Saw it Sunday night. Ehh...not great, but passably good. Almost the perfect counterpart to the theatrical Justice League. It could really stand to be a bit shorter. Brief summary: The Eternals are a group of superbeings sent to Earth 7,000 years ago by a near god-like being (a Celestial) to guide the development of humanity and to protect them from monstrous beings called Deviants. They've been here ever since, becoming the inspiration for many mythical characters. Though they believed their mission was essentially complete when the last Deviant was destroyed 500 years ago, the Deviants have returned, and that means the Eternals--who have all wandered off to find normal(ish) lives amongst humans--have to be gathered once more. And they will discover there is more to their mission than most of them have known. The team is big and fairly well-differentiated: Sersi - matter transformer, a little unsure Ikaris - basically Superman, burdened with... something Ajak - the leader, knows more than she can say Kingo - energy bolt hurler, self-absorbed movie star Sprite - illusionist, also a child Phastos - tech guy, also gay (the film makes sure you know it) Makari - a speedster, also deaf(!) Druig - mind controller, Thena - basically Wonder Woman, but with some psychological issues Gilgamesh - packs a big punch, likes to cook Random thoughts: Historical gripes: pretty sure Mesopotamia means "land between rivers," not "on the ocean"; cities existed before 5000 BC; and I think farmers knew about plowing long before there was a Babylon. Hey, that's a (not graphic) sex scene in a Marvel movie! An ongoing gag with Kingo's assistant won me over, though it's arguably a bit of a stereotype. References to not one but two DC heroes! Makari is a terrific speedster. You get a sense of how a speedster can really be powerful when you see her in action. When you find out what's really going on, it's a little bit eye-rollingly dumb. Like the Matrix's people as batteries dumb. It's a comic book movie; go with it. I was impressed by the Celestial's appearance in the third act. He's a big one. Someone was knocking the bad CGI, but it actually seemed decent to me in the theater. So, if the Celestials... Mid-credit scene: End credit scene: This may be the first Marvel movie to not get a fresh critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes, but I don't think this is the worst Marvel movie. But it's not a flawed masterpiece, either. While it's sporadically thrilling, it's too long and there are too many characters. This won't be your favorite Marvel film. 6.5/10
This is a fiddly bit that one can argue various points and be right. Evidence for agrarian societies go back something like 15K+ years, the oldest animal pulled plows date to the Babylonian period. So, human-powered plows almost certainly were around before the Babylonians, but it appears that the Babylonians were the ones who figured out to harness animals to use them.
I like the concept of "immortal" people having been present throughout human history, but I honestly can't stomach any more MCU stuff (except for Spiderman and Guardians of the Galaxy, both of which have been outliers and les formally connected to the Avengers). I got burnt out on the MCU after like Iron Man 3. I was on the fence about watching this, but I've been seeing some bad reviews. Do I need to have watched any/all of the 20-something MCU films and TV series to understand or appreciate what's going on in Eternals?
I can't imagine anyone who's at least liked all the Marvel films will dislike Eternals. I sound like I'm damning it with faint praise, but that's my take: it's fine, but not great.
Just saw this on Disney +. (I believe it's the only Marvel film I've never seen in a proper movie theatre.) The OP's original rating of 6.5 out 10 is generous. It's easily a solid 3 out of 10. I hope Marvel buries this film like Atari buried all those E.T. cartridges back in the 1980s. This film does not deserve a sequel and is best forgotten. Thank god the only real connection to the MCU at large was a few Thanos name drops. Oh, and the elf thing during the end credits cut scene? That CGI was awesome. (If this was 1993.)
I saw the beginning with my son a few days ago and kept calling it a power ranger movie. He thought I was more entertaining than the film and turned it off.
Tried watching this, I tried. For the most part I can't tell you what happens in it. Couldn't get to the end of the movie.
I'm pretty sure the majority of folks who watched the film are in the same boat. It's an incoherent mess, most of the time.
Finally saw this (had to do something during the snowstorm). What a misfire. If this was a standalone movie, not based on a comic, it would have been okay. But they basically took some names from the comic and went off into their own little world. They got none of the mythology right. Somebody had the thought “Hey, I can do it better than that Kirby guy.” And they were wrong. Two out of ten.
I thought it was okay but it doesn’t really feel like a Marvel movie. It doesn’t seem like it ties in at all with the greater narrative and the story is messy. Might have been better as it’s own thing. I probably liked it more than most but definitely a flawed movie. Biggest plot hole to me is why the Celestials even bothered to make Eternals with individual personalities, physical features and attributes. They could have all just been Ikaris clones and they could have probably accomplished their goal of birthing new Celestials much easier that way.
Seems I got this part right, at least. Wow, I gave it a "s'okay," and I still liked it more than most who have commented here. Did anyone here like it more than I did?
Hopefully you have a video rental place (if they still exist) near your house. Otherwise, you're going to hate yourself for spending the $24.99 on the disc. And if by some miracle you do end up agreeing with Paladin, as far as I'm concerned you're dead to me.
I mean, I've got Batman & Robin, JL the Whedon cut, and Fan4stic, my completism has made me collect worse. Marvel made "Thor: The Dark World" and "Iron Man 3" pay off. Who knows where they're going with Eternals?
I didn't think it was terrible, but falling asleep for part of it might have helped. I continue to be mystified by Hollywood's fascination with Angelina Jolie.
Apparently some people (*cough* @We Are Borg *cough*) think my review was a rave. I gave it a 6.5. Not great, not terrible, but... sufficient. I maintain that Batman and Robin, Fant4stic, and Thor: The Dark World are all far lesser films (very far for that first one). This one's about Whedon Justice League okay. Like I said, this isn't likely to be anyone's favorite Marvel film, but I'm kinda surprised how several people in this thread apparently nope'd out of it part way. Even if you didn't care for it...it just wasn't nearly that bad. I'm going to give it another watch when it arrives on UHD.
I think I’m about where you are at. I like a lot of things about the movie but it’s definitely one of the weaker entries. But unlike some of those other weak entries I feel like this one is so disconnected from everything else going in the Marvel Universe that it’s easy to just skip over it. There is a giant Celestial sticking halfway out of the Earth… depending on where this takes place chronologically you’d expect something like that to at least be mentioned in the other movies and shows. I’m also unclear on who is and isn’t an Eternal. Apparently Thanos and his ‘brother’ are Eternals… but Thanos never mentions anything about it. And how does that jive with his backstory? And wasn’t Ego referred to as a Celestial? Why does he seem to be so different from the other ones? I’m sure there is a website that explains all this but I feel like the Marvel cosmology is getting a bit dense and convoluted. It’s fine for the comics but I I think they should simplify it for the movies and shows.
The movies are getting where the comics have been for decades, with interconnecting backstories and lots of retconning, leading to a convoluted history that feels built on shaky ground. Yes, some parts of the established MCU don't seem to fit together with this, but we'll see. I thought Shang-Chi very deftly handled the apparent discontinuity with the earlier versions of the Mandarin and the Ten Rings, and it did so with a couple lines of dialogue. I'm gonna do what I did with the comics: just go with it .
On a scale of 1 to 10, 6.5 is not "sufficient." It actually puts it in a halfway decent category, meaning it's better than 65% of other films. This film is a failure. 3/10 at best.
Statistics doesn't work like that. The distribution of film quality is not linear. There are LOTS more 6.5s than there are 8.5s. Most films that get released to the theater or high-profile streaming are the product of a system that releases competently made commercial films. That doesn't mean they're good, but for the most part they will have some entertainment value and will be watchable. You're not going to get a mind-numbingly boring four hour art film that looks like it was made by a film student. A 6.5 isn't better than 65 percent of the films because few truly awful films see the light of day. Most films will be in the 5-6.5 range. I can only think of one recent film I gave a lower rating: The Matrix Resurrections, which I gave a 5.5. Anyway, if a 6.5 were a grade, it'd be a D. That's your opinion and I'm not saying it's invalid. I just liked it a bit more than you. My scale: 0 utterly unwatchable, technically incompetent, and/or morally objectionable 1 terrible, avoid 2 very bad, avoid 3 bad, avoid 4 weak, not worth your time 5 marginal, watch only to kill time 6 okay, watch if it's on cable/streaming 7 pretty good, worth a trip to the theater 8 very good, shouldn't miss 9 excellent, an enduring classic 10 hypothetically perfect film (I've never given this score)
My scale is inherently biased. It's my scale. But by "morally objectionable," I don't mean content or a viewpoint I disagree with. I mean a film whose production is morally objectionable. A genuine snuff film, or kiddie porn would be two examples.
