>>7029792>AgainI'm a new poster, anon. Believe it or not, more than one person can disagree with you.
The problem is that you're not providing an actual argument. You're just presenting your opinion on the movie, that it's not "good" or "original" (both extremely vague descriptors), as fact without explaining *why* you think it's not good or original. You have to back your assertions up with something more concrete than "these characters from other movies share some superficial similarities with the characters in this one, therefore it's derivative schlock." Until you can provide a compelling argument that isn't based on circular reasoning ("I'm right because I love film, and I wouldn't love film as much as I do without developing good opinions"), you're no better than anybody else who poo-poos every new film because it's just not the good old days of Citizen Kane.
Hell, I even agree with you that it's not a particularly original film. But nothing is original, so that doesn't matter. As for "good?" Try defining the term in a way that can by systemically analyzed, and then we can talk about whether it's good or not.