Comments by "Mark Armage" (@markarmage3776) on "The Critical Drinker" channel.

@DisasterArtist1997 One is too many. The fact that he even wrote this one without realizing it's that bad shows his incompetence in a lot of area. Most of all storytelling. He had one to two years to plan this one, this isn't good enough.
29
@DisasterArtist1997 The difference between those people is that Ang Lee and Fincher were real top filmmaker that did brilliant work way before their disaster movie. Taika is very different, his one notable work is that Ragnarok movie, which actually isn't even very good. You can see how he tried to replicate that entire last film into this movie, and how he replicated it sort of showcases he has no idea what he's doing because there's no reason to replicate those. Some might say that even Ragnarok is very overrated. Huge differences.
9
@DisasterArtist1997 And this guy probably won't. He had 2 years to write a great movie and he failed miserably. So balance of probability. This is his own movie, he made it by himself. He wrote the script, he directed the thing. Failure is all on him. In his other projects, he works with other people. It's clear to see what happens when he work alone.
8
@DisasterArtist1997 I have no idea what you're talking about, pal. Those are the typical movies that only fanboys know about. Never heard of them. If you want to compare this bum to David Fincher and Ang Lee, he's going to need way, way more than those.
6
@DisasterArtist1997 Young doesn't mean brilliant. Damn right I don't like him, his movies were all hype and no substance.
3
@angrym0nkeysh0w Doesn't matter, why do I need to know his other work, does the other works being good removes the disaster he made recently? It's quite clear that this is his only original work, and it failed. One work does not equal to another. Keep it real, pal.
3
@IDEK1110 This is the first movie he's totally responsible for, dummy. He shot and he failed, it exposes him. A doctor killing one patient totally recklessly is bad enough.
3
@carruthers100 That's just adorable. One really bad film is bad enough. It doesn't have to be good, but it can't be extremely bad. Get out of the bubble, pal.
3
It's not outtright terrible but it's not really that enjoyable. Once you've seen the whales, there's no actual need to see it again. There's no emotion, thing just exist. It's like watching the surface of a distant planet. It is spectacular, but once you've seen it, you don't want to see it again.
2
@randomhuman97 So you're saying that Alfred Hitchcock wasn't a movie lover? Keep it real, dummy. Visuals are always support of the script. I can take an image from the James Webb telescope and that image shall surpass any visual any human being can come up with in the level of "magnificent". But like I said, it's spectacular and incredibly empty.
1
@DisasterArtist1997 That's a total lie based only on belief. Countless people are young, most of them are incompetent.
1
@loz1991 A massive success he produced with other people. Love and Thunder is his project exclusively and he failed miserably. You see the difference?
1
The problem with the movie isn't bad CGI, it's a poorly written story with a bad directing job, even at the non CGI scenes. Like all other DC movies, it would have been great if they just stopped meddling with the really good original story.
1
There's no fandom divisive over who should play the character. Ben Affleck is the Batman. The Batman that people wants in the Cinematic Universe, the guy who is a part of a Justice League, the character with the whole Martha thing. Pattison is a sideshow, a distracting prequel that exist independently. My God, his batmobile is a worse looking Dodge Charger.
1