<Snipped quote by Fabricant451>

No, my entire point is that brendan frasier and nathan fillion are just examples of a very overused and long standing character trope that was around way before and will be around way after chris pratt.

Ive not seen moneyball but Zero Dark Thrity? It was a dramamtic film sure, but Chris Pratt was in it for about 17 mins and he cracked 2 jokes and held a gun in a brief shooting scene. Hardly a 'dramatic turn'.

Im not even saying he's a crap actor, I'm saying he's nothing new, interesting or special.

And my point is it's a bit misleading to label Chris Pratt as 'cookie cutter comedy action hero guy' when apart from Jurassic World (where if you want to get technical, the stupid raptor is the real 'action hero') and Guardians/Infinity War (where he plays an emotionally immature loser surrounded by other emotionally immature losers) his career is largely in supporting roles and romcoms. He's played Star-Lord three times, Owen Grady twice but apart from that the only other movies he's done since becoming something of a household name in 2014 was the co-lead in a remake and the lead in a really bad sci fi drama.

Chris Pratt hasn't done enough movies to be typecast.

Him being 'nothing new, interesting, or special' is kind of an odd criticism since I'm not sure I could point to an actor that is 'new, interesting, and special'. He's got charisma and he's got the 'every man' charm that makes him watchable even if he's not ever going to be a highly regarded 'serious actor'.

But that's fine. The film industry needs Chris Pratt's because they're draws.

youtube.com/watch?v=tg52up16eq0

so good

Venom sucking is uber disappointing.

I don't know about everyone else, but I'd rather not take the word of critics because here's a shocker! They're likely to be hella biased. When I see it for myself, I'll decide if I deem it "worse than Catwoman", not go off the word of some critic who may or may not be wrong. But ya know, given Tom Hardy hasn't done a bad movie yet and has always given stellar performances, I'd be willing to bet I won't be disappointed.

I don't know about everyone else, but I'd rather not take the word of critics because here's a shocker! They're likely to be hella biased. When I see it for myself, I'll decide if I deem it "worse than Catwoman", not go off the word of some critic who may or may not be wrong. But ya know, given Tom Hardy hasn't done a bad movie yet and has always given stellar performances, I'd be willing to bet I won't be disappointed.

they took his favorite parts out of the movie. also i'd agree with you. the critics have, however, mentioned that all of the good parts of the movie are because tom hardy is trying and ain't no one else.

idk

if it fails, sony will sell sony pictures to disney faster so no complaints

I don't know about everyone else, but I'd rather not take the word of critics because here's a shocker! They're likely to be hella biased. When I see it for myself, I'll decide if I deem it "worse than Catwoman", not go off the word of some critic who may or may not be wrong. But ya know, given Tom Hardy hasn't done a bad movie yet and has always given stellar performances, I'd be willing to bet I won't be disappointed.

Somebody hasn't seen This Means War.

I don't know about everyone else, but I'd rather not take the word of critics because here's a shocker! They're likely to be hella biased. When I see it for myself, I'll decide if I deem it "worse than Catwoman", not go off the word of some critic who may or may not be wrong. But ya know, given Tom Hardy hasn't done a bad movie yet and has always given stellar performances, I'd be willing to bet I won't be disappointed.

Please elaborate on these supposed biases that film reviewers have. Film criticism serves a dual function of collecting a general feel on a movie as well as a way for the general public to see if a movie they're on the fence about is worth the ticket price. Truly great critics will elaborate on what aspects made the film work or not work while not being bogged down in pretension. How are critics wrong when it's largely a well informed opinion?

And Tom Hardy has done at least six bad movies: This Means War, Child 44, RockNRolla, The Dark Knight Rises, Scenes of a Sexual Nature and Inception

<Snipped quote by Altered Tundra>

they took his favorite parts out of the movie. also i'd agree with you. the critics have, however, mentioned that all of the good parts of the movie are because tom hardy is trying and ain't no one else.

idk

if it fails, sony will sell sony pictures to disney faster so no complaints

True, though I wouldn't mind seeing at least one Sony-led Spidey cinematic universe kickoff.

<Snipped quote by Altered Tundra>
Somebody hasn't seen This Means War.

I have, actually. And while I don't think it was a great film, I also don't think it was that bad. I've certainly seen worse films of its kind.

Please elaborate on these supposed biases that film reviewers have. Film criticism serves a dual function of collecting a general feel on a movie as well as a way for the general public to see if a movie they're on the fence about is worth the ticket price. Truly great critics will elaborate on what aspects made the film work or not work while not being bogged down in pretension. How are critics wrong when it's largely a well informed opinion?

And Tom Hardy has done at least six bad movies: This Means War, Child 44, RockNRolla, The Dark Knight Rises, Scenes of a Sexual Nature and Inception

Man, why you gotta do Inception like that.

<Snipped quote by Altered Tundra>

Please elaborate on these supposed biases that film reviewers have. Film criticism serves a dual function of collecting a general feel on a movie as well as a way for the general public to see if a movie they're on the fence about is worth the ticket price. Truly great critics will elaborate on what aspects made the film work or not work while not being bogged down in pretension. How are critics wrong when it's largely a well informed opinion?

And Tom Hardy has done at least six bad movies:

The Dark Knight Rises

TAKE IT BACK.

<Snipped quote by Fabricant451>
Man, why you gotta do Inception like that.

Because I didn't like it. I recognize that it is a well made movie but before Interstellar came along, Inception was like my least favorite Nolan thing. Lucky for him Interstellar is gonna be hard to beat.

<Snipped quote by Fabricant451>

TAKE IT BACK.

I'm sorry, little one.

<Snipped quote by Altered Tundra>

Please elaborate on these supposed biases that film reviewers have. Film criticism serves a dual function of collecting a general feel on a movie as well as a way for the general public to see if a movie they're on the fence about is worth the ticket price. Truly great critics will elaborate on what aspects made the film work or not work while not being bogged down in pretension. How are critics wrong when it's largely a well informed opinion?

And Tom Hardy has done at least six bad movies: This Means War, Child 44, RockNRolla, The Dark Knight Rises, Scenes of a Sexual Nature and Inception

I really hate saying this because I find it's a copout, but the way I see is this: everyone has their own take on a film. No matter where you turn, you'll find at least two film reviewer/critic that like one film where the other will pan it. You can't honestly tell me that critics are objective when reviewing a film when they are watching a film and they write their reviews based off of what they think.

Because I didn't like it. I recognize that it is a well made movie but before Interstellar came along, Inception was like my least favorite Nolan thing. Lucky for him Interstellar is gonna be hard to beat.

So you measure quality (bad/good) by personal subjectivity (like/dislike)?

I really hate saying this because I find it's a copout, but the way I see is this: everyone has their own take on a film. No matter where you turn, you'll find at least two film reviewer/critic that like one film where the other will pan it. You can't honestly tell me that critics are objective when reviewing a film when they are watching a film and they write their reviews based off of what they think.

Critics are not inherently objective. Some have an objective measure that they gauge alongside their subjective preferences, but even then there is no absolute "objective" critic. They are just more objective than some dude who thinks Marvel movies are "dope". But yes, that is a copout and not really a statement in film critique or discussion that can be taken very seriously because its just trying to disregard the technical, philosophical, and other modes of art analysis.

Fun fact: Critics can weigh their feelings against objective modes and their thoughts. It's not hard. I did it informally for several years.

<Snipped quote by Fabricant451>

I really hate saying this because I find it's a copout, but the way I see is this: everyone has their own take on a film. No matter where you turn, you'll find at least two film reviewer/critic that like one film where the other will pan it. You can't honestly tell me that critics are objective when reviewing a film when they are watching a film and they write their reviews based off of what they think.

I can absolutely tell you that critics can and have been objective when discussing the more technical aspects of a film. Sure, stuff like performances are always subjective (though if there's a bunch of people saying "So and So did a bad job it's a pretty good sign that So and So does a bad job) but a movie's script and action scenes or cinematography or editing are all very easy to be objective about. If a bunch of critics are saying the same thing about a movie, in this case that "Tom Hardy is the best thing about Venom" it's pretty easy to assume that the rest of the movie isn't so good.

Of course, some people might view the movie differently or find things they like about it that make it worth their ticket price. But that doesn't invalidate the critics and their perspectives.

<Snipped quote by Altered Tundra>
They are just more objective than some dude who thinks Marvel movies are "dope".

i honestly feel so attacked right now.

<Snipped quote by Fabricant451>
So you measure quality (bad/good) by personal subjectivity (like/dislike)?

Not fully, no. I didn't like Inception but I don't think it's a bad movie. But by that same token I didn't like The Dark Knight Rises and I do think it's a bad movie, but that one for way more technical reasons such as the script, the action, and how stupid it all is.

i honestly feel so attacked right now.

RIP your vocabulary.

<Snipped quote by Altered Tundra>
Critics are not inherently objective. Some have an objective measure that they gauge alongside their subjective preferences, but even then there is no absolute "objective" critic. They are just more objective than some dude who thinks Marvel movies are "dope". But yes, that is a copout and not really a statement in film critique or discussion that can be taken very seriously because its just trying to disregard the technical, philosophical, and other modes of art analysis.

Fun fact: Critics can weigh their feelings against objective modes and their thoughts. It's not hard. I did it informally for several years.

And thus why I took no pride in saying it, but I digress. My own opinions about critics and their objectivity is my own beef, but I also don't feel like I should take critics' thoughts on a film until I've seen it for myself. If I find that I didn't enjoy it, then I'll be the first one to say here in this thread that I was wrong and the critics were right. If I happen to like it, however, well, I'll state that here as well.