|
Post by roverpup on Dec 29, 2018 2:31:01 GMT
Apparently it’s REALLY BAD. It wasn’t just panned by critics but it got a D+ Cinemascore! I’m not sure I have ever hear of a movie getting a D! Maybe some horror film! Horror films are always getting bad scores! It doesn't surprise me at all that this movie is a disaster. I saw the preview for it in the cinema and it made my skin crawl. I think it would be fair to classify this as a "horror" film... it was that bad (if the preview was any indication of what the rest of it was like)! Same goes for that "Marwen" film too - how do these things get past the drawing board!?! Is it just that there isn't someone brave enough to say "But the emperor has NO clothes!" ?
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 29, 2018 3:02:34 GMT
I just checked and there is also a F rating that I think it’s more common!
Vanilla Sky also had a D and was still a hit!
EDITED: Actually the F is more rare but I guess it’s much more publicized! It’s the mediocres the ones people forget!
Also both Wikipedia and The Wrap “forgot” The Imitation Game in their A+ lists! The bastards! Yes, it’s a pretty conventional movie (as most with an A+) but general audiences absolutely really loved it!
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Dec 29, 2018 3:36:04 GMT
It does look terrible, but I wouldn’t go see a Will Ferrell movie even it got rave reviews. But in defence of this movie, I do think it should really be judged as a WF+JCR movie. They have their fans who will probably find it hilarious, and they will go see it no matter what the reviews say.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Dec 29, 2018 9:12:50 GMT
I saw the trailer for this recently. It did not look great. I liked Anchor man but otherwise I’m not a fan of Will Ferrell movies. I don’t even like Elf, which everyone seems to think is brilliant.
I think there’s space for a good Holmes & Watson spoof but this movie isn’t it.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 30, 2018 21:14:28 GMT
This positive review is interesting because it claims critics didn’t understand the humor of the film and at the same time insists BC’s Sherlock take itself too seriously! spectator.us/holmes-watson-reviewed/Maybe he is thinking in Nolan’s Batman! Sherlock has a lot of flaws but being too “serious” is not one of them! It even has a long drunken scene as the one he describes here. Except Cumberbatch doesn’t peed on his pants! Although I think he vomited on a carpet! I’m not sure! I suspect it’s just one contrarian piece and that’s good to me. I like contrarian pieces but his description of BBc’s Sherlock is totally wrong!
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Dec 30, 2018 23:10:08 GMT
I'm all for diversity of critical analysis of films but I think the reviewer lost me totally when I read him singing the praises of "extended infantilism". I get enough of THAT just reading about Trump and I don't think that sort of thing is funny in ANY form.
He also seemed to have an almost obsessive fixation on Cumberbatch's performance of Sherlock (really - he mentioned BC's name almost more than he did of the stars of the movie he was supposed to be reviewing!). It was almost like he really personally resented BC's portrayal and was butthurt that it had been such a critical and commercial success.
To me the whole thing just sounds like a fratboys kegger party, so I suppose if you get off with crude "pee, pooh and vomit" jokes and dated adolescent humour (like the reviewers seems to) then this movie will yank your giggle chain. Not my cup of tea, but then I don't think there's a film that stars WF that is.
I went and read a whole bunch of on-line comments from people who had seen it and the thing that struck me was that it seems like one of the most common complaints was that it was just plain B-O-R-I-N-G!
I saw dozens of posts that talked about people walking out on the film, falling asleep during it, shouting out "This sucks!" and playing video games on their phones during it. One post panning it had over 800 "likes"!
So while this reviewer seems to be suggesting that it was only the snobby critics who didn't like this flick, that really doesn't seem to be the case. It looks like it disappointed most the people actually inclined to go to this type of film and if you can't entertain the crowd that is on your side to begin with then your film is probably slated to go into the crapper VERY quickly... and that looks exactly like what is happening to this one!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 30, 2018 23:41:58 GMT
TBH I don't think he have watched too much of BC's Sherlock if he really thinks it's a very serious version.
It doesn't bothers me if he likes infantile humor but I suspect the review is just him trying to be contrarian, which also doesn't bothers me too much, except he seems trying too much.
EDITED: If I remember well, THR review explicitly said that both Downey Jr. and Cumberbatch version were much more funnier than this satire! Very weird this guy is completely denying the silliness in BC's portrait!
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Dec 31, 2018 1:37:54 GMT
TBH I don't think he have watched too much of BC's Sherlock if he really thinks it's a very serious version. It doesn't bothers me if he likes infantile humor but I suspect the review is just him trying to be contrarian, which also doesn't bothers me too much, except he seems trying too much. EDITED: If I remember well, THR review explicitly said that both Downey Jr. and Cumberbatch version were much more funnier than this satire! Very weird this guy is completely denying the silliness in BC's portrait! Well, I don't really care if he likes infantile humour either (I can acknowledge that it takes all kinds to make the world) but it does kind of irk me that he seems to be suggesting that there isn't room for anything EXCEPT that and that just because BC's portrayal wasn't puerile, it somehow fell short, where this one excelled. I absolutely agree with you (and others) that sometimes BC's Holmes could be "silly" (fussy, obtuse to social conventions, myopic, overly proud and stuffy, etc.). He may have faltered on occasion and even been slow on the uptake on even rarer occasions. It was a lovely device that allowed Sherlock's vulnerability and humanity to make an appearance. The creators used BC's natural comic sensibilities and timing to greater advantage and that often imbued the series with an air of comic relief. The show had plenty of humour to balance with the emotional drama. But that humour was only one facet of the show and not the only one in its "bag of tricks". Where I think films like this Holmes and Watson go off track, is to forget the other elements. Even in a pure comedy you have to have some other dynamic to play against the laughs. From the reviews and the audience comments I read it seems the makers of this movie missed that point entirely. Right now Dan and I have just discovered "30 Rock" and are really enjoying it. Talk about silly! But even that show integrates the OTT silliness of their humour with a balance of humanity that strikes an emotional chord (within the characters and on occasion with the plot).
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Dec 31, 2018 2:10:24 GMT
It’s low brow humor, which always takes a beating with critics and a great swath of the public. But some folks like it. I take umbrage with the notion that low brow = sophistication, however. I don’t find that puerile references are the cream of humor, but that’s just me. Sometimes I like a good dose of earthy humor, as long as the fart jokes and vomiting are kept to a minimum.
And yes, Ben’s Sherlock has plenty of silliness which this guy has forgotten or ignored. I’ll prolly watch this when it shows up on tv. I’m certainly not going to pay actual money to see it, lol!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 31, 2018 2:23:17 GMT
Agreed that there is also other elements in the series that make it not just a comedy, my surprise with that review is that he completely ignore the strong comedic element and straightforward said it is very serious which it’s far from the truth! I would understood if he had said that the jokes aren’t good or that BC isn’t good doing comedy (wrong! But it’s an opinion!) but he said he and it are very serious which it’s just a lie! I guess he tried too create a dichotomy between the enjoyable, puerile and anti-establishment (critics hated it and he would never be “allowed to join the Diogenes Club”) movie starred by the silly American clown and the acclaimed and very serious “sci-fi” ( ) series starring a solemn British theatre thespian! The problem is Sherlock is not that AT ALL! Very weird!
|
|