>6.7 >fresh what did they mean by this

>>87168880
People will gobble up any marvel shit.

I enjoy the marvel movies; but they're a tad overrated.

>>87168880
Positive review is fresh
Negative review is rotton.
6.7>5, therefore fresh.

I fucking hate all of you and your Rotten Tomatoes masturbating anytime a fucking movie comes out. Japanese Moot should just fucking lifetime ban anyone who posts a RT screengrab.

>>87168880
most reviews were positive, even if they weren't high-scoring

>>87168937
>Japanese Moot should just fucking lifetime ban anyone who posts a RT screengrab.
this

>>87168937
RT actually considers a 6.0 the "center" point, so that 3/5 stars is the lowest positive review, and 2.5/5 is negative. It pretty closely reflects how critics use starred reviews.

>>87168880
>[current year]
>not understanding RT

>>87168880
All Marvel movies are objectively shit and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to get better taste in movies

>>87168937
This RT is garbage

make your own opinions people

>>87169498
>t. someone who actually likes the DCEU

>>87168880
It means it's not bad, but it's not amazing. Just like every Marvel movie. So it gets multiple fresh tomatoeydoos.

Marvel's motto is basically "Cs get degrees."

>>87169511
name a few instances where RT has been very wrong
and i dont mean "it was shit but everyone else liked it"

>>87169684
They gave The Force Awakens 92%.

File: I just can't.gif (4MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 320x240px

>>87169684
Just because they use a bunch of No Fun Allowed critics doesn't mean they're always right.

Sometimes a "professional" critic is just an unpleasable person.

>>87169715
Also this. That movie was literal shit and no respectable, objective critic would deny that.

>>87169715
go back to /tv/ you prequel apologist

>>87169684
Ghostbusters

>>87169766
Go back to sucking Jar Jar Abrams dick you Disney Shill. People like you are the reason Star Wars is ruined now

>>87169779
I thought it was people like George Lucas that ruined Star Wars.

I'm clearly confused, anon.

File: 20161023_084909.png (576KB, 1440x917px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 1440x917px

>>87169684
You know there's a lot of movies every year that are critically panned but widely loved and vice versa, right?

>>87168937
>Japanese Moot should just fucking lifetime ban anyone who posts a RT screengrab.

For the love if christ please yes.

File: Untitled.png (382KB, 370x500px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 370x500px

WE WANT THE NOLAN AUDIENCE
COME TO US, O NOLAN AUDIENCE

>>87169715
you just invalidated yourself
realistically it's more like a mid 80s but tfa being dog shit is a meme

>>87169769
this guy has a point though, that was a huge mismatch, and probably because the ciritcs didn't want to feel sexist

File: 290.jpg (150KB, 1210x580px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1210x580px

>>87169779

>>87169779
that's funny SW seems a lot better than it did for the past decade or so

also funny to me that you use Jar Jar as a disparaging moniker while defending the era that spawned him

Any word on Dormammu?

>>87168880
100% of reviewers liked the movie

None of them though it was amazing, it was just a good movie.

>>87169816
Wouldn't that have worked better for a Moon Knight movie?

>>87169867
Is a 67% a good grade on a test?

Would you let a brain surgeon who made that grade operate on you?

>>87169867
Marvel is fucked then.

>>87169873
No, because in MK's case the ripping off is much less subtle. So they chose Strange.

>>87169887
no
but that's brain surgery, not two hours of moderate entertainment

>>87169779
>now

>>87169887
In this scale 5 is strictly average. 6 is higher than average, aka "okay" and 7 is good.

It was more 7 than 6's, and probably some eights, so yeah, it's a good movie.

>>87169924
>6 is 7
Damage control: ACTIVATED

The DC fanboy butthurt gets stronger with every MCU movie

>>87169956
Company war protocols: ACTIVATED

>>87169956
remember when they formed a petition to shut down RT?

they'll never live that one down

>>87169887
it's a positive score, which is where RT gets its percentages from

why do people still struggle to get this

>>87169956
>>87169981
Samefagging: ACTIVATED

>>87169998
So you'd let any surgeon to operate your brain. OK. Good luck.

>>87170011
where the fuck did i say anything about any surgeons

>>87169924
>6 = 7

Mouseposters are losing it.

Will this be worse than Thor and Iron Man 3?

>>87169938
Literal retard.

Hate marvel current trend. Get random movie with good will and fans. Then paint it with marvel paint. Boom you got a movie. Copyright should be stronger for this bulkshit

>>87170039
Yesterday I watched the beginning of Thor 2 after watching an Eastwood movie. I almost puked my dinner.

>>87169981
You mean the petition made by a guy with a Black Panther reddit username?

Yeah, that's totally not an obvious falsefag

>>87170039
This goes back to understanding the way metacritic type sites like RT gather up their overall scores and percentages. To have a 6.7, it would have had to have had more 7's than 6's, but the 6's drag it below a 7.

>>87170081
Thor 2 is better than Thor 1, and better than Iron Man 2 and 3 combined.

>>87169981

Yeah Iremember, that was the evanposter from /tv/ in the most obvious false flag I've ever seen

I'd usually wait for my two favorite critics to review it, but since I already know they won't like it, I won't bother watching the movie.

>>87170107
...I don't think I want to watch Thor 1, thanks.

>>87170107
You are talking about the Malekith movie?

It was pure garbage.

>>87170107

This seriously. Thor 2 is unbelievably bad but not even close to MCU's worst

>>87169799
>39%

What the fuck?

>>87170086
No one cares about reddit besides /tv/.
He was just a retard not unlike yourself that got triggered by success.

>>87170138

Tony Scott going hyper-stylised has always divided critics.

>>87169938
>>87170039
>I don't understand math, the posts

>>87168937
>Japanese Moot should just fucking lifetime ban anyone who posts a RT screengrab
This would be amazing

Not gonna lie, I 100% trust critics' reviews over the average fanboy. It doesn't mean they're always right, but the opinions here are almost always garbage.

>>87170086
doesn't change that it got over 1000 signatures

>>87170210
>the opinions here are garbage
>In my opinion reviewers are trustworthy
What did he meme by this?

>>87169684
Sausage Party, Age of Ultron, Captain Fantastic, any DCEU movie, Force Awakens, Hillary's America, Batman Begins, Dark Knight Rises, the Iron Man movies. Am I forgetting some?

File: very yes.png (29KB, 320x326px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 320x326px

>>87168937

>Japanese Moot should just fucking lifetime ban anyone who posts a RT screengrab.

>>87170217
18,000 didn't it?

>>87168937
>Japanese Moot should just fucking lifetime ban anyone who posts a RT screengrab.
this

>>87168880
Fuck, when even cuckritics can't give MCU movie score higher than 7 it means it's total garbage. I'll torrent this.

File: birth_of_a_nation.jpg (150KB, 509x755px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 509x755px

>>87170428

>>87170217
>>87170492
Just shows the frustration fans have over the obvious bias. Of course they know it wouldn't happen, but it's a way to show their feelings. I don't blame them, RT is a mess.

>>87170428
>Hillary's America
I guess I should've realized that Snyder Fans are also retarded Trump supporters.

>>87170675
I thought Ramesh Ponneru was #nevertrump

So, it seems like Dr. Strange is boring IM1 + inception ripoff. Will we ever see good Marvel movie again?

>>87168880
>6.7
That feels way too low for an MCU hyped up movie.

What people don't realize is that a movie is still good if some reviews say it is over 6.5, some reviewers are just these raging bafoons who give perfectly acceptable movies a lower than 3 or something so it brings the score way down.
If you even watch movies just for the revies, which you sahouldn't to begin with, watch more 6 rated movies. You'll be surprised.

>>87171141
When you see score that low even from cuckritics - that means movie is total garbage, but they just can't go aganist it.

>>87169779
Star Wars was never good. Maybe only A New Hope.

>>87169887
well, it's a marvel movie
so standards are pretty low

File: 1383926813319.png (462KB, 538x426px) Image search: [Google]

462KB, 538x426px

>ditko died for this

>>87171476
Ditkos still alive, anon.

He lives in an attic in midtown Manhattan, abducting hippies for nutritional purposes.

>>87169856
>SW seems a lot better
In >>87169860
what way?

>>87171025
No not at all. That's the same score they get always

I wanna know about mah nigga Dormammu.

Is he in or not?

File: joke.jpg (20KB, 600x522px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 600x522px

>>87171550

>>87169684
Every single post 2005 horror movie not made by David Lynch that is above 20%.
Fucking Unfriended is rated as "fresh" for Christ's sake.

>>87171692
But anon, you need to make a joke for it to go over my head.

>>87171692
what joke

>>87169766
You can hate both, you know.

>>87168998
But even then, 3/5 stars would be considered "rotten" while 2/5 stars is "fresh" (as seen with nuGhostbusters).

>>87169731
>unpleasable
Nigger, the modern "professional" critics' problem is that they're way too easily pleased.

>>87169511
RT is fine, RT is just a site.
The problem is the people. No on here ever seems to know how to read their ratings, instead taking the %age as a be all end all sign of a movies quality.

>>87171025
For reference, Age of Ultron also has a 6.7 average rating.

>>87171922

I thought AoU was bad, well maybe not bad but very bland and forgettable. How did movies like Civil war or IM3 do?

>>87170428
>>87169715
>>87169731
>>87169769
>>87169779
>>87169799
I want /tv/ to leave

>>87171984
You made your bed now lay in it. Stop blaming other boards for /co/s cancer and start taking responsibility for once.

>>87170675
not even that anon, but how stupid can you be that you believe people that like one movie must also have on political allegiance? I'm as left as they get (even forcing myself to vote for Hilary) and I have no plan to see the movie, but reading the Rotten Tomato reviews shows that they just hated it because it disagreed with their politics.

>>87171984
>defends RT scores as be-all-end-all of movies' quality
>calls someone else /tv/

>>87171981
Everyone thought AoU was bad. That being said, Antman has a 6.8, but was (at least personally) miles more watchable than Ultron was do the the quality of writing. So there are other factors at play here.
Some other scores:

Winter Soldier - 7.5
Civil War - 7.6
GotG - 7.8
IM1 - 7.7
IM3 - 7.0
Thor 2 - 6.2

>>87169684
Its been happening before rotten tomatoes.

Movies that were critically panned when they came out include


2001: A Space Odyssey

Wizard of Oz

The Thing

Apocalypse Now

Fight Club

Fantasia

The Shining

The Graduate

Vertigo

>>87172171
Don't forget about Citizen Kane, which people consider it to be "the greatest movie of all time."

>>87172171
Don't forget The Thing.

>>87172198
It's already up there.

>>87172171
Alright, a lot of those deserve better, but Vertigo's script is a bit of a mess.
The fever dream sequence is great and all, but the second half of the film runs on happenstance and comes across as incredibly recursive.

>>87172255
Woops. My bad.

>>87172171
>The Shining
It deserves being panned though.
It's a cartoonish comedic bastardization of a decent novel and misses Jack's character entirely.
It only receives any praise because
>M-MUH KUBRICK CAN DO NO WRONG

>>87172171
And Lost Highway.

>>87172171
They were right. But then academic film school proto-hipsters got their hands on them and shamed everyone into thinking a bunch of shit movies were good.

>>87172171
And Scar Face.

>>87170675
Political positions should not be a factor when judging the value of a movie. Fact is, the reviews are all just mad because the movie didn't adhere to their views. Should critics be listened to in that case?

>>87172258
I mean, its sort of meant to be recursive since hence the whole "downward spiral" imagery/theme of it. But I agree the second half of the script is a mess, though I love it more for its visual flair than anything else.

>>87172470
TheManWithNoTaste.jpg

>>87172267
Look, I don't agree with all the praise The Shinning Gets, but if you divorce it from the book and look at it as a standalone movie its really well made and deserves at least a B or 7/10.

Why gives a shit? Seriously, why?

Does it really matter what people like and don't and what rating it gets on rotten tomatoes?

Why are more of you guys so bitter when it comes to movies and film taste? A lot of you are more bitter than /tv/.

>>87172480
>>87172387
knew I forgot some, thanks

>>87172537
Fair point.
It's amazing visually, but I'm still salty over how the book just does some things better.

>>87172540
I used to not care until I realized that it affects the quality of movies we get indirectly. The idiots who listen to these things will pay for trash movies and not pay for top quality movies, thus bringing down the entertainment value as a whole. Either we get better critics, or audiences stop being retarded. Neither will happen, obviously.

>>87172573
I completely understand anon, but people have to accept an adaptation is an adaptation, meaning its gunna change. I think they both have their own merits, and I do think the movie is overrated, but it in no way deserved the thrashing it originally got (and is frankly much better than most movies coming out now).

>>87170316
I mean that the opinions here are borderline awful. It's like going to /v/ for vidya recommendations; sure, there are a few almost everyone can agree on are good, but for the most part it's a sea of shit taste as far as the eye can see.

>>87172625
>The idiots who listen to these things will pay for trash movies and not pay for top quality movies, thus bringing down the entertainment value as a whole. Either we get better critics, or audiences stop being retarded. Neither will happen, obviously.
That's why I'm so sad about mediocre/terrible horror movies getting good reviews. I love horror as a genre, I really do. I just don't like what is considered horror these days and critics rating shitty movies high gives creators an idea that being mediocre/bad pays in more ways than one. That's why we're never getting another Rosemary's Baby or Silence of the Lambs (more of a thriller, but the point still stands)

>>87172625
>Neither will happen, obviously.
Then why should you care? What you consider good and bad will still exist, the industry might be dwindling to you but then again, there's still stuff being made, and what you like and don't like is subjective to you.

>>87170316
He's right. Critics have at least watched other films, they have some point of reference for what makes a film enjoyable. They're not always going to be right, and their taste isn't always going to perfectly align with your own, but they can still serve as something of a reference point.
People on this site don't watch anything but blockbusters, and /co/ in particular is going to have a strong bias for the brands behind these movies.

Why on earth would you think a random collection of emotionally stunted comic fans would be a more valid indicator for a movie's strength than a congregate of actual film critics?

>>87172540
I think most of the complaints aren't about critics necessarily, most itt are about people who take RT as some kind of end-all proof of what movies are good and what aren't.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/dexter/s08/
>professional critics

>>87168880
The RT percentage isn't the score people are giving it. It is on average a 67, so a D movie, but 100% of people who saw it agree that it wasn't a failure (5/10 or less), so 100% fresh rating.
Also this is bound to drop like a stone after official release.

>>87172967
>He's right.
No, he's not. "Actual" film critics are tasteless morons, ironically, incapable of criticizing things and their reviews usually are generally nothing but about how "this piece of trash is a masterpiece" with all their arguments being nothing but water.

>>87169887
67% on a multiple choice test with precise criteria or 67% on an essay where the prof just didn't like your conclusions?

>>87169766
I hate both of them anon

>>87173047
I'm sorry they didn't like your favorite movie anon.

>>87173113
>more projecting
This is the intelligence level of someone who thinks that critics actually matter.

>>87169856
no one was defending the prequels here, you just assume those that hate the force awakens must love the prequels you autist

>>87172171
>Apocalypse Now
>critically panned
It won the biggest prize of the Canne festival...

>>87171984
I want you to leave

>>87173198
Educate yourself...

http://www.theweek.co.uk/entertainment/5191/apocalypse-now-original-1979-reviews

>>87173198
http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=EE05E7DF173CE562BC4D52DFBE668382669EDE

>Vittorio Storaro, who photographed Last Tango in Paris, among other fine films, is responsible for the extraordinary camerawork that almost, but not quite, saves Apocalypse Now from its profoundly anticlimactic intellectual muddle.

>>87173198
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/oct/19/apocalypse-now-review

>Unfortunately Coppola has made an all-too pretty movie precisely because he has not looked in to it too much.

>>87173143
I'm not sure you're really clear on the concept of projection. My favorite film was rather well received. Hell, even if I were to blindly follow critics, wouldn't it go without saying that my favorite film was something critically approved?

That being said, what you've offered wasn't really a counter argument. You've made the generalization that their criticisms lack substance. This may be true for some critics, after all, they don't operate as a collective and obviously some will be more articulate than others. There are still however objective merits a film can be scored on, strength of writing, acting, cinematography and the likes.
All of that however, is besides the point.
The point being that your average anon who watches maybe three films a year, and has been reading DC comics since he was eight, probably isn't going to serve as the best indicator of whether DC's latest film outing holds quality. Your dismissal of professional film critics doesn't somehow add credibility to the opinions of others.

And when it comes down to it someone who indulges in film will on average be far more likely to be able to identify what makes, for example, a shot look good, even if only on the biases of pattern recognition.

>>87171261
Why do you say this, Anon?

>>87172967
This. You don't have to treat critics as the word of God, but they are people who have put time into studying what they're reviewing. There's nothing wrong with using them as a frame of a reference or to help you judge whether or not you want to see a movie you're already on the fence about. And it would be stupid not to use professional opinions as evidence if you're trying to make a point about a film's quality. But at the same time it doesn't mean they're always going to be right, or you can't disagree with them.

>>87172267
>comedic bastardization of a decent novel and misses Jack's character entirely.
How?

>>87172967
>Why on earth would you think a random collection of emotionally stunted comic fans would be a more valid indicator for a movie's strength than a congregate of actual film critics

Because they actually like the genre. "Know what makes a film enjoyable." What the fuck does that mean? If I want a rec for good horror movies I'm going to ask my friend whose watched over a hundred of them.

The fact that critics complain so much about tone in comic book movies is indicative of the problem that these are a bunch of people being forced to watch something that they never would have gravitated towards naturally. That's not how I will experience any movie I sit down to watch, and the superhero fans, who actually read comics, know far, far more in regard to what other superhero fans will enjoy than some critic does.

>>87168918
>I enjoy these movies.
>Everyone else who enjoys them do so for the wrong reasons.

>>87173389
>I'm not sure you're really clear on the concept of projection
>He disagrees with me, there's no reason he could say this other than because his favourite movie was critically panned
Is projection at its finest.
>Hell, even if I were to blindly follow critics, wouldn't it go without saying that my favorite film was something critically approved?
Just because critics can have a good opinion once in a while, doesn't mean their opinions are worth shit or that they understand anything better than your average Joe. If anything, I saw more meat in online articles on shitty horror sites than in anything professional critics say.
>You've made the generalization
Oh, the irony. And it's not really a generalization given how many awful shit flicks and shows get overwhelming amounts of positive reviews where all the flaws get ignored. But hey, professional critics know better.
>There are still however objective merits a film can be scored on, strength of writing, acting, cinematography and the likes.
Which critics these days have low standards on, and which is my point.
>The point being that your average anon who watches maybe three films a year, and has been reading DC comics since he was eight, probably isn't going to serve as the best indicator of whether DC's latest film outing holds quality.
What the fuck does that even have to do with anything?
Also nice
>people only watch blockbusters here because I personally know everyone on here
> Your dismissal of professional film critics doesn't somehow add credibility to the opinions of others.
Neither does you pretending like idiots with shitty degrees actually know jackshit about movies despite being incapable of doing nothing but praising shit.

File: suicide squad out of the shadows.png (215KB, 742x311px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 742x311px

>>87168937
why's that

are you bad at understanding stats or just so full of yourself you can't accept holding a minority opinion

>>87168998
>>87171882
the x/10 score is based on the content of reviews, not the scores the reviewers gave overall

it's ridiculous, we agree, but it's ridiculous because it attempts to turn nuanced reviews into a single aggregate score out of ten; this is redundant

RT does need to address it, but all they really need to do is scrap it as an unnecessary addition - the quotes they post from reviews do the same job far more effectively

>>87171922
most people don't know how to read their phone bill

a lot of them don't even know you can have such a thing, they think you just pay money to the company and stay inside the limits the company's app gives you

File: 1352615162048.gif (3MB, 330x328px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 330x328px

>>87173636
this guy gets it

>>87173636
>If I want a rec for good horror movies I'm going to ask my friend whose watched over a hundred of them
You realize you can find film critics who specialize in a singular genres, yeah? Like, I'm defending critics on the basis that they've at least experienced a solid sampling of film, and now here you've brought up your friend because he too has watched quite a number of films. It's literally the same thing. You going to someone for an opinion on film because you know they frequently watch film. That's almost by definition what a film critic is for.

Trouble is, your average anon doesn't have that same depth of experience. You wouldn't place some anon's opinion over your friends because you know your friend is really passionate about horror films while that anon is very likely more casual. As for superheroes in particular, sure /co/ will know the characters, but a movie isn't enjoyable for accuracy alone. You could easily have a project that 1:1 parallel the source material, only for it to be utterly unenjoyable due to horrible acting or directing.
Again, critics aren't the word of God. It's just a reference point from someone who's spent a bit of time digesting films.

>>87168880
First off, fuck you for posting numbered reviews.
Second, there are only 12 reviews.

And I ask anyone, why are scores so damn important to people? Is it due to it's simplicity?

>>87172874
Optimism? Should at least try to fix it.

>>87169498
but you havent seen all of the marvel movies and i think you mean mcu movies cause blade and spiderman raimi and reboot beg to differ

>>87172010
nah /co/ is pretty cancerous but tv is all around bad they chalk any new movie that people like as bad and call every old movie that no one has heard of as kino just yesterday a nigga bust out a chart stating if you haven't seen any chinese movie made in the 50's that wasn't godzilla then you're a normie faggot

>>87173875
>horror critics
>anything but human garbage and waste of flesh
I wish there was a virus that would painfully kill everyone who reviews horror movies. Maybe that way shit like The Descent would never receive any praise.
>oh, who cares if it was full of obnoxious idiotic characters, mediocre direction, cheap jumpscares lazy monster designs that are somehow inferior to C.H.U.D (a goddamn 80s(!!!) movie) monster designs and a completely awful "it was all in her head" twist which falls flat because the movie did literally fucking nothing to make you invested in those excuses for characters enough to feel anything from that attempt at psychological horror. It's good because muh strong female leads and atmosphere (which also somehow had more sense of being lost and helplessness in C.H.U.D)

>>87172171
You forgot probably the most famous one - Blade Runner. Critics and audiences fucking hated that movie when it came out.

>>87173875
>You realize you can find film critics who specialize in a singular genres

Very, very few critics "specializes in superhero media" or even read comics at all. As a rule I'm going to take the opinion of someone who read comics far more seriously, not because they're a critic or not a critic, but because they actually know the genre. Horror's a good example. By and large, professional critics review horror terribly, so their opinion in regard to that genre is completely irrelevant. I may be genuinely surprised and impressed when they actually acknowledge a particular horror film, but outside of that, I'm not going to give their general consensus much merit or watch and avoid movies based upon it. From what I've seen, non-comic readers have a very limited understand of what makes a good superhero story, because they've experience such a tiny swath of them; they may have seen a lot of movies, but that's irrelevant to their knowledge of the particular genre.

Critics gave Jessica Jones good reviews. I can't take them seriously after that.

>>87173771
Confirmed for not knowing what projection is. And the fact that you've quoted that first example on projection as if it were related to my argument at large is a bit concerning. Those were separate paragraphs for a reason anon.

And surely you realize that those shitty horror movie sites count as critics? I wouldn't go as far as to call them professionals, but they're doing write ups on films because they like watching movies of a particular genre. Do this enough times, and hey, your opinion starts to hold some weight. That's legitimately how people get into the world of film criticism.

And again, you've basically just reiterated yourself without addressing my point. Your average anon doesn't watch a lot of films; the average person doesn't even watch a lot of films. The one anon brought up his horror movie friend: that person's opinion holds weight to them specifically because they frequently watch horror films. They'll have at least some idea of what makes a horror film enjoyable to watch.

Take what this anon is saying for example:
>>87173781
>most people don't know how to read their phone bill
The average person is dumb. That's just how it is. There's no special clearance check that assures someone on 4chan is going to have anything worthwhile to say. With a film critic you at least have the benefit of knowing they've experienced some films. Go find some movies you like, and look for the critics who've positively reviewed them. Find a critic who's taste seems to align with your own; they're your reference point. If they like a film, there's a strong chance you will as well. Doesn't mean their opinion suddenly supersedes your own, that you should watch a film you have zero interest in just because they told you too. It's just a reference point after all.

At absolute worst, your average critic's opinion has the same validity as the average persons. They are just people, after all.
In most cases however, you'd get the benefit of experience.

>>87174015
>I wish there was a virus that would painfully kill everyone who reviews horror movies.
Horror moviefag and gorehound here. I completely agree.

File: Seriously.png (74KB, 745x356px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 745x356px

>>87174073
>By and large, professional critics review horror terribly
That's because deep down, they don't like horror. They see it as an inherently low-brow genre a la Friday the 13th movies, which is why something like Babadook (a pretty mediocre psychological drama and a terrible horror movie) is akin to the Jesus' second coming to them.
I know I'll sound like tumblr, but the phrase "you're pretty smart for a darkie" is an apt comparison to the way critics treat horror movies.

>>87169816
It's not really be expect the Hollywood crowd to understand that, yea that isn't happening.

>>87174332
We'll persevere, man.
Maybe one day ordinary people and critics alike will stop eating up shit and we'll have a horror movie renaissance because it'd be a "create something good or watch it flop" choice for creators.
That probably will never happen, but it's fun to dream.

File: Marvel Comics vector logo - Marvel Comics logo vector free download.png (5KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 400x400px

Yass marvel.
Marvel is killing it again

Two billion dollar movies this year!!

#Marvelfansforhillary

If you hate doctor strange your are literally against progression

>>87174305
Why would anyone need a point of reference?
If you need some hack to explain what makes Andrei Rublev a great movie for you instead of using your own observations, thoughts and words, you're most likely not actually appreciating the movie and just trying to pretend to like that movie to fit in the "intellectual cinephile" crowd as pretentious as that sounds.

http://variety.com/2016/film/reviews/doctor-strange-review-marvel-studios-1201895862/
>One near-death ER sequence manages to be tense, hilarious, and exhilarating at the same time

So they're including that scene where Stephen's astral body helps resuscitate himself?

>>87175077
>tense, hilarious, and exhilarating
Translation: it will be none of those things, I just have low standards.
At least that's how I translate 80 percent of praise critics give.

Personally I see a bland and mildly good film as worse than a legitimately bad one.

Practically nothing to distinguish it from other films.

I'm afraid to ask

People seriously don't think RT gives out these scores themselves right?
They know it's just a site that collects reviews, right?

>>87175161
/tv/, everyone

>>87172171
The idea that you're comparing Kubrick to SW and capeshit in general is hilarious.

All these movies have high RT scores, btw.

>>87171579

If he's in the movie and, if so, if he's done well.

>>87175375
Fuck off /tv/.
It's clear you don't even read comic books.

>>87175077
Why does a near-death scene need to be hilarious?

Fucking christ, not every scene needs humor

>>87175375
>Likes modern Marvel
>Calls anyone else a cuck

>>87173426
You can seriously watch Shining as anything other than comedy? You can seriously think Jack Nicholson is a good actor and not an overacting talentless hack? And don't even pull the
>his character is crazy, it makes it okay to ruin potentially tense scenes by laughable acting

And the descent from an ordinary guy to a madman was executed much better and felt way more natural in the book.

File: Homem-Aranha – Miles Morales e Spider-Gwen terão romance nos ___.jpg (191KB, 766x1043px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 766x1043px

>>87175375
t. Evansposter Cuck

>>87175674
>You can seriously think Jack Nicholson is a good actor and not an overacting talentless hack?
I guess The Shining is the only thing you've ever seen him in.

>>87175438
>/tv/tards in charge of reading comprehension

>>87172255
>>87172171

Don't forget The Thing.

Nah, I'm just shitting you.

variety.com/1968/film/reviews/2001-a-space-odyssey-1200421723/

>There will be many filmgoers, fortunately for Metro, who’ll think it was; there’ll be others who won’t see this in the finished handiwork of Kubrick and his staff. A major achievement in cinematography and special effects, “2001” lacks dramatic appeal to a large degree and only conveys suspense after the halfway mark. Despite the enormous technical staff involved in making the film, it is almost entirely one man’s conception and Kubrick must receive all the praise – and take all the blame.

>The commercial future of “2001” will be followed with interest. With an initial print order of 103, Metro evidently intends to follow up its Washington (Tues.) and New York (Wed.) premieres with numerous openings, as suggested by the tremendous promotional campaign on the film already underway.

>But “2001” is not a cinematic landmark. It compares with, but does not best, previous efforts at science fiction; lacking the humanity of “Forbidden Planet,” the imagination of “Things to Come” and the simplicity of “Of Stars and Men,” it actually belongs to the technically-slick group previously dominated by George Pal and the Japanese.

Those are some pretty big shoes to fill: "Things to Come" is a 1936 Brit sci-fi preoccupied (as a lot of works of the era) with the impending war. "Of Stars and Men" is an animated 1964 movie; "Forbidden Planet" is "The Tempest" in space, starring Leslie Nielsen.

Far from panning "2001" Variety's contemporaneous review considered it a technically brilliant but emotionally cold and often flawed piece, noting in particular that the scenes of "back home" shown on the video phones are 1960s contemporary, but in space everybody is all futuristic. Make your excuses... now!

>>87172171

>http://variety.com/1939/film/reviews/the-wizard-of-oz-3-1200412289/

>‘The Wizard of Oz,’ which springs from Metro’s golden bowl (production cost is reported close to $3 million), is likely to perform some record-breaking feats of boxoffice magic. Given a sufficient period of pre-release showings in selected major spots, favorable word-of-mouth on the unique and highly entertaining features of the film should spread rapidly. It’s a pushover for the children and family biz.

It's not really an exaggeration to say that in 1939 Variety practically held Judy Garland down and jizzed in her mouth, they loved this movie so much.

All the criticism they had was to note that as a non-trad experience it needed plenty of hype to get audiences in - an important note as theater owners would have been reading it - and that the plot is kind of thin, which is true.

>The Thing

Variety's The Thing review isn't online, but Carpenter's a pretty litigious guy, so maybe that's why. Or maybe they just haven't finished digitizing their 1980s reviews yet.

>>87172171

http://variety.com/1979/film/reviews/apocalypse-now-2-1200424565/

>“Apocalypse Now” was worth the wait. Alternately a brilliant and bizarre film, Francis Coppola’s four year ‘work in progress’ offers the definitive validation to the old saw, “war is hell.” Coppola’s vision of Hell-on-Earth hews closely to Joseph Conrad’s novella “Heart of Darkness,” and therein lies the film’s principal commercial defect. An exhilarating action-adventure exercise for two-thirds of its 139 minutes, “Apocalypse” abruptly shifts to surrealistic symbolism for its denouement. Result will be many spectators left in the lurch, a factor that won’t help in recouping the $50,000,000 or more necessary for break-even by distrib United Artists, Coppola and the worldwide territorial distribs involved.

>“Apocalypse Now” will also have trouble avoiding political pigeonholing, since it’s the first film to directly excoriate US involvement in the Indochina war. To be sure, inhumane attitudes surfaced on both sides as inevitable consequences of a misunderstood conflict, but Coppola wields a wide tabrush in painting Americans as either “conspiratorial” or “homicidal,” with no one in between.

>Thus it seems ironic that the most widely heralded production of the last 10 years may find its niche co-opted by a pic dealing with a common subject, the effect of the Vietnam conflict on its participants, “The Deer Hunter” and “Apocalypse Now” are widely differing treatments in tone and viewpoint, but in the eyes of the film-going public, if you’ve seen one Vietnam war pic, you might have seen them all.

>Which possible reaction would be a shame, because Coppola here reaffirms his stature as a top filmmaker. “Apocalypse Now” takes realistic cinema to a new extreme – Coppola virtually creates World War III on screen.

Yeah, they jizzed over this too.

>>87168880
I don't think you fucking retards understand how RT works.

100% means everyone (critics) who watched it had at least a marginally positive experience. The 100% doesn't take into account how much people liked/disliked it. It can be pretty reductive.

>>87172171
>http://variety.com/1999/film/reviews/fight-club-2-1117752116/

>Rarely has a film been so keyed into its time -- in ways that, commercially, will be both advantageous and damaging -- as "Fight Club." On one hand, the Fox 2000 feature is the perfect reflection of the millennium malaise that pits pervasive nihilism against an urgent need for something to grasp onto; on the other, it caps off a period in which the media and Washington have never been so assiduous in pointing the finger at Hollywood over the impact of screen violence on society and on youth in particular.

Yeah, not really a critical review.

Did you imagined that "panned" included any review which noted that all movies have some flaws?

Because all movies have flaws.

http://variety.com/1940/film/reviews/fantasia-1200413303/

>Walt Disney, who is never further back in the film parade than the front line, presents a new and novel treatment of animated cartoons in a group of illustrated classical musical compositions, under the title of "Fantasia."

>There is something in “Fantasia” for every taste. The eight individual compositions have been selected with an eye and ear to a wide audience. The presentation eclipses anything previously attempted in mechanical sound entertainment and it was necessary to install special RCA reproduction equipment to cope with the recording innovations.

The only real criticism was whether the cost required to fully enjoy Fantasia as intended would be met by box office returns, but we know it was, of course.

>>87172171
http://variety.com/1979/film/reviews/the-shining-1200424592/

>With everything to work with, director Stanley Kubrick has teamed with jumpy Jack Nicholson to destroy all that was so terrifying about Stephen King's bestseller.

Oooh anon it sounds like you might be one for six here.

>In his book, King took a fundamental horror formula – an innocent family marooned in an evil dwelling with a grim history – and built layers of ingenious terror upon it. The father is gradually possessed by the demonic, desolate hotel.

>With dad going mad, the only protection mother and child have is the boy’s clairvoyance – his ‘shining’ – which allows him an innocent understanding and some ability to outmaneuver the devils. But Kubrick sees things his own way, throwing 90% of King’s creation out.

>The crazier Nicholson gets, the more idiotic he looks. Shelley Duvall transforms the warm sympathetic wife of the book into a simpering, semi-retarded hysteric.

>[Version reviewed ran 146 mins. Kubrick cut pic soon after its premiere.]

That's the entire review.

Kubrick took comments on board and recut his movie into the one you've actually seen, which was released six months after this review.

So that's where that myth of the misunderstood masterpiece comes from - an out of print 1979 version which reviewers and test audiences hated.

http://variety.com/1967/film/reviews/the-graduate-1117791319/

>The Graduate is a delightful, satirical comedy-drama about a young man's seduction by an older woman, and the measure of maturity which he attains from the experience. Anne Bancroft, Katharine Ross and relative newcomer Dustin Hoffman head a very competent cast.

You really have to hope Hoffman was into bukkake with all this gushing.

>>87172171
http://variety.com/1958/film/reviews/vertigo-2-1200419207/

>"Vertigo" is prime though uneven Hitchcock and with the potent marquee combination of James Stewart and Kim Novak should prove to be a highly profitable enterprise at the boxoffice. Stewart, on camera almost constantly throughout the film's 126 minutes, comes through with a startlingly fine performance as the lawyer-cop who suffers from acrophobia--that is, vertigo or dizziness in high places.

They didn't like Kim Novak. That's about it.

Do you work hard at being a gullible fuckwit or would you say it comes naturally to you?

Sure, this is just Variety, which has only been an industry leader for like 80 years or whatever it is now. It's fine. I'm sure the Bumfuck Gazette panned them all and that made a huge difference to Old Man Peterson's little theater wherever the shit it is that you live.

But it's not really true to say these movies were received poorly.

>>87173389
Oh, for Christ's sake.
No, idiots with blogs are not critics because we're talking about professionals.

No one is "reiterating your points" just calling you a dumb piece of shit for making a "people here only watch blockbusters because I said so" assumption.
>With a film critic you at least have the benefit of knowing they've experienced some films
Which means literally nothing because critics are idiotic ADHD kiddies who have zero taste, would give good grades to any shiny new piece of shit no matter how much it stinks and whose reviews fall apart and seem absolutely watery and substanceless (the only major difference between experienced critics and novices is eloquence, rather than the substance of content) the moment you apply thinking to them
>Go find some movies you like, and look for the critics who've positively reviewed them. Find a critic who's taste seems to align with your own;
Translation: go find some scumbag who should just die and stop polluting the Earth with his/her meaningless existence and jerk off to his/her opinions because you agree with them

>2016
>RT "critics" having any cred

>2016
>dc fans still butthurt

>the critics don't matter, it's the audience score that matters!
>Marvel movie's audience scores are also higher
this will always amuse me

>>87177183
>If you dislike Marvel, you must be a DC fag!
Of course /tv/ is so brain dead that they buy into the whole company wars thing.

>>87177246
Well, you can dislike a lot of things, but if you spend two hours on 4chin everyday hating on marvel, yes you're a dc fag

>>87175438
no body compared it to SW but you. And these were its initial reviews, before rotten tomatoes was a thing you absolute mongoloid.

>>87176332
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-thing-1982

>"The Thing" is a great barf-bag movie, all right, but is it any good? I found it disappointing, for two reasons: the superficial characterizations and the implausible behavior of the scientists on that icy outpost.
>>87176360
http://theweek.com/articles/459903/scathing-1939-review-worst-critique-wizard-oz-record


>The Wizard of Oz was intended to hit the same audience as Snow White, and won't fail for lack of trying. It has dwarfs, music, technicolor, freak characters, and Judy Garland. It can't be expected to have a sense of humor as well — and as for the light touch of fantasy, it weighs like a pound of fruitcake soaking wet. Children will not object to it, especially as it is a thing of many interesting gadgets; but it will be delightful for children mostly to their mothers, and any kid tall enough to reach up to a ticket window will be found at the Tarzan film down the street. The story of course has some lovely and wild ideas—men of straw and tin, a cowardly lion, a wizard who isn't a very good wizard — but the picture doesn't know what to do with them, except to be painfully literal and elaborate about everything...


>>87176384
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/oct/19/apocalypse-now-review
>Unfortunately Coppola has made an all-too pretty movie precisely because he has not looked in to it too much.
>>87176408
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/fight-club-1999
>I admired "The Game" much more than "Fight Club" because it was really about its theme, while the message in "Fight Club" is like bleeding scraps of Socially Redeeming Content thrown to the howling mob.


http://decentfilms.com/reviews/fantasia
>Released in 1940, Fantasia was a critical and popular failure in its own day

>>87176428
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shining_(film)#Initial_reception
>It was the only one of Kubrick's last nine films to receive no nominations at all from either the Oscars or Golden Globes, but was nominated for a pair of Razzie Awards, including Worst Director and Worst Actress (Duvall),


>>87176459
from the variety review you posted
>Unfortunately, even that mastery is not enough to overcome one major fault, for the plain fact is that the film’s first half is too slow and too long. This may be because: (1) Hitchcock became overly enamored with the vertiginous beauty of Frisco; or (2) the Alec Coppel-Samuel Taylor screenplay (from the novel “D’entre Les Morts” by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac) just takes too long to get off the ground.


But I'm glad to know one source, variety, in your mind makes up ALL reviews at the time.


Way to be a fucking shill and a walking idiot.

>>87176408
>>87176384
>>87176360
>>87176332
>>87176408
>>87176428
>>87176459
>one review site is all reviews

if anything, this just shows that Variety either has good taste, or loves everything ever. Depends what they gave other movies.

>>87168918
If you enjoy them why do you feel the need to call them overrated? Just enjoy them and stfu. People who like them more than you aren't hurting shit.

File: IMG_3911.jpg (34KB, 461x400px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 461x400px

>>87168918
>"I enjoy this thing but don't like that everyone else does."

>>87177278
Not if you spend two hours on 4chan hating on DC to even it out.

>>87172512
>>87172012

It's a movie that exists solely to sway political opinion though. What else were they supposed to judge it on?

I find it funny that idiots bring up competently made movies like TFA as proof RT gets it wrong instead of bringing up genuinely garbage movies that got critical praise like DKR because MUH DC.

>>87178396
TFA failed in storytelling and characters and music.

Technical film aspects, sure it's competent there but who cares.

>>87172171
And Batman v Superman

take this shit where it belongs

>>>/tv/

>>87178396
>the force awakens
>competently made

>>87178465
You're fucking stupid if you genuinely believe TFA is somehow below average in storytelling or characters. Specially considering you're defending objectively garbage films like Suicide Squad.

>>87174971
>Andrei Rublev

This is one of Zack Snyder's favourite movies.

>>87174058
To be fair, the theatrical cut of Blade Runner is fucking awful.

>>87178953
I'm not defending DCEU movies though.

Characters and story in TFA were woefully underdeveloped. It crossed the line from homage to laziness (though you could blame ROTJ Death Star v2 for starting it). Williams did a forgettable score, the only memorable parts were the recycled bits.

I read some the reviews and it seems like the consensus is that it's good, but nothing that really plays with the formula of the movies or does anything to excite past the visual spectacle of the special effects.

so it's not really a Guardians of the Galaxy kind of movie, that just completely revitalized the franchise before Age of Ultron (which was a worse movie in comparison), but it was your typical expectations from a Marvel movie like Iron Man 3 or Ant-Man.

>>87176648
I like how you're vehemently against generalizing the average audience, then in the following sentence characterize all critics as ADHD kiddies.
It's right up there with how you say you're not reiterating your points, then proceed to double back on your claim of substancelessness in reviews.

>Translation: go find some scumbag who should just die and stop polluting the Earth with his/her meaningless existence and jerk off to his/her opinions because you agree with them
You seem upset, anon.
Fact of the matter is, the average person just doesn't watch a comparable amount of films to a critic. Neither does the average person read an impressive metric of novels when compared to a literary critic.
This is just common sense.

>>87174971
The point of reference is to govern whether a film is worth looking into, not to retroactively digest the film for you. Lets say you hear of a film for the first time, from a new director. You watch the trailer, some of it looks alright, some of it looks a tad rough. Read a synopsis, find it to be very middle of the road. So you pull up your favorite produce themed review site, only to discover the film has been universally panned across the board. This shouldn't entirely determine your decision, but it'd serve as an indicator whether or not the film is going to be worth your time and money.

>Iron Man-esque in terms of 'arrogant jerk becomes a superhero' origin story
>underutilised villain
>'end of the world' plot
>forced love interest
>MCU humour
>good action
>amazing visuals
>great acting from a strong cast; Benedict is perfect in the role
So, no surprises here. It's the classic MCU popcorn flick formula but with some mindblowing visuals to make people think it's not the same rehashed safe formulaic movie.

>>87179327
>underutilised villain
>forced love interest

goddamnit

>>87179364
Christine Palmer is even being compared to Jane Foster ;_; feelsbadman

File: 132942885117.jpg (63KB, 552x439px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 552x439px

>>87168880
I don't know why people care about rotten tomatoes at all, even shitty aggregate scores like IMDB are more accurate representations of a movie's quality.

>>87179327
>to make people think it's not the same rehashed safe formulaic movie
All the reviewers know that it is, that's why the average score's not higher. They liked the performances and the visuals enough that they think it's a good movie though.

>>87179485
I'm talking about the general moviegoer. The general public will love it but won't complain about how it's safe and formulaic.

>>87179469
That's because the Tomatometer doesn't measure quality.
It measures consensus, by design.

By reducing a reviewer's opinion down to "yes" or "no" it tells you something more concrete than an arithmetic mean of ratings: It tells you out of a large swath of critics, how many of them actually liked a movie? How many thought it was a "good movie". The answer right now is "all of them".

What the Tomatometer effectively does is make it so that no one critic's rating can have a disproportionate effect on the aggregate, whereas a straight average is susceptible to that.

>>87179629
>It tells you out of a large swath of critics, how many of them actually liked a movie? How many thought it was a "good movie".

Yeah, but why care? They aren't good at judging a movies.

>>87179524
Audiences are always less sensitive to formula in movies, as they watch a lot fewer of them than critics. I'm sure every one of these critics has watched every single MCU movie, or nearly that, but audiences could easily be filled with people that have only watched one or two, making the plot seem fresher to them.

>>87179672
Better than most people here. When I read a review, its generally has a lot more valid points to it than the kind of "Literally Reddid: the Movie" and "Not muh source material" I see on this site.

File: o6rcm.jpg (9KB, 180x188px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 180x188px

Who does /co/ go to for cartoon and movie review? I have a personal neckbeard guru that gives me pretty good reviews. Online I just watch yourmoveiessuck he panders to indie movies a lot but that's fine cause I rarely watch them.

>>87179890
You don't care that Adam Johnston from YMS (YourMovieSucks.org) is a dog rapist and enjoys bestiality?

>>87180011
Everybody has a vice, I jack off to older woman getting ass fucked and work in an elementary school. If your good at what you do then do it.

>>87179768
this
RT can fail you if you have a taste for more extreme genre stuff, but for the most part it is decent at showing the general opinion about something. I trust it a lot more than IMDB anyway
Most I've ever disagreed with RT is on Frozen, which I found to be underdeveloped and shallow in all respects, Tangled is leagues better.

>>87180011
>dog rapist
Then you're a dog slavemaster
Fucking kill yourself

>>87180117
>I jack off to older woman getting ass fucked and work in an elementary school.
Got your eyes on the principal or something? Cause I'd have to say that on the surface, that seems like a much potentially damaging sexual preference than if say, you were attracted to the fifth graders or something.

>>87180141
But I don't own any pets, Adam Johnston from YMS (YourMovieSucks.org) who is a dog rapist and enjoys bestiality.

>>87177756
it shows that over the lifetime of all of these pictures - and i really can't think of many other publications which have existed that long and have popular movie reviews online - they consistently identified the faults and successes of movies which would go on to win awards

they hate plenty of things, as any review site does, but the sample here is "movies anon claimed the critics panned" and the simple rebuttal is "no, the market leaders didn't pan them"

>>87177729

i was going to reply to your points but since you wanted to just call names, you're a moron, and i don't have to

enjoy

>>87177679
see? you have more patience than me, but you're doing the same thing as i did - you're cherry picking data to prove a point

anon's argument is "the critics" not "some critics"

there's not a big-budget movie of the 2010s on RT that isn't beloved by some reviewer despite a low aggregate score, nor is there one with a high score that isn't despised by some reviewer

>http://decentfilms.com/reviews/fantasia

this is clearly incorrect as it eg ignores contemporary reviews which praised Fantasia and ignores the fact that most theaters of the day weren't really equipped to reproduce the experience Disney were aiming for

it's an oversimplification which shouldn't be permitted to snowball into "reviewers hated it"

>except to be painfully literal and elaborate about everything

the Wizard of Oz was widely believed at the time to be political allegory about the politics of late 19thC America, little of which was relevant 40 years after publication

Ebert is correct about the Thing's weaknesses, but he still gave it 2.5 stars out of 4 (in RT terms, 63% - Fresh, though he claimed 2.5 on this scale was a miss, because he was a colossal bitch) and expected millions to go and see it.

on Fight Club he correctly calls the movie out for being a bullshit parable about nothing, but says "The fact that it is very well made and has a great first act certainly clouds the issue"

>>87179768
Yeah I always get more from actually reading a review from a critic I know than looking at the tomatometer. Of course the whole point of the tomatometer is so you don't have to read reviews, so it's no surprise that no one does, they only read the first negative one so they can bitch in the comments.

>>87180194
And how often does that come up in his reviews? If the answer is anywhere close to "never" then I don't care.

>>87180166
Well i'm a substitute teacher at a school and all the female staff are 7/10 and up (ass wise). kids are pure and should be protected but those women need a good plugging, alas my chances are slim.

It doesn't get in the way of my work and I don't anybody knows my end game.

I just want to know good movie reviewers.

>>87173636
You are basing your preferences on bias.

Profesional movie critics are less biased than raging fanboys. If you choose to accept the "fanboy concensus", you are just one of those fanboys who needs another group of people to tell them their shit opinion isn't shit.

So do as you please. It doesn't change that your opinion is shit, you are delusional, and you are hilarious to discuss with.

>>87180313
Well god speed to you man. Unfortunately, I don't know too much in terms of specific reviewers, but I generally find Donald Clarke from the Irish Times has tastes that match mine much of the time, and his reviews are fun to read.

>>87168880
Strange has moved up to 6.9, if anyone cares.
Still only at 14 reviews; could easily go either way.

>>87180995
>6.9

Nice.

Does he say "by the hoary hosts of Hoggoth" in the movie?

>>87178255
>What else were they supposed to judge it on?
How about it's merits as a movie?

>>87178396
I brought up Dark Knight Rises in my post.

>>87178255
I haven't watched that movie.

But the purpose of a documentary does not matter as long as it presents the facts accurately. Does it present the facts accurately?

>>87183089

It's a political documentary. Are they supposed to judge the actors in the reenactment segments or something?

>>87183354

Haven't watched it either, but based on the fact that the trailer seems to put a heavy amount of emphasis on the KKK founding the Democratic party, as if it's relevant at all today, I'm going to guess no.

>>87179234
Maybe because that's what all critics are?
>muh generalizations
Oh, I'm sorry that thinking people you don't even know anything about shouldn't be generalized somehow means that idiots whose shitty reviews you can read and understand everything you need to understand about their shitty tastes shouldn't be generalized either even though they're exactly what I've described. You fucking moron.
>Fact of the matter is, the average person just doesn't watch a comparable amount of films to a critic. Neither does the average person read an impressive metric of novels when compared to a literary critic.
Oh, Jesus Christ, Listen, moron. How many times do I need to repeat this? It doesn't fucking matter how many movies you watch if you're a goddamn idiot like every modern critic. Their shitty opinions don't fucking matter.
>That's just common sense
No, that's just you being an obtuse idiot and pretending those pieces of garbage have anything worthwhile to say.
Just do the world a favor and kill yourself.

>>87179234
>The point of reference is to govern whether a film is worth looking into, not to retroactively digest the film for you. Lets say you hear of a film for the first time, from a new director. You watch the trailer, some of it looks alright, some of it looks a tad rough. Read a synopsis, find it to be very middle of the road. So you pull up your favorite produce themed review site, only to discover the film has been universally panned across the board. This shouldn't entirely determine your decision, but it'd serve as an indicator whether or not the film is going to be worth your time and money.
This is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.
>it should influence you but it shouldn't influence you

>>87184431
*all modern critics are