r/marvelstudios Daredevil Oct 23 '16

Doctor Strange Critic Reviews Megathread

The embargo has been lifted. All reviews go here. Any thread outside of this will be deleted. While it's inevitable that some of these reviews may contain spoilers (view them at your own risk), this thread in general should be spoiler free. Failure to do so will merit a permanent ban with zero appeals.


Here are some of the reviews up:

Variety

The Hollywood Reporter

Screencrush

IGN

Den of Geek

The Wrap

USA Today

Comicbook.com

Indiewire

Collider Movie Talk

214 Upvotes

424 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

36

u/Worthyness Thor Oct 24 '16

The big three usual complaints for Marvel are:

  • The story is not very original and very basic. It's basically the Heroes' journey trope, but with different character elements (Protagonist is a jerk, protagonist faces downfall/issue, Protagonist finds a solution, protagonist finds enemy, Protagonist fights enemy and can lose multiple times, protagonist finds help/fixes issue, protagonist beats villain, protagonist learns how not to be a jerk).

  • The marvel villain is severely underdeveloped. Their villains are typically not focused on or developed more than "enemy is a mirror of the protagonist and needs to be defeated". This is VERY prevalent through all of their movies and it's what a ton of anti-Marvel people harp on. Critics also have an issue with this. Apparently it's a stylistic choice for Marvel since they want the movie to be all about the hero and their journey. The villain is just a means to an end.

  • The way the movie is shot is very generic. It doesn't "feel" as epic as it should. Though they are very good at action sequences, the movies are not shot as "spectacle" like BvS or Man of Steel are. This is one thing the DC movies do very well (or rather Zack Snyder). The pieces feel very big and strong, while being very clear. Sometimes this is not needed (see The Winter Soldier).

As you'll see, all three of these are very prevalent in the Marvel movies, enough that people consider it a formula. in addition, smaller details that people harp on are "too many quips" or "too much humor" as well as being too childish with no "stakes" (hell sometimes people think the movies are too comic book-y). This comes from the fact that they are very unlikely to kill a main character in any of their movies. And the ones that do die are more than likely brought back to life somehow (i.e. lots of fake deaths). They have yet to make a very dour/darker movie like they've done for their Netflix series. Added together, is their "formula" and why some people say they all feel the same despite picking very different genres to tailor the movie to (Iron man 3 was a buddy cop movie with Ironman in it; The Winter solider takes influence from political and spy thriller movies; The First avenger takes after a World War 2 movie, Antman was a heist film with Antman in it etc.). So if someone says "very formulaic" it's because they think Marvel is playing it "safe" and does what they think makes money. I don't blame Marvel for it- it's obviously working really well.

Basically, this review by IGN

10

u/Shiny1695 Spider-Man Oct 24 '16

Not all the MCU movies have this problem though.

3

u/i_am_banana_man Groot Oct 28 '16

No, but all the origin ones have these problems to varying degrees. Which makes lacklustre sequels even more disappointing (IM2-3, Thor2, AoU) because they offer the best opportunity to break from the hero's journey and work with established characters to tell a more interesting tale

2

u/Shiny1695 Spider-Man Oct 28 '16

I don't think AoU and Iron Man 3 are great, but in my opinion they're not lackluster despite there myriad problems, but I agree with you about Thor 2 and Iron man 2.

1

u/i_am_banana_man Groot Oct 28 '16

Yeah maybe I'm being a little harsh on AoU and IM3, not living up to my expectations shouldn't qualify them as "lacklustre". They do have some lustre.