XIXAX Film Forum

Film Discussion => The Vault => Topic started by: Jeremy Blackman on April 19, 2016, 01:42:36 PM

Title: Warcraft
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on April 19, 2016, 01:42:36 PM

Based on the game World of Warcraft.

Director: Duncan Jones (Moon, Source Code)
Release: June 10

"The peaceful realm of Azeroth stands on the brink of war as its civilization faces a fearsome race of invaders: orc warriors fleeing their dying home to colonize another. As a portal opens to connect the two worlds, one army faces destruction and the other faces extinction. From opposing sides, two heroes are set on a collision course that will decide the fate of their family, their people, and their home."
Title: Re: Warcraft
Post by: polkablues on April 19, 2016, 02:25:35 PM
It doesn't even look fun-bad. More like "we'll all have forgotten this movie existed three years from now" bad.

EDIT: I wanted to make a joke about being glad David Bowie didn't live to see this, then I thought better of it, then I thought better of having thought better of it.
Title: Re: Warcraft
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on April 19, 2016, 02:41:06 PM
This is the best trailer, too.

I don't know, at least this isn't Pan-level hubris. It could be okay. Depends how earnest it ends up being.

There are some red flags, like "our world will perish" and "these lands" and your standard cookie-cutter fantasy dialogue. But there are also some bright spots. The fight scenes starting halfway through look surprisingly grounded, given that so much is just animation. I like the thing with the shields at 1:27. And it's a pretty varied and vibrant color palette.
Title: Re: Warcraft
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on May 13, 2016, 01:57:16 PM
Confirmed: not great.


The costumes are reeeeeaaally bad. They all look like they came off the shelf yesterday, never been scratched, as shiny as superhero outfits.

This has some weirdness that I might respond to, but mostly it appears to be not working.
Title: Re: Warcraft
Post by: jenkins on May 13, 2016, 03:11:27 PM
it's within my character to agree with you about the weird being what matters, and i like when a horse is thrown (it's not a real horse being thrown), i like how the camera is working spatially, i like how spatial camera movement is meant to expand this movie's consciousness, i like


if after every fight there's deliberation and chin scratching that'll crack me up, yeah we'll see what happens
Title: Re: Warcraft
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on May 19, 2016, 04:02:05 PM
Title: Re: Warcraft
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on June 03, 2016, 02:41:52 PM
"Not only does it fail to bridge the gap between movies and video games, it self-immolates and swan-dives into the void, illuminating a dark rift thatís even deeper than it is wide. A grotesque, funhouse reflection of modern blockbuster cinema, the film is truly a staggering failure, and thereís no joy to be found in its profound awfulness ó an exciting young director has burned off several of his best years, a major Hollywood studio has been punished for their ambition, and two disparate mediums have exposed the worst in each other."

Title: Re: Warcraft
Post by: Tictacbk on June 20, 2016, 03:39:28 PM
Cool was a movie.Is there anyone Star Wars movie looked like the feeling?
Title: Re: Warcraft
Post by: polkablues on June 20, 2016, 04:05:15 PM
Title: Re: Warcraft
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on July 17, 2016, 08:45:08 PM
It's now up to $432 million worldwide. And only $47 million of that is domestic.

Thought Warcraft Tanked? Nope ó It Changed Blockbusters Forever

OVER THE WEEKEND, Legendary Picturesí Warcraft opened in the United States with just over $24 million at the box office. For a summer blockbuster that cost an estimated $160 million to make, thatís a flop any way you look at it; in fact, it made less in its opening weekend than recent summer flops Battleship, The Lone Ranger, even Fantastic Four.

But in China, Warcraft isnít just doing better than it did in the U.S.óitís breaking records. In five days, the film raked in $156 million, beating out last yearís Furious 7 to become the countryís highest-grossing opening for a foreign-produced film. To put that in the context of last yearís undisputed global hit: in China, Warcraft made more in five days than Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens did in its entire theatrical run ($124 million).

Title: Re: Warcraft
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on August 05, 2016, 11:55:15 PM
Finally got around to seeing this. It's actually a lot of fun, and not quite like any other movie. That's probably the best one could hope for.

Which is not to say it's great. Much of the writing and acting (Paula Patton included) is really cheeseball and silly. But it's surprisingly faithful to the spirit of the game. I'd compare it to the adaptation of Mortal Kombat in that way. On the Flop House scale (good bad movie, bad bad movie, or movie you kind of liked), this would be a movie I kind of liked.

I can see the average moviegoer thinking it's a bunch of magical nonsense, because this is significantly more bananas and less apologetic than your average magical nonsense movie. I can also see a very specific kind of person being totally charmed by Warcraft, because there is an actual soul in there somewhere, which is probably easier to find if you're bringing information from the game.

The costumes are less problematic than I expected, but that's only because they're of a piece. It takes a good 20 minutes to start believing that these human characters actually exist in this environment. Warcraft absolutely does not care if you're on board. It's admirable. That extends to the plot, which has enough density and detail to lose your typical summer audience. (Like, what is the Frostwolf Clan? Which side of the portal are we on right now?) They don't even provide us the comfort of giving everyone British accents (only a couple characters), which stands out given the fantasy setting, and weirdly goes a long way toward distinguishing the universe.

The trailers, by the way, are quite accurate. The movie is basically exactly that, but slightly more enjoyable.
Title: Re: Warcraft
Post by: jenkins on November 18, 2016, 02:42:14 PM
Underrated/Overlooked: David Lowery on Warcraft (and Tale of Tales) (http://thetalkhouse.com/underratedoverlooked-david-lowery-warcraft-tale-tales/)

last paragraph:

I have a feeling Roger Ebert, the founder of the Overlooked Film Festival and infamous hater of video games, would have admired this movie. He always had a fondness for films in which entire worlds were created, particularly if they were full of bright color and imagination. He didnít care if they were CGI or not. In fact, more often than not, he would admire films for pushing digital effects to their limits. Astonishing was the word he most often used for these movies, and itís one I like to think he would have applied to Warcraft. Iíd agree. For a major motion picture movie this expensive, it is also shockingly niche and profoundly uncool, and for those and all the reasons listed above, itís worth talking about Ė and, dare I say it, worth watching. Rent Tales of Tales too and have yourself a little sword and sorcery marathon.

Agreeing with a feeling about guessing the descriptor Ebert would use plus, commas and periods. Bunch of that. Then superlatives for some basics, explain it's trash culture. Personal interest in movies has been noted.

adorable <3