#mario movie critique

[ney-thank-you]

mario movie was a very movie.

🍄⭐️🍄⭐️🍄⭐️🍄⭐️🍄⭐️🍄⭐️🍄⭐️🍄⭐️🍄

there i said it. i know ill be murdered for such a hot take 😔

but seriously

⚠️spoiler warning⚠️

it was definitely a fun kids flick, it felt very "illumination-y" with some of the character designs (*cough cough* every human besides mario family and Charles martinet character *cough cough*) but i wont count that against the film. its a nit pick and i will admit that.

in fact most of my criticism are nitpicks.

- it felt rushed at times, scenes were back-to-back that felt like they needed SOMETHING, anything there to make them transition smoother

-luigi was painfully absent from a lot of the film. DK was underutilized, too

-while we're at it, why didn't Toad's character get to do anything else with his frying pan? was it really only a gag? i was waiting for him to use it again after the first time.

- that blue star thing was more annoying in its brief screen time than all three of the Gargoyles from disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

- Bowser.... oh Bowser..... i wanted to like him in this... Jack Black did a phenomenal job... but there was something slightly off about him that vibes with me wrong I guess...

-Chris Pratt sounded great as mario, actually, he and Charlie Day were the best parts of the movie IMHO.

-Peach, while she wasn't annoying, she lacked any depth... and speaking of,

- Honestly the stakes in the movie were in fact very high, but....it never actually felt like it..? Mushroom Kingdom was at risk of being taken over by The Big Bad^TM and yet. it didn't ever feel like there was danger?

-Mario's bizarro character "arc" if you can call it that. it starts with him, like Captain America, being like "i could do this all day" taking on the bully and being there for Luigi. i get it, ok. but there was never really a time when that was LEGITIMATELY challenge (save for the end, which is when he overcomes the challenge again) like, it felt like the obstacles for Mario's goal (save Luigi) felt manufactured at best and nonexistent at worst.

-Peach never got a good reason to trust Mario or spend all that time training him. I will put an addition to this post on what things i would change to fix these minor gripes*

- I did love all the little details and references, part of me wished it was taking place in the 80's instead of modern day, but thats again a personal stylistic choice.

- It looked very nice, The look of everything simultaneously seemed soft and sleek but also textured and real, idk it was a nice blend of "cartoony video-game world" and "life-like rendering"

- The whole wedding thing, while funny, (I freaking screeched at that first piano scene) fell short most of the time, and there wasn't enough juxtaposing Bowsers "evil bad guy vibe" with the "soft, i just wanna get married uwu" like he mostly felt like a dork who was lost in the script and almost fell in the just generic bland kids movie bad guy (something i personally think The Sonic Movie barely avoided with Dr. Robotnik)

-i have so much more to say but i think i will leave it at that. or i will make a yt video. who knows!

[pianokantzart]

I don't think it was just the issue of Anya Taylor Joy not being experienced enough, there's also the element of the voice direction. I think she had actually suggested doing a voice similar to Samantha Kelly's portrayal of Princess Peach but was told to do something different. Personally I thought everyone did fine and I think it was a good choice to not try and imitate the games' voices 100% because the game voices are used in very small doses and would sound annoying for an entire film. I think Jack Black's Bowser was pretty much the only character who sounded anything close to the games, and that's because for him, there really isn't another good option than to have someone who can easily switch from animalistic growls to a deep intimidating voice dripping with evil.

It's not that Anya didn't attempt to imitate Peach's voice... I just didn't feel like she brought any real "Peach" energy to the performance.

While Charlie Day doesn't technically sound like Luigi at all in terms of vocals, a lot of people were on board with the casting choice from day one because so many of the characters Charlie plays have a vaguely "Luigi" vibe to them: anxious, histrionic, sensitive little weirdos that you can't help but want to hug.

Seth Rogan has that slightly-obnoxious-yet-somehow-charming frat boy energy that works for DK.

Jack Black's performance as Bowser speaks for itself.

While Chris Pratt lacked that high powered Mario-esque energy, I felt he successfully carried over the vibe of a determined little guy who was down on his luck, but unwilling to stay knocked down.

Anya Taylor-Joy was just kinda underwhelming to me. She may have been trying a "regal" approach in her delivery, but we know Peach in the games is perfectly willing and able to express strong emotions, the kind that would require a little bit more than a vaguely-enthusiastic script reading. IDK, I'm not an expert in the realm of voice acting, I just know that I was hoping for more, and my fingers are crossed that Anya and Chris both put a bit more oomph into their performances next time around.

[acinomthecat]

Ranking the Mario movie cast interviews so far cuz im bored

[bitterartregret]

Mario Movie Spoilers sort of?

Some people are nit picking at the Mario movie for not having in-depth characterization or dense story. I think what they fail to understand is….

It’s a kids movie.

It’s a kids movie meant to appeal to the target audience of the modern Mario games, which is kids.

Want to know something else? This movie isn’t for kids either. It’s for everyone!

I went and saw this movie with my 60 year old parents, my 30 year old sister, my younger brother, and my young niece and nephew.

And each of us were watching and enjoying it!!!!!!

Did anybody notice that it wasn’t full of cheap toddler humor? Like crotch shots and fart jokes? Yet my niece and nephew were entertained without my parents rolling their eyes.

They made a kids movie that adults would enjoy too!

Could story and characters have been done better? Of course,that goes with anything. However, a complex plot might have made it difficult for kids to understand. And when a story is slowed down( usually for the sake of passing and character building), it looses the attention of kids. They managed to make a colorful rip-roaring adventure movie that entertained both adults and kids.

So, how about cutting the movie some slack, huh?

[hazamacore]

r we really doing this

[vonithipathachai]

The Mario Movie and the Place of the Film Critic

So.  I saw the Mario movie at the theater with my friend.  …It was fine.  I figure I probably would’ve enjoyed it more if I had a closer personal attachment to the Mario franchise.  But I think it mostly accomplished its goals of being pleasant, light-hearted, mentally undemanding entertainment for families and fans of the games.

I will say, though, that as someone who doesn’t consider himself a big Mario fan despite having played his share of Mario titles, I found the discourse around the movie’s critical and commercial reception to be far more interesting than the movie itself.  In the days shortly preceding and following its release, I found my YouTube feed being absolutely bombarded with Mario movie-related videos.  These included not only blatant spoilers, but videos from YellowFlash, Ryan Kimel, and other anti-woke content creators weaponizing the movie’s success and using it as an excuse to take the piss out of Disney and the critical establishment (not that Disney and certain critics don’t deserve it).  Now, I do feel I have something to contribute to the conversation, and I lean more on the side of the supporters of the Mario movie than the detractors.  But I’m really not interested in waxing polemic here as, again, there are plenty of other people who are far better known than I am doing that already.  Instead I’d like to ponder how we got to this whole situation between the critics and the audience in the first place and what can be learned from it going forward.  Because I do believe we’re witnessing change in motion as Mario smashes the box office and big movie studios are finding themselves compelled to take notes.  We might as well make the most of it.

The first thing we need to ask, which many who’ve observed large gaps in critical and audience approval ratings on Rotten Tomatoes have wondered, is “What is the purpose of film critics?”  Considering the question from a purely utilitarian perspective, I’m sure most would agree that they (at least in theory) act as a guide for the moviegoing consumer.  We all have limited time and money to spend on media consumption, and we would ideally like to spend as many of these finite resources as possible on “good” movies rather than “bad” ones.  Already we can see an issue here, as what exactly defines “good” and “bad” will vary between individuals.  Some audiences simply want a dazzling audiovisual spectacle to relieve themselves from the suffering of mundane life for a couple of hours, while others may be looking for more substance from things like narrative, actor performances, themes, etc. so that they may feel personally enriched by the movie experience.  Since the very nature of the professional critic’s job demands that the critic think more, well, critically about the movies they watch—carefully analyzing a film’s strong and weak points to argue for or against said film being worth seeing—they naturally fall into the latter category of defining “good” films primarily on the basis of substance.  This is not necessarily a bad thing.  In fact, it can be good, as it creates the potential for meaningful discussion and new perspectives which can help the ordinary audience member appreciate movies in a new light.  It does, however, create an alienating effect between critics and more casual members of the audience.

Further compounding the issue is that the professional critic, once again due to the nature of their job, is likely to have different viewing habits from those of even other substance-oriented individuals within the general audience.  They have to do multiple screenings per week (as many as 10-12 in the UK, not sure about the US) on top of writing their reviews and submitting them before the deadlines.  Not only that, they do not have the luxury of getting to pick and choose only “good” movies to watch, but must watch whatever movies are assigned to them by their superiors, including all of the “bad” and mediocre ones.  When you have to sit through so many movies, especially Hollywood genre movies that tend to follow similar plot beats, you naturally develop more keenly enhanced standards and sensitivity to whatever sticks out, both for better and for worse.  This partially explains how Star Wars: The Last Jedi was able to win significant amounts of critical praise for “subverting expectations” and “taking risks” while at the same time drawing the ire of longtime fans.

With this in mind, it is easy to wonder why anyone would want to be a professional critic at all.  A more pessimistic or distrusting individual might say that critics are driven by a desire for clout and prestige.  Monetary gain would play a limited role at best, as the majority of film critics are in fact paid very poorly and must find additional income elsewhere.  This typically comes through other forms of journalism, as critics are often college-educated with degrees in journalism or communications if not film studies specifically (which in turn explains how many of them can be construed as “woke” or otherwise politically left-leaning).  But when the critic’s more demanding viewing habits have such great influence over how they assess what they watch, this limits the scope of people who take their opinions seriously, usually to fellow intellectuals who may or may not lean left themselves.  Ultimately, the critic persists out of a sheer love for film as an art form, and the advancement of film as art is something their work gives them a vested interest in.

So then where does Mario fit into all this?  When considering the critical predilection for substance instead of spectacle and their more refined viewing standards, along with the Mario movie’s safe, sterilized, corporate-mandated handling of the titular character and his world combined with a barebones and predictable story, it is not difficult to imagine how the movie could be given underwhelming critical reviews, even without accounting for any possibility of woke bias.  If the critics can be said to “hate” the Mario movie, it is because it is antithetical to everything they stand for as intellectuals and lovers of film as art.  It is pure audio-visual junk food.  Well-made and satisfying junk food, but junk food nonetheless.  But as far as its target audience is concerned, this is perfectly fine, even if it could do with just a little more time spent on plot and character development.  Therefore it can be considered a “good” video game movie.  Which makes it all the more curious that the critic scores have caused such an uproar.

As of this writing, the Mario movie sits at a 59% approval rating from critics and a 96% approval rating from audiences on Rotten Tomatoes, which is only a 37% difference.  For context, a movie on the site only needs a 60% critical approval rating to be considered Fresh, leaving it only a single percentage point away from Fresh status.  It does not even have as low of a critical approval rating as similarly critic-Rotten-and-audience-Fresh movies on the site, such as Venom (30%C, 80%A, 50% difference) and Uncharted (41%C, 90%A, 49% difference).  If the critics are too distant from the Mario movie’s target audience for their opinions to be worth consideration, then why is such a fuss still being made?  Wanting to break the “video game movie curse” is no longer a viable excuse; by this logic, Sonic would’ve broken it already with two audience-Fresh movies well before Mario.  The only logical explanation I can think of is that this is purely a matter of personal validation.  The critic scores are essentially the one blemish on what has otherwise been a perfect triumph for Nintendo and its fanbase.  …Either that or all the complainers are just a vocal minority and I’ve unwittingly found myself in one of those echo chambers.  Maybe it’s a little bit of both, who knows.

I’d like to end this piece off with some advice, not that I expect either party to abide by it.  Critics, if you are interested at all in expanding out of the intellectual bubble and gaining greater audience respect, it could be prudent going forward to try and put yourselves in the shoes of the movie’s target audience.  Not every movie is trying or even needs to be Shakespeare or have a profound social message.  Audience members, especially gamers, if you really don’t care what critics have to say about the movies you like, then just act like it.  It makes you look a lot less stupid.  And, uh, enjoy this possible new trend of high-quality Nintendo movies while you can.  Shigeru Miyamoto’s not getting any younger.

[24bughours]

Spoilers for the mario movie below :-O

I loveddd this movie,,, it was so beautiful and artistic and such a love letter to super mario as a series, i'm so proud of the team who created such a beautiful animation,

BUT they didn't do too hot in the story segment. I'm going to ramble, so more below the cut.

I know it's a kids movie, and im not gonna say it should be anything else. But they TOTALLY shouldve tried going a mario rpg route storywise. Instead they just made the most basic possible plot, and in order to do so, they had to make so many strange decisions. Like WHYYY did they introduce a new family for mario and luigi?? To create tension? Motives??? It did both, sure, but it was so.. uninteresting. That's how i felt about a lot of the movie, too. It had good jokes and references and visuals, but the story felt so samey.

In the words of my good friend, "It seems like they wrote the script in a week." It's not to say they made a bad script, I think the scenes flow nicely (even if the flow is fast), the dialogue is good, but they certainly dedicated 90% of their time to the animation. I respect the grind since it created something so visually appealing, but mario's such an iconic game series, it deserved a better movie plot

And LUIGI. THEY DID MY MAN SO DIRTY. He was BARELY IN THE DAMN MOVIE... They just shoved his ass in a cage and didn't show him for like 40 minutes!!! He better get more screentime if there is a sequel (which is highly likely because of ILLUMINATIONS being the studio responsible for it). I was upset about there being no daisy or rosalina, but i get that since they live in different countries/in literal space, but NO KOOPALINGS? NO BOWSER JR??? WHAT??? I WAS SO SAD!!!!!!!! My boy,,, disrespected like this,,,,,

They made bowser so aggressively straight (/j) in this movie which made me a bit sad. I wanted him to be more than that. But since he has no Bowser Jr, he has no reason to be interested in Peach for anything but selfish reasons i guess. (also the bowuigi trailer was just a one and done thing. I didnt expect much but damn, how could they make something so homoerotic and just move on? Impossible)

I could go on and on about little things ive noticed (they made DK a douche, they completely forgot about toadette, the final fight in brooklyn was really cool but also really confusing) and i probably will, but damn i am in an INCREDIBLE mood to just rewrite the whole thing. I think later i'll ramble about what i liked about it, i just needed to get this out of my brain

7/10 will watch again

[smol5824]

making a post cause my sister won’t let me rant about this :(

the mario movie is overrated. Don’t get me wrong, I love the animation, I love the fight scenes and all the little dramatic bits. But i feel like they focused too much on the drama and didn’t give enough exposition. Why is the mushroom kingdom at war with bowser? Why is bowser so obsessive over peach? Also, mario and luigi have no context for the entire movie. Mario sees the mushrooms, is given the most brief rundown i’ve ever heard and then just accepts it. Like i would react a bit more to finding out eating a mushroom makes you super big (or super tiny). And luigi, he’s in a prison the entire movie and it doesn’t seem like anyone told him what was going on. And then when he gets out he questions nothing, just grabs a star and thinks “well this all makes sense!” and starts beating up koopas. And literally, at the beginning when mario meets peach she says “you can only join me if you can beat this obstacle course” and then he doesn’t but she still lets him tag along? And is so supportive and “oh, you can do it!” to a guy she just met? Like she’s putting her entire kingdoms fate in the hands of this guy who can’t even do this fucking obstacle course. Overall, I think just more dialogue between characters would have done wonders for the mario movie.

[ashleyfromdiscord]

Bro… it isn’t that serious 😭

[yikes077]

Sorry that they know what the people want

Critics reviewing the Mario movie: It’s just a bunch of goofing off with no real story.

Mario fans: Yes that’s what we want.

Critics reviewing the FNAF movie: It’s just a 2-hour lore dump.

FNAF fans: YES THAT’S WHAT WE WANT.

[junkmixart]

My only critique about the Mario Movie is that this wasn't in the B plot. 💃🕺

LINKTREE

[leszackardises]

[Critique] The Super Mario Bros Movie (2023): Névralgie d'une fièvre nostalgique

Continue reading Untitled

[essycogany]

Small Things Can Make Big Differences 🩷

Hi, Fans Of Amy Rose!

This is my opinion and we don’t know what could happen between now and Sonic Movie 3. Anyone can disagree. I’m 100% fine with that and this isn’t going to tarnish my enjoyment of the film at all, but I’ve got to get this off my chest. I’d love to see Amy Rose in Sonic Movie 3 and would be disappointed if she wasn’t in it. Yeah, she’d probably not have a HUGE role or time to develop as much. I get it, but at the same time, I personally don’t think we should shy away from characters having small arcs.

Tails had one in Sonic Movie 2 and I wouldn’t say the movie would’ve been better without him. I don’t think we should have to justify a main character like Amy who’s existed before KNUCKLES (and debatably Tails) being in a movie about her own franchise. We shouldn’t have to wait a whole year for it either. Stuff takes time sure, but other movies with Pokémon, the Avengers, Mario, My Little Pony G4, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and many others did it and did it well for the most part. Most of these have tons of characters that they wasn’t afraid to show in one movie. Characters with smaller roles still impacted the movies and in a memorable way too. We shouldn’t be so timid in bringing Sonic characters in Sonic movies. They’re just as marketable as these other franchises. The successes of the Sonic trilogies proved that.

Without Amy or other characters it doesn’t feel as full as it could be. Not saying we should’ve got all of them from the get go but a little more would be nice.

I’m saying this respectfully but that doesn’t make sense especially if we have enough time to flesh out the human core characters/side characters who aren’t even part of the main franchise and not the ones most audiences came to see in the first place. I’m neutral and understand both critiques and defenses so you can decide where to go to on that.

Back to before, you don’t need long drawn out character development in order to be written well. Tails turned out fine despite his small role. Heck, Amy’s roles in the GAMES were usually small but not less impactful because of it. Amy practically helped save the entire world with her “small roles” and one for an emotional and impactful moment with Shadow. Even small things can make big differences and that’s one lesson you can learn from Amy.

Amy’s interactions with Gamma in SA1 impacted the robot to the point of him sacrificing himself to free a Bird he needed to stay alive.

Amy believed in Sonic when the whole world (or Silver) was against him in Sonic 06.

Amy showed kindness to Sonic as the Werehog and gave her closest friend encouragement. She still loved him regardless of how he looked.

There’s more examples, but these are the most well known. Do you notice how most of them were small actions or small moments of development in small roles. And still managed to make Amy a wonderful character while impacting the stories?

I’ll also just show this too.

Also, don’t worry about her stealing time from Shadow. The film’s called Sonic Movie 3 not Shadow The Hedgehog. He can share the spotlight. Knuckles did in SM2. There’s no excuse in my opinion.

The movie doesn’t have to have Amy and wouldn’t be worse without her, but I think we shouldn’t overlook her importance to the franchise even if what she does is small. Or feel bad for being more aware of what little we get in these movies. It’s okay to admit certain flaws. Nothing’s perfect and not above criticism as long as we’re respectful about it. And for the kiddies who would like to see a cartoony animal girl character for the first time in these films, Amy would be a fantastic way to start.

Amy debuting in Sonic 3 and interacting with the boys would be a lovely way of establishing that close connection between the core four of the franchise. They’d literally have the definition of love at their sides. Again, small changes can make big differences. That’s all I have to say. Now I’m going to continue to be excited for the 3rd Sonic movie.

[kalforhelp]

honestly? i think this is a good thing. it may have even been the goal. because i dont think this movie was made to be "good." it wasnt made to get awards. it wasn't made to make a bunch of snobby critics swoon.

it was made for us.

it was made for the fans.

it was made for scott.

it was made to explore the story in a new format, expand on the lore, and maybe give a little fright

they put in cameos that wouldn't turn the average person's head, but would make the fandom froth at the mouth

a lot of love went into this movie. not to make it a bestseller, but to appeal to the people who already love it, who already care a great deal about this world

fnaf already has a thriving fanbase, it's already gotten an insane amount of profit and recognition. it didn't need a movie. scott probably didnt need the money. he did this for us.

and i wouldn't have it any other way

It’s insane how out of touch movie critics are.

[0-n-1-x]

Hiro Hamada x Reader Headcanons

Link to my masterlist <33

-its the hiro that can't always make it to dates but will never hesitate to invite you over to his lab

-its the hiro that never shares ANY of his gummy bears with ANYONE but where he's churching on you always shares

-its the hiro that is so confused why you don't pick up on his "obvious" flirting

-its the hiro that asks baymax to fly by your window to check that your safe

-its the hiro that will invent a machine to fix any moderately annoying problem in your life

-its the hiro that also doesn't pick up on any of your actually obvious flirting

-its the hiro that goes on dates with you before you start dating but doesn't consider any of them as actual dates (he was too oblivious to realize then and regrets not acting upon his feelings for you)

-its the hiro that yaps so much about what on his mind to his friends, but when you start dating he will somehow find every way to talk about you, but he genuinely does not realize because you are what's on his mind

-its the hiro that is initially shy around you, stumbling over his words and avoiding eye contact (especially when you smile at him GOD this boy is whipped)

-its the hiro that tries to impress you with his knowledge of robotics and tech, but he sometimes gets too excited and rambles on about things (that go over your head) When he realizes it, he gets all flustered and apologizes, which you find adorable.

-its the hiro that texts you late at night, usually about something random that made him think of you, and you end up having long conversations that go on until one of you falls asleep.

-its the hiro that has movie nights with you but you CANNOT watch a sci-fi movie with because he'll just critique the ability of technology to take take over the world

-its the hiro that BEGS you to couple cosplay with him at san fransokoyo comic-con (yall are beast boy and raven you cant prove me wrong)

-its the hiro that loves helping you with your studies, especially if it's anything science or math-related. He’s patient and explains things in a way that makes sense, and you can tell he genuinely enjoys spending this time with you (but not without a little teasing as is LOWKEY did skip almost all of highschool)

-its the hiro that gets upset when he has a cute contact name for you and his is ‘Captain Cutie’

-its the hiro that is a sweat at games like smash bros and mortal kombat, but always has time to sit down and play mario kart and animal crossing with you

-its the hiro that cares so so so so much for you

[pianokantzart]

Some of the concept art and deleted scenes for the SMB 2023 movie has me wondering if Luigi was originally gonna be the more confident one. In the concept art, Mario looks tired/dejected a lot of the time, there was a pic of them in the van with a "Luigi Bros" logo while Luigi had his feet up on the dash all smiley, and then the deleted scene when the pipe breaks and Mario's sad and suggests that they give up and go home... it makes me wonder if Luigi was gonna be more optimistic while Mario was more prone to feeling discouraged. I wonder what the reason for this change would have been.

I think it was to keep the relationship between the bros simple while hammering home Mario's sense of responsibility for his brother.

If we started out with Luigi being the confident one who fronted the plumbing business, then the story would have to tackle why Luigi is able thrive in Brooklyn as opposed to his brother. Then there'd be the question of why Luigi would be so willing to move to The Mushroom Kingdom in the movie's aftermath if he was doing so well before. If Mario has a leadership role from the beginning there's less to untangle, but despite this change there's still a vague sense of Luigi being the upbeat one compared to his brother. Luigi was the most optimistic about their commercial, the most vocal in his excitement for their first client, and the one most able to ignore the critiques of their family.

Mario, in the meantime, has all the gumption and determination one would expect from a future hero, but at the same time he bears a greater sense of responsibility. This is best exemplified in the way he acts at the dinner table, where Mario is visibly exhausted while Luigi feels free to shut his brain off and just focus on the food.

So I'd say we didn't stray that far from the "Luigi is confident while Mario's dejected" theme present in the concept art, but the dynamic shift of them going from "The Luigi Bros." to "The Mario Bros." would've been a bit too much.