Movies: The Super Mario Bros. Movie

[John Price]

All that matters is if parents bring their kids and it makes hundreds of millions of dollars.

Listen to this crap from the article:

Yeah I get it, Federico Fellini would not be impressed.

Critics be like

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Pretty much average reviews, glad it didnt bomb.

 

[Fixed to Ruin]

All that matters is if parents bring their kids and it makes hundreds of millions of dollars.

Listen to this crap from the article:

Yeah I get it, Federico Fellini would not be impressed.

What reviewers expect...

What fans want...

 

[GKJ]

I feel like from the reviews that people actually expected the Pedro Pascal SNL skit

 

[Osprey]

I disagree with the idea that animated films don't need emotional resonance or to be more than just kids movies. Imagine if Toy Story had no emotional resonance and aimed only to please kids. Imagine if that applied to Toy Story 3, probably most people's favorite of the series because of how emotionally resonant it is. Imagine if it applied to all movies from Pixar and other animation studios that have tried to copy them. We're all grown adults who are interested in a movie like this because we've learned that animated films can be for more than just kids. In fact, I think that it's what separates the lesser animated films from the better ones. The better ones also resonate with adults. If all animated films were shallow and only for kids, then, yes, it'd be a bit silly to judge them for it. However, we've had so many that have also resonated with adults and been very good films (and not just as animated ones go) that I think that it's fair to expect and judge them accordingly.

 

[x Tame Impala]

All that matters is if parents bring their kids and it makes hundreds of millions of dollars.

Listen to this crap from the article:

Yeah I get it, Federico Fellini would not be impressed.

“f*** those kids I wanted a Mario movie made for meeeeeeeee”.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

I disagree with the idea that animated films don't need emotional resonance or to be more than just kids movies. Imagine if Toy Story had no emotional resonance and aimed only to please kids. Imagine if that applied to Toy Story 3, probably most people's favorite of the series because of how emotionally resonant it is. Imagine if it applied to all movies from Pixar and other animation studios that have tried to copy them. We're all grown adults who are interested in a movie like this because we've learned that animated films can be for more than just kids. In fact, I think that it's what separates the lesser animated films from the better ones. The better ones also resonate with adults. If all animated films were shallow and only for kids, then, yes, it'd be a bit silly to judge them for it. However, we've had so many that have also resonated with adults and been very good films (and not just as animated ones go) that I think that it's fair to expect and judge them accordingly.

I mean sure but it's a movie about a plumber stopping a turtle dragon from taking over a Mushroom Kingdom.

 

[Shareefruck]

I mean sure but it's a movie about a plumber stopping a turtle dragon from taking over a Mushroom Kingdom.

No reason that premise can't be genuinely memorable and done well.

Nobody should have expected anything super interesting considering the type of production it is, but they should still call a spade a spade.

 

[Osprey]

I mean sure but it's a movie about a plumber stopping a turtle dragon from taking over a Mushroom Kingdom.

Yes, but that could be just the backdrop for a story that's really about two brothers, a love interest and a best friend, for example. That's how you ground a silly premise, after all... with relationships, emotions, themes and other things that adults can relate to. We've seen animated films with silly premises before--Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, for example--that adults could appreciate in spite of their silliness because there was more than just that. In fact, if there's a "formula" for animated films, it's marrying silly characters and situations that appeal to kids with underlying depth and heart that appeal to adults. From what I'm reading, depth and heart are somewhat lacking in this film, and you may not expect them, but there's no reason why it couldn't have had them and been a better film for it.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

No reason that premise can't be genuinely memorable and done well.

Nobody should have expected anything super interesting considering the type of production it is, but they should still call a spade a spade.

Seeing as fans of the series seem to be enjoying it, I'm going to go with their opinion over the useless movie reviewer. Here's an actual line from a person disparaging the movie from Gizmodo:

"From its very first scenes, it’s clear The Super Mario Bros. Movie is made for children."

Woah, holy shit, really? I can't believe it! A movie starring a children's video game character is made for children?!?!?!?!?

Not every movie has to be super emotional. Sometimes you just want a good time.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Tickets for Saturday purchased. This will be my soon-to-be five year-old Mario Kart-loving son's first big screen experience.

Stoked for that.

 

[Shareefruck]

Seeing as fans of the series seem to be enjoying it, I'm going to go with their opinion over the useless movie reviewer. Here's an actual line from a person disparaging the movie from Gizmodo:

"From its very first scenes, it’s clear The Super Mario Bros. Movie is made for children."

Woah, holy shit, really? I can't believe it! A movie starring a children's video game character is made for children?!?!?!?!?

Not every movie has to be super emotional. Sometimes you just want a good time.

Strange way to frame it considering that as a videogame, Mario is more than just strictly a children's thing. They're legitimately great games made for everyone.

And hell, even as a videogame that's known for gameplay over story, they've had moments where even the videogame has had inspired storytelling (Galaxy, for example).

That said, I don't see a reason why anyone should "Go with" people's opinions to begin with (whatever that even means). Can't say I value a fan's opinion any more than an average reviewer's, though, or why the latter would be any more useless.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

Strange way to frame it considering that as a videogame, Mario is more than just strictly a children's thing. They're legitimately great games made for everyone.

And hell, even as a videogame that's known for gameplay over story, they've had moments where even the videogame has had inspired storytelling (Galaxy, for example).

That said, I don't see a reason why anyone should "Go with" people's opinions to begin with (whatever that even means). Can't say I value a fan's opinion any more than an average reviewer's, though, or why the latter would be any more useless.

Yes you're not wrong but I don't know why people would go to a movie about an Italian plumber stomping on things and expect some kind of Toy Story 3-esque emotional resonance. Most Mario games are basically devoid of emotion (the RPGs are different, naturally), and that's completely fine.

The problem with movie reviewers is it's more a matter of their opinion and more often than not they've seen better movies. The casual fan is likely going to enjoy it far more than someone who's seen more movies than you or I ever will.

They were nicer to the first Sonic movie and while I think it's a decent movie in its own right, it's still got a ton of issues that plague most kids movies.

Not every movie has to hit you right in the feels. Some are just there for fun, and it's impossible to make a movie that's for absolutely everyone.

Man, I was just reminded that THPS2 has a 98 on metacritic. Great game. Better than Mario Galaxy? Nooooo.

 

[Shareefruck]

Yes you're not wrong but I don't know why people would go to a movie about an Italian plumber stomping on things and expect some kind of Toy Story 3-esque emotional resonance. Most Mario games are basically devoid of emotion (the RPGs are different, naturally), and that's completely fine.

The problem with movie reviewers is it's more a matter of their opinion and more often than not they've seen better movies. The casual fan is likely going to enjoy it far more than someone who's seen more movies than you or I ever will.

They were nicer to the first Sonic movie and while I think it's a decent movie in its own right, it's still got a ton of issues that plague most kids movies.

Not every movie has to hit you right in the feels. Some are just there for fun, and it's impossible to make a movie that's for absolutely everyone.

Man, I was just reminded that THPS2 has a 98 on metacritic. Great game. Better than Mario Galaxy? Nooooo.

Personally, I don't believe that a reviewer's job is to forecast whether or not people/the casual audience will enjoy a movie, so the resentment that people have about these things not correlating has always felt rather silly to me. Their job is to eloquently convey their perspective, not attempt to be useful for absolutely everyone.

Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not a person actually sees value in the brand of entertainment that it sounds like you're referring to (and why), and it's perfectly valid not to (personally, I don't at all, at least based on what I'm hearing). It's true that that may just mean that the movie isn't for that person, but so what? That should have no bearing on whether or not it's a fair review regardless. I should hope that a reviewer doesn't go easy on a movie just because OTHER people might see value in it-- sounds completely irrelevant and a compromised consideration to cater to, to me. They either see value in it being that way themselves, or they don't, and that's what I'd want a reviewer to expand on.

Personally though, it's less about "it has to hit you in the feels" specifically. For me, something just has to have something legitimately inspired, tastefully executed, decidedly not soulless, or memorable about it for me to appreciate it (that's not a demand or expectation, that's just an "it is what it is" consequence). No premise, no matter how dumb/absurd it superficially SOUNDS, is something that I'd preclude from being able to be those things. But that's just me.

 

[Tuggy]

Got my tickets for tomorrow to take the kids...looking forward to it.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

Personally, I don't believe that a reviewer's job is to forecast whether or not people/the casual audience will enjoy a movie, so the resentment that people have about these things not correlating has always felt rather silly to me. Their job is to eloquently convey their perspective, not attempt to be useful for absolutely everyone.

Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not a person actually sees value in the brand of entertainment that it sounds like you're referring to (and why), and it's perfectly valid not to (personally, I don't at all, at least based on what I'm hearing). It's true that that may just mean that the movie isn't for that person, but so what? That should have no bearing on whether or not it's a fair review regardless. I should hope that a reviewer doesn't go easy on a movie just because OTHER people might see value in it-- sounds completely irrelevant and a compromised consideration to cater to, to me. They either see value in it being that way themselves, or they don't, and that's what I'd want a reviewer to expand on.

Personally though, it's less about "it has to hit you in the feels" specifically. For me, something just has to have something legitimately inspired, tastefully executed, decidedly not soulless, or memorable about it for me to appreciate it (that's not a demand or expectation, that's just an "it is what it is" consequence). No premise, no matter how dumb/absurd it superficially SOUNDS, is something that I'd preclude from being able to be those things. But that's just me.

A reviewer's review is simply an opinion.

As for the movie itself, having just seen it, I thought it was really good. Was it groundbreaking and revolutionary? Nope, not at all. But it didn't need to be. And I don't think any video game adaptation will ever be, that's just the nature of crossing media boundaries.

And if anyone said the movie was soulless then damn they're just baiting for clicks.

 

[NyQuil]

A reviewer's review is simply an opinion.

As for the movie itself, having just seen it, I thought it was really good. Was it groundbreaking and revolutionary? Nope, not at all. But it didn't need to be. And I don't think any video game adaptation will ever be, that's just the nature of crossing media boundaries.

Inb4 the "Last of Us" folks dive bomb into this thread.

Of course, that video game was not targeted at children.

 

[Shareefruck]

A reviewer's review is simply an opinion.

As for the movie itself, having just seen it, I thought it was really good. Was it groundbreaking and revolutionary? Nope, not at all. But it didn't need to be. And I don't think any video game adaptation will ever be, that's just the nature of crossing media boundaries.

And if anyone said the movie was soulless then damn they're just baiting for clicks.

Looking at the review, it doesn't look like they thought that it "needed" to be anything at all. And they acknowledged everything that you're saying about the nature of what this type of thing tends to be, especially with the parties involved and seemed to have an "it is what it is" attitude as well. Unless we're talking about different reviews, it seems like he's just saying that he doesn't appreciate/value what that bare minimum expectation thing is and would have liked to see more. I can understand feeling differently because you personally DO like that bare minimum expectation thing, but I don't really get the vitriol here or what you actually find out to lunch about it, really.

 

[PK Cronin]

Tickets for Saturday purchased. This will be my soon-to-be five year-old Mario Kart-loving son's first big screen experience.

Stoked for that.

Just got home a little while ago from taking my soon-to-be five year old to see it as their first movie experience. They had a ton of fun and are excited to go back to see something else.

As an adult, the movie made me chuckle a handful of times and it was overall enjoyable. A very straightforward story fill with nostalgia based around the games. I spent a decent amount of time just scanning the screen for Easter Eggs. Not something I ever intend to watch again but it was a fun afternoon out with the family.

 

[HanSolo]

Inb4 the "Last of Us" folks dive bomb into this thread.

Of course, that video game was not targeted at children.

I was a big fan of that show. I have no interest in seeing this movie fail or be bad.

 

[NyQuil]

I was a big fan of that show. I have no interest in seeing this movie fail or be bad.

The point I was responding to was his comment that no video game adaptation could be ground breaking or revolutionary .

 

[HanSolo]

The point I was responding to was his comment that no video game adaptation could be ground breaking or revolutionary .

Gotcha. Still might disagree with that premise but I'm also of the mind that it's getting harder to do anything ground breaking and revolutionary with film these days.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

I enjoyed it. But it was nothing special. 6.5/10 for me. The GF gave it an 8.

Chris Pratt was better than I expected.

 

[Shareefruck]

Gotcha. Still might disagree with that premise but I'm also of the mind that it's getting harder to do anything ground breaking and revolutionary with film these days.

I feel like "groundbreaking" or "revolutionary" are just hyperbolic words people are throwing around rather than what the expectation actually is or what anyone reasonable actually means (similar to the people dismissing the dissent as "expecting Fellini/Shakespeare", which is obviously nonsense).

Pretty sure the desire that people negative about the movie has is merely "a genuinely good, critically viable/defensible movie that isn't just leave-your-brain/standards-by-the-door", which plenty of things are without needing to be super high-brow, and hell, plenty of things targeted at children with dumb-sounding premises are.

 

[HanSolo]

I feel like "groundbreaking" or "revolutionary" are just hyperbolic words people are throwing around rather than what the expectation actually is or what anyone reasonable actually means (similar to the people dismissing the dissent as "expecting Fellini/Shakespeare", which is obviously nonsense).

Pretty sure the desire that people negative about the movie has is merely "a genuinely good, critically viable/defensible movie that isn't just leave-your-brain/standards-by-the-door", which plenty of things are without needing to be super high-brow, and hell, plenty of things targeted at children with dumb-sounding premises are.

I mean I haven't been tracking the discussions post for post but as far as the discussion on meritorious children's movies like, say, Toy Story and the Ghibli movies, obviously that's proof that it's possible to reach a higher standard. But those movies stick out because they're exceptional.

There's always going to be a market for movies targeted for children, would it be nice if there was more value than cheap laughs, loud noises, and flashy visuals but if a kid doesn't need that to be entertained it's not the end of the world.

With respect to the critics, I don't think there's anything wrong with them concluding that this movie is shallow and lacking substance, but it's getting pretty low scores for that. From what I'm gathering, having not seen it, it seems like this is an unexceptional and run of the mill kids movie. I don't think that merits 1-4 scores that skew the aggregate to make it look like it's a piece of shit that people should stay away from.