Objectively im interested what argument you could make that it was a really good comedy.
Except you can discuss things I mentioned earlier in an objective way. "I liked it because I liked it" Doesn't prove it was good by film making standards. It proves it was good to you and you alone.
What you're doing is analyzing why you liked it. Im asking what makes it a good comedy. You may like it but that doesnt mean it's actually good. People can like stuff that isnt very good.
Even seeing the trailers the special effects were objectively laughable. Laughs are subjective but the consensus for many is that it struggles to find laughs consistently even though some are there. A LOT of dead on arrival, cringe inducing, unfunny stuff in the movie. Again it was seen in the trailer and hordes of people are reporting that this is an accurate representation of a significant part of the movie. People have also reported on cinematography, story structure, pacing, dialogue, character motivations, the lack of relatability of the characters. Can you comment on why you felt certain ways about any of that to the point where you feel it's objectively a really good comedy? Because again right now you are proving it was only subjectively good, to you, which is perfectly fine. But I'm not asking about your subjective opinion. Everything I see is about how it's an average, or slightly below average film from an objective viewpoint, with some enjoyable bits throughout.
Who said it was? I thought we were just having a conversation back and forth. Did I attack you personally or something? I just wanted to see if you had any film analysis to justify it if you thought the movie was objectively really good. The fact that you are choosing to blame a fictitious brigade boogie man and can't discuss this as a film tells me you aren't providing an objective opinion and are just stating that you liked it. As I've said I have no problem with it if you liked it. But that doesn't mean it was actually a really good movie. No need to start getting bent out of shape
Except you can discuss things I mentioned earlier in an objective way. "I liked it because I liked it" Doesn't prove it was good by film making standards. It proves it was good to you and you alone.
I have told you im not asking why you liked it. The size of the brigade you're implying is fictitious. I get the sense if you could actually provide an objective take we wouldn't be having this discussion
"I liked it because I liked it" Doesn't prove it was good by film making standards. It proves it was good to you and you alone. I explained this already. I also said
The size of the brigade you're implying is fictitious.
I didn't say the existence of any brigade is fictitious. Jesus you need to learn to read.
Yet, you state:
I literally listed story structure, cinematography, character relatability, etc
Looking at all of your replies, I see no such thing. Yet, apparently I'm dense. Ok.