Will it be kino? Predict the rt score

Will it be kino? Predict the rt score

Attached: ant-man-and-the-wasp.jpg (782x440, 50K)

Above 90. It's only standard for MCU films

Attached: MCU vs DCEU.jpg (3699x2592, 3.29M)

Will be shit. But plebs like you eat shit up so you'll probably think it's "kino"

77

>civil war and dr strange rated higher than iron man 2 and winter soldier
fuck that

>First MCU movie to have a title female lead
>96% RT
>140m opening weekend
>1.2b world wide

yes because evangeline

I saw Dr. Strange really late and I did not see what the excitement was about. The story and character wasn't very interesting and the CG for Dormamu looked like something out of the second Fantastic Four movie.

So is Antman pretty much the sidekick in this? Wasp is more skilled, more experienced and has more tech/abilities like flight.

Iron man 2 was awful though

wrong

does anyone here genuinely care about rotten tomatoes other than to use it as a bludgeon for some to hate on or something to argue about? how does anyone even care what reviewers think anymore? theyre as relevant as the oscars. out of touch ideologues using their station to shit on or lecture to people they feel are below them. The Ghostbusters reboot has a fresh rating of 74%.

Who the fuck cares what these ultra faggots think about movies.

Shouldn't every movie here have the Jewish star next to it? Also, pic related.

Attached: 1520994782562.png (988x896, 1.75M)

Where is Fantastic 4 and shit?

No. It'll be a tolerable action comedy.

>fan4stic
>mcu

Attached: Do_not_open_very_spooky.png (494x676, 195K)

Dr. Strange was great but Civil War is trash, and really made me wonder if there is a conspiracy afoot. How any critic who has made it their career to analyze movies honestly could praise that cancer is beyond my imagination. It is so painfully dull and stupid.

>Hulk and Thor: The Dark World are trash
>still get a red tomato
They really do shill for Disney, it's so fucking blatant.

Why do people still watch capeshit

Attached: professional critics get paid for this.png (456x458, 33K)

>How any critic who has made it their career to analyze movies honestly could praise that cancer is beyond my imagination.
Because critics don't criticize movies anymore.

Unless it's a male-centric DC movie, then they criticize the shit out of it.

how is lilly looking tho

This. The mouse makes consistent entertainment not re/evolutionary film.

And that's a good thing.

RT is way too connected to the now. The fact that no older movie seems to have high scores is absurd. Things like Ladybird and BP having near perfect scores means something is flawed. Normies and casuals likely use it to make themselves feel better about the movies they saw. I don't think people use it to help pick what they see. It's like the auto-industry. They don't advertise cars on TV to sell a car but to reinforce and validated people who own those cars.

It's a romantic comedy

>The fact that no older movie seems to have high scores is absurd.

Attached: old movie2.png (637x610, 409K)

Attached: old movie.png (575x266, 108K)

If Evangeline Lilly doesn't get a giantess scene I'm going to neck myself.

Marvel have kinda cushioned their user scores by making so many generic identical cookie cutter shitpiles that no one with sense enough to criticize them still gives them a chance.

Im sure if you dig you'll find more, but my point very much still stands. In 70+ years of cinema there should be far more highly rated movies across the decades.

its marvel
kino is always on the menu

That doesn't make sense. Cinema has evolved over time, and only gotten better. The technology, the styles, the writing, all of it has improved because artists in the industry base their work and learning on previous people's stuff and improve it. Saying any older movie could stand up to the good movies today is objectively wrong. It's like saying a Ford Model F is as good as or better than an Aston Martin DB11. It's patently false.

After Civil War it's going to be >90%

>He thinks the writing has improved

Older cars are sturdy compared to modern aluminium cans today

this is false. Modern cars have specific crumple points, yes, but they're designed to have you lose only the bumpers in a crash, not the whole car, while absorbing enough shock to keep you safe.

Older cars are far more rigid, yes--which makes them way easier to total and way easier to get killed in. They are not more sturdy. They look prettier after getting in a crash, but they're actually more damaged than modern cars, and are worse at preventing injury to the driver.

>They really do shill for Disney, it's so fucking blatant.
Hence why Wrinkle in time got great revi- oh wait

Older cars are more sturdy.
Modern cars have safety measures.
The latter point was never the issue.
You are a moron.

8/10 movie, but because the protag is white critics wont get behind it

Sturdy is not a good trait in a car

cinema hasn't evolved shit

kys you nigger

>Things like Ladybird and BP having near perfect scores means something is flawed

No it doesn't.

almost the same reason if you fill the need to ask such a dumb fucking question, they can't help themselves.

I think it is in a really bad position, releasing shortly after the much-hyped Avengers 3 despite being chronologically prior and all that. Still a guaranteed 80%+, but I imagine most will feel it a bit of a letdown after the huge crossover extravaganza.

different user but youre a pleb amongst plebs