HOW?

>>87194644
Critics are trolls

>>87194644
trolls trolling trolls with troll trolling

besides that dumb first teaser and "HEY REMEMBER THIS CELEBRITY? REMEMBER THIS SONG?" it didn't look bad at all.

Oh look another score critic.

>>87194644
I always thought critics just bring their children in there and base their opinions entirely on if their kids liked it.

Taking a stab in the dark here, but maybe RT scores are ultimately meaningless and shouldn't be relied on as the golden metric of a movie's quality?

>>87194644
>beliving RT
You are stupid, and the only one to blame.

File: 1459672285700.png (255KB, 770x711px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 770x711px

>>87194739
anti-dc mouseposters would disagree

why the fuck you hate on ths movie? Are you people seriously that bitter?

>>87194739
A thousand times this. Fuck IGN, Gamefaqs, e.t.c. They allowed impressionable people to get stuck in the mindset that numbers matter when it comes to criticizing entertainment.

It had a shitty trailer. What's your point?

Trailers are usually outsourced.

File: 1476327522886.jpg (86KB, 679x864px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 679x864px

>>87194644
>6.5
Whoa I might go see it
Its almost as good as the new Doctor Strange movie

>>87194644
It's baffling to me that barely anyone mentions the fact that it's a beat-for-beat ripoff of the Smurfs.

>Cute magic little people in the forest that sing and dance
>Each has a different and vibrant personality
>The villains want to capture and eat the little people, to which the remaining ones have to get them back

File: good-luck-troll-movie[1].jpg (24KB, 450x291px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 450x291px

It genuinely looks like fun, what's the problem?

I'm just glad trolls don't look like fucking THIS anymore. They singlehandedly turned growing up in the 90s into a nightmare.

>>87194644
>Trailer looks like shit
>Movie is good or at least decent

So basically par for the corse for every Dreamworks movie then?

Man, I can't wait for the porn. That pink thing is making my peepee feel funny.

File: $(KGrHqJHJDQE7y+Vy)uMBO+UOnJ8og~~60_57.jpg (677KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

677KB, 1600x1200px

Literally waiting for this movie in my country more than any dreamwork/pixar's movies. At first it was childish crap from a first glance, but then some few trailers after - I understood that this will be awesome colorful and full of kindness movie with cool songs.

I fucking love musicals (but that's maybe cause I'm fag).

>>87194644
>6.5
That's how

>>87194644
>6.5/10

It's a film that's designed to keep a little kid's attention for 90 minutes and sell them toys, so as long as it doesn't make the parents want to kill themselves, it will be deemed a success.

>>87194644
Its a CGI family movie.

It literally can not fail.

>>87195055
The problem is that we know that Dreamworks can do better.

>>87194644
>Average Rating: 6.5/10

Must we go over this shit every day?

>>87195151
Same thing with the Tangled and Frozen trailers.

File: norm.png (221KB, 752x317px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 752x317px

>>87197047

>>87197097

yes, but the "better" doesn't sell.

So we're stuck with crap like Boss Baby and Home.

>>87194644

is not DC Comics

>>87194644

When a movie has a high tomatometer but a low average score, it usually means the movie is inoffensive, by-the-numbers, and isn't challenging to anyone's beliefs. High budget animations and summer tentpole movies tend to follow this trend. It's less art and more product.

The initial trailer looked awful, but after seeing a few later ones, I was legitimately curious about it. Looks like it's "ok", which is probably all you can ask for with a movie like this.

>>87197189
Rob Schneider

>>87194905
>IGN, Gamefaqs, e.t.c.
...and people still think /co/ isn't infested with underage /v/irgins.