Their site is slower than ten dead dogs, but here’s the link. Really quite scathing, actually. Says it lacks an emotional hook – overall much worse than the first. If this is true, then bummer, man.
So… success, then?
Commercial success means you found an audience. Critical success just means you kissed the asses of a bunch of stodgy sinecures with nothing better to do.
Yeah, I’m not looking for an emotional hook when I’m watching Iron Man. I’m looking for Iron Man beating the ever living shit out of his enemies, with a good looking lady somewhere thrown in.
So you want Transformers 2?
Have fun with that. Some of us were hoping for more.
Hey, Transformers 2 found an audience. It didn’t bother kissing the asses of stodgy old sinecures with nothing better to do.
Haters gonna hate the haters!
What worries me is that they say it’s much worse than the original, which indicates they thought the original was good. The jury is still out, obviously, but I have a hard time seeing this as positive.
Oh thank goodness, Harry is full of spunk about this one.
Seriously though, I agree with Knowles more than I agree with Hollywood Reporter, so, fucking yay!
That totally needs to be a quote in the film’s marketing.
That quote makes no sense.
Anyway, that review was harsh. I still can’t wait to see the movie.
Yeah it’s up there with:
It makes sense, it’s just an incredibly dumbshit way of saying it.
He’s saying that it follows in the tradition of X-Men 2 and Spider-Man 2, in that the sequel is bigger and better* than the original.
Good God. How is this his job?
As if Iron Man was anything other than a well-paced and -edited action movie?
I was going to make this exact point, but you said it much better than I would have.
You people don’t see the difference in quality storytelling between Iron Man and Transformers 2?
Spiderman really didn’t hit a brick wall until 3. When I’m squirming from empathetic embarrassment for everyone involved in a scene that lasts 10 minutes, your film is done broke.
Yes they do, but apparently Mightynute thinks that distinction only interests a bunch of stodgy sinecures with nothing better to do and those that kiss their asses.
I think this is an argument of semantics here, so let me clarify -
“Critical success”, if it means “the critics liked it” = worthless. Critics are the lowest form of life around. They say what the ad-buyers pay them to say and there you have it.
“Critical success”, if they’re meaning “does the general moviegoing audience like it?” - that’s actually a worthwhile metric. Since the general moviegoing audience has not seen Iron Man 2 and won’t until May 7th, there’s no such thing as “critical opinion” by that definition.
I’ve not yet met a reviewer whose opinion I trust on anything, so I don’t put a lot of stock in claims that it won’t be a “critical success”.
Your definitions still fail to pass the Transformers 2 test.
I’ve not yet met a reviewer whose opinion I trust on anything
I think I’ve spotted your problem. You seem to think that critics expect you to take their opinions on faith. In actual fact, all the decent critics (whether we’re talking movies, games, or literature) justify their stated opinion with well formulated arguments and evidence, often drawing on their extensive experience in the medium.
That’s kinda what I thought he was saying but wasn’t sure. Yeah, the 2nd movie in superhero series usually kicks ass, then anything after it sucks.