code of what happened and angrily slams his laptop closed and pushes some paper off his desk. Chris Helmsworth character helped create the code so he is negotiating his terms.
You have good actors giving bad performances with bland dialogue you have more solemn stares you have more crappy cg sequences of data going through wires.
Very little emotion is shown by anyone no explanation is given as to what type of hack it was what terms they are throwing about with no definitions.
I have a basic understanding of cyber attacks and hacking not a great one not a nonexistant one but at least in the 30 minutes I saw if you are interspersing horrible cg with random hacking terms and not explaining anything to the audience that is just poor planning
This is the 3rd movie I have walked out of in my life One I was sick and had to leave for as a child one was premonition with sandra bullock and now this one in my 29 year obsession with cinema I have seen around 500 films in theaters. Normally I feel critics grade a film too harshly if it isn't an oscarbait film currently I simply find nyself dumbfounded by any critics giving this film higher then a 20 on a 100 point scale. I have watched so many crappy movies all the way through where I knew it was a bad movie but I just kept watching it to able to give a fair judgment. This one is so bad it doesnt deserve the full runtime.
If a film is 2 hours and nothing has happened in the first 30 minutes? That is a problem. I am not saying nothing cool or exciting happened I am literally saying nothing happens. Again bad cg animation hacker terms with no explanation and good or at least decent actors giving godawful performances. I havent written a review for a movie on metacritic in years I logged in simply to write this urging you not to waste your money. One of the worst movies I have started tk watch in the last 10 years. Transcendencd is godawfuk as well but ironically the first 20 minutes of that was good.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.1Jul 5, 2012This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Dear Mark Webb. Is your name Christopher Nolan? No? THEN WHY THE HELL ARE YOU PRETENDING TO BE?!?! Full disclosure here I actually review movies and videogames professionally this is not a professional review this is a fan's livid rant about how my fellow peers can rate an average movie so highly. I have to give Mr Webb credit for being bold. He tries a lot of new ideas some work but most don't. The plot changes itself in the middle of the movie not once but twice. I don't know who to blame here. i never expected much from this movie since hearing about it two years ago, but after seeing some of the previews I thought maybe just maybe it might not be half bad. Unfortunately I was horribly horribly wrong. What is it everyone loves about this movie? The story of the movie is just as lost and confused as the rest of us. I thought Emma Stone looked quite a bit like Gwen Stacy I think she did a decent job. I think Garfield did as best as he could with the script given to him he certainly moved like Spider-Man did, but why was his character portrayed so far from what makes Peter Parker? I really don't know who is at fault here I think enough went wrong that it isn't possible for one person to take the blame for all of it. I would recommend seeing it so you can understand just how horribly things went wrong. I would like to ask my fellow peers just how many of you sucked Stan Lee's dick to give this average movie such a high rating. Very little is ever resolved. The whole movie feels like they filmed about 6 hours worth of footage, and a few months before the movie was set to release they realized they were out of time, and said ok just watch the footage and give me 2 and a half hours worth of decent material. Then we all give it to the editors and work or magic. Audiences are so gullible and trusting now so they will just take whatever we give them as long as we throw some cool special effects in there to whet their appetite. Why am I so angry you ask? This movie was meant to "correct" whatever Canon issues the Sam Raimi films had. It does the exact opposite. They change the personality of Peter Parker ENTIRELY from "canon" He is a somewhat loner skater kid? I was waiting for Avril Lavigne sk8er boi to kick in in the background. Peter was bullied he doesn't save others from bullies he was NEVER a popular kid. Furthermore what happens to the vengeance? Ya we know he won't go through with it but the entire thing is dropped. They spend 20 minutes of the movie setting it up just to drop it entirely? Oh and what happened to the dialogue in EVERY trailer of Kurt Konners telling Peter "You think this was a coincidence?" I think we all know where the story would have gone, problem is it didn't exist in the movie. Whatever plot used to be in the movie, and isn't is advertised heavily in the trailer. This movie pissed me off but it pisses me off more that so many of my peers are freaking sell outs. It isn't horrible but it is far from Amazing. Who do we blame editing department? Director? Writer? Pushy Producers? They changed just about everything about Spider-man yet they claimed this would be more "true" to the original. And most importantly. WHY THE HELL DID HALF THE FREAKING PEOPLE IN THE MOVIE KNOW WHO HE WAS?… Expand