Black Panther

→ in
Tools    





FWIW, it's actually closer to 8/10 (77%). And, once again, people have talked openly about trying to manipulate the ratings. We can probably assume this will be the case with any film that takes any kind of political or cultural stance at all.

Probably best to disregard both aggregate numbers and simply find and cultivate critics you trust.
__________________



Or we can take the Rotten Tomatoes ratings with a grain of salt, see it more of a ball park figure, and make up our own minds. At most talk to friends with similar tastes and decide then. Hey I am a full blown movie critic cynic since I saw a huge disparity from what the critics said and what I saw after The Blair Witch Project. But even I know that ultimately the viewer is the final judge.

Then again I am a shameless MCU fanboy. So bear that in mind.



Yeah, just to be clear, I'm increasingly suspicious of critics, too. There've been too many examples over the last few years of some moderately good movie or show which got glowing reviews and, in retrospect, had some probably-not-coincidental link to some cultural cause célèbre.

I think critics are generally less inclined to think of themselves as neutral judges of craft and quality, and more inclined to simply express personal preference, albeit with a bit more experience and perspective than your average viewer. And that's mostly fine, to me; but I think people still have the idea that they're supposed to represent some kind of shared consensus or authority, which leads to anger when they seem to have a clear collective point of view influencing their recommendations.

Ditch the expectation that modern critics (or audiences) have the power to declare what's good, and resolve not to derive any self-satisfaction from those declarations either way, and the whole thing gets a lot simpler.



I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Audience rates this as 7/10 prolly not good enough to go watch.
Wow, you really have high standards. To me, 7/10 is the very definition of good enough to go and watch.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
Coogler wrote a letter to his fans. How could you not root for the guy?
Very cool.



I watched it last night.

I don't get what all the hype was about.

I walked in with high expectations, and came out disappointed. The story and acting did not blow me away as I had expected it would considering that critics were hailing it as possibly the greatest Marvel movie ever made.

The movie is average. Extremely average.

I do respect Ryan Coogler as a director and storyteller, though.

I give it 6/10.
__________________
“Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are, it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!” ~ Rocky Balboa



hosted by an Average Moviegoer and a Movie Guru
Black Panther is killing it at the box office. When AJ and I tried to go see it Wednesday, we weren't even close to getting a ticket despite it showing in multiple theaters. We had to buy tickets 2 days in advance on a weeknight. And I get it; it's a Marvel movie by a black director featuring a predominantly black cast--it's going to be huge. But, Black Panther does not live up to the hype. Not even close.

I was hopeful in the beginning. The potential was there. There was a cool black superhero with a real and important moral dilemma on his hands. There were good action sequences, a few funny lines, and some genuine (but maybe generic) African cultural references.

But this is where the good ends and the bad begins. The first half of the movie appears to be building to something, but it never really gets there. Entire scenes have nothing to do with the main point of the movie--why is there a James Bond-esque scene with some white guys trying to steal the Vibranium, how did the extremely American CIA agent get involved, and why do we care? (WHY IS THIS WHITE AMERICAN CIA AGENT FLYING A FUTURISTIC AIRCRAFT TO FIGHT A CIVIL WAR IN A COUNTRY THE WORLD DOESN'T KNOW EXISTS)

Black Panther is trying to be a superhero movie but it doesn't need to be one. The main point of the movie (does this prosperous African nation help the struggling black population worldwide despite the risk to its own long-term survival?) is interesting, important, and deserving of its own story. It does not need to be forced into a Marvel movie just to sell tickets. I guess I'll give them props because Black Panther isn't even a superhero movie until the end anyway. Nothing about this required a guy with superhuman abilities until roughly the roughly the final battle scene (which was mediocre at best).

Guys, I'm sorry but this movie is bad. If you want to hear more about why it's bad either before or after you see it, go listen to our review of Black Panther (click our profile). 2/5 bottles of beer on the wall



You can't win an argument just by being right!
it's a Marvel movie by a black director featuring a predominantly black cast

Oh No.




This reminded me of a report I saw on PBS (of all places) all about the release of Black Panther.

I was glad they covered a bit of the comic history (because the first major black superhero in American comics was indeed groundbreaking), but I was somewhat gobsmacked at the overall attitude of the report... it was as if no one had ever seen a black person on screen before. There was a man speaking (I didn't catch who he was, unfortunately, but apparently someone to do with the production of the movie) and he said all this stuff about they don't know how audiences will react to a black lead or a predominantly black cast in a story about Africa - as if American audiences would be somehow shocked at seeing brown skin on a big screen.

I was like "what?" They were talking as if this is the first time a black man ever starred in a movie (had they never heard of Denzel, Morgan, Sidney, Harry, Samuel L., James Earl, Lawrence, Danny, Djimon, Dwayne, Forest, Will, Chiwetel, Luis, Richard, Cleavon, Ozzie, or Paul?)

The report sounded like it should have come out of the 1950's! It was just strange that the report acted like the Black Panther movie was some historic "break through" that had never been attempted by Hollywood before... a movie that takes place in *gasp* "Africa" with actual, real live *gasp* black people in the roles!

Bizarre.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
I'd like to read that if you can find it. Amazing the author can read and write.



I'd like to read that if you can find it. Amazing the author can read and write.
Sorry Dani, it wasn't an article, but it was on the PBS NewsHour (evening newscast) a few nights ago. It was a news segment introduced by Judy Woodruff, and then it went to an interview with some guy involved with the movie and he was the one saying most of the stuff that made it sound like the film is groundbreaking because it has a mostly black cast.



Welcome to the human race...
But this is where the good ends and the bad begins. The first half of the movie appears to be building to something, but it never really gets there. Entire scenes have nothing to do with the main point of the movie--why is there a James Bond-esque scene with some white guys trying to steal the Vibranium, how did the extremely American CIA agent get involved, and why do we care? (WHY IS THIS WHITE AMERICAN CIA AGENT FLYING A FUTURISTIC AIRCRAFT TO FIGHT A CIVIL WAR IN A COUNTRY THE WORLD DOESN'T KNOW EXISTS)
I would think that a mission to recover missing vibranium fits right in with the idea of Wakanda feeling the need to keep its advanced technology and resources to itself, whereas the CIA agent is involved because it's meant to be a sting on a known terrorist (who was already deemed a threat to Wakanda based on his knowledge and exploits so we are supposed to care that T'Challa and the others can stop him). As for why the CIA agent flies the aircraft - because he's there and he can't stay neutral in the conflict unfolding around him.

Black Panther is trying to be a superhero movie but it doesn't need to be one. The main point of the movie (does this prosperous African nation help the struggling black population worldwide despite the risk to its own long-term survival?) is interesting, important, and deserving of its own story. It does not need to be forced into a Marvel movie just to sell tickets. I guess I'll give them props because Black Panther isn't even a superhero movie until the end anyway. Nothing about this required a guy with superhuman abilities until roughly the roughly the final battle scene (which was mediocre at best).
Why? Leaving aside meta-fictional concerns about the comparative lack of black representation in the superhero genre and how it needed Marvel's dependably profitable branding in order to get the budget necessary to produce a film of this scale, how much does this film ultimately suffer for being about a superhero? A better question would be how does he not count as a superhero? He's got an advanced suit (like Iron Man) and he even gets enhanced physical abilities from drinking the purple potion (much like Captain America) plus he gets multiple chances to demonstrate his abilities (the convoy fight at the very start of the movie, the whole James Bond sequence that you already mentioned) well before the third act unfolds.

Guys, I'm sorry but this movie is bad. If you want to hear more about why it's bad either before or after you see it, go listen to our review of Black Panther (click our profile). 2/5 bottles of beer on the wall
The criticisms you've made in this post are all so superficial, inaccurate, and self-contradictory that I seriously doubt even the people who did dislike Black Panther are going to get anything worthwhile out of clicking through to your main review.
__________________
Way too much stupid talk on the forum. Iroquois, I’m thinking about you.



I thought It was pretty decent, way above typical Marvel Fare, but nothing too special.

This film is going to get major Oscar Attention, and break through the superhero genre bias. Mark my words.
__________________
212 555 6342
Pierce & Pierce: Mergers and Acquisitions
Patrick Bateman
Vice President
358 Exchange Place New York, N.Y. 10099 FAX 212 555 6390 TELEX : () 4534



Just watched it. Love the movie with new tech definitely wanna know more about Wakanda and their people. Waiting for the next marvel movie with Wakanda tech.



I agree with you the the action scenes were disjointed, i found the casino and moments of the chase.



hosted by an Average Moviegoer and a Movie Guru
Why? Leaving aside meta-fictional concerns about the comparative lack of black representation in the superhero genre and how it needed Marvel's dependably profitable branding in order to get the budget necessary to produce a film of this scale, how much does this film ultimately suffer for being about a superhero? A better question would be how does he not count as a superhero? He's got an advanced suit (like Iron Man) and he even gets enhanced physical abilities from drinking the purple potion (much like Captain America)
.
I'm not saying that he doesn't count as a superhero, but nothing he does requires his abilities in a way that is required to drive the plot forward until the end of the movie. The action sequences, though visually nice to watch at times, the lore of Black Panther, and the little missions we see surrounding the Vibranium plot device all detract from a much more interesting story that could have been explored much further and in deeper ways. There wasn't time for more depth because the movie dedicated so much of it to creating the raw entertainment value required for Black Panther to be a Marvel film.

I left the movie very unsatisfied with the shallow exploration of a complex moral dilemma which was not made up for by the action and the visuals.



I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
I think the reason some people are finding it 'overrated' is because they are looking at Rotten Tomatoes - that only really shows you that a lot of people liked it, it doesn't necessarily tell you they liked it a lot.

Currently its imdb rating is 7.9, higher than Spider-Man: Homecoming or GotG2, lower than Thor: Ragnarok, par for the course.

It's absolutely a crowd pleasing sort of big budget movie. It's bound to rake in the dollars and get 3 or more out of 5 from most people. It's even less sci-fi and more grounded in the real world than some other recent Marvel movies, so that will bring in people who think Guardians of the Galaxy is too weird. None of this means that it's an all-time great, or that it has any serious depth. To be honest, I haven't seen anyone claiming that this is the best movie ever, just that it's a pretty good Marvel movie, which does some things better or at least slightly different than some other Marvel movies, is generally well shot and entertaining.

I think it's a matter of expectation, too. A lot of people went to see it with some comic book movie fatigue, not all that enthused about the character, and were pleasantly surprised. People seeing it on the strength of other people saying it is surprisingly good are probably more likely to be slightly disappointed because they set their expectation bar higher.