Source article - http://moviepilot.com/posts/3932989?utm_source=fb-channel-superheroes&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=unlike-the-movie-s-cgi-effects-the-first-reviews-of-warcraft-aren-t-looking-pretty

Lessons to learn from this:

- Double check your writing before you submit things

- If you don’t know what a word means (or don’t remember), look it up

- When in doubt, check the source

So for my first critique, I’m tackling the review on the new Warcraft movie that I stumbled across this morning. Now, why reviews are coming out for a movie that’s still two weeks away from a release, I certainly don’t understand, but moving on.

The article itself is titled, “Unlike The Movie's CGI Effects, The First Reviews Of 'Warcraft' Aren't Looking Pretty” so you’d imagine that the article will get to why the reviews for the moving are looking so bleak right now, right? Well, sort of.

The first quote of the article is totally misunderstood by the author.

“Following a preview for the big budget adaptation for example, The Hollywood Reporter has categorized it as being "downright dull." Read a snippet from the review below: "Compared with another medieval-ish tale, the soporific Hobbit trilogy, this international production is a fleet and nimble ride, likely to conquer overseas box offices and make a solid stand stateside."”

Now, if you’re like me, when you read that, first thing you thought, was that the review seemed to say the exact opposite of the intro to the text. “Downright dull” is equivalent to “soporific,” but that was describing the rightfully described long Hobbit trilogy, NOT the movie. Even if you’re willing to get over that bit, the rest of the article kind of hinges on that mistake.

When in doubt, read the source! The article actually linked to all the reviews it took from, so if you have the time or the care, look at it to figure out what they really meant. In fact “downright dull,” was taken from the review that stated, “But if you’ve never played Warcraft the game, can you care about Warcraft the movie? Given the ardent global following of the franchise, will it matter? For non-aficionados, the two-hour experience could be more concise, but it’s no ordeal. Neither, though, is it consistently involving. If you haven’t already invested in the self-serious mythology, it can feel borderline camp, if not downright dull — or both, as when an uncredited Glenn Close intones platitudes from on high about darkness and light.” So in fact, the article was not calling the movie downright dull, but that it had the possibility of that feeling. Very different meanings.

It continues, “Similarly, avid gamer Jason Schreier at Kotaku criticized the movie's failure to tap into the "goofy" nature of the original video games, writing.” The problem with this, is that “similarly” implies that the previous quote supported the argument, and in this case, it actually didn’t. 

Now for as much as this article bugged me, it had it’s good spots. It tried to take quotes from sources from fans to Hollywood reviewers, even if it misrepresented quotes. The end of the article actually ends on a more hopeful note for the movie, of the positive outlook of some fans.