ITT: times when critics were objectively wrong

File: sharkino.png (566KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 1920x1080px

What's with /tv/.s love for weak early 2000's lighthearted Hollywood films? Do you fuckers not realise it's nostalgia talking?

Anyway, pic related is a time when the critics actually were actively wrong.

For a comparison, Oldboy and The Thing are rated lower.

File: Capture.jpg (30KB, 400x324px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 400x324px

>>85344076
Sort of a weird example since it's intentionally bad and everyone knew it.
When Phantom Menace first came out critics were afraid to say it sucked and not be part of the cultural phenomenon or whatever. There is no way it deserves 55%.

File: 1500506539305.jpg (28KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 640x480px

>>85344260
>Sort of a weird example since it's intentionally bad and everyone knew it.

But that's the worst kind of movie.

> Hehehe, it's dumb, poorly made and uncreative...IRONICALLY
> Holy fuck what do those Cannes fuckers know MOVIE OF THE YEAR

>>85344542
I get it, I'm just saying that the critics who said it was "good" didn't think it was good, so it's a bad example of critics being wrong.

>>85343840
>rotten bloggers
>critics

>>85344260
You're right. It deserves at least a 80% or above.

File: Lr.jpg (102KB, 782x628px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 782x628px

I don't know why this movie got shit on so much. All I ever heard people complain about was "the budget was too big" and "Johnny Depp is being Johnny Depp".

>>85344693
They get paid to review movies. How are they not critics?

File: maxresdefault[1].jpg (156KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1920x1080px

>>85344856
>EXSQUEESE ME
Where were you when Star Wars died?

>>85344859
Came to post this. The same fucking idiots think episode 7 is the best thing since jesus christ of nazareth.

File: Screenshot_20170723-131458_1.jpg (55KB, 1078x570px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1078x570px

>>85344867
>They get paid to review movies. How are they not critics?

>>85345014
This is exactly why a contrarian troll like the King of /tv/ can be one of the most well known critics, because he can actually fucking write.

What's wrong with reviewers?

File: Capture.png (97KB, 288x187px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 288x187px

>>85344859
>Armie Hammer
Was Chad Thundercock taken?

>>85345502
>>85345014
>not getting a very obvious joke
>it proves some theory about how critics are bad because they said a movie sucked and they're butthurt about it
Come on now

>>85345839
Probably the only part of the budget where expense was spared.

>>85345911
>Joking instead of writing a comprehensive review

People like that can fuck right off

>>85343840
OP,
The book is even better!

>>85343840
Fucking love this film

File: Captura de tela de 2017-07-23 18-06-03.png (411KB, 750x624px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 750x624px

>>85343840
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/butterfly_effect/

File: Affleck.png (1MB, 1080x1329px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1080x1329px

Affleck deserved an Oscar desu

>>85347049
>people posting good flicks
>posts pseudokino
Gtfo man

>>85347048
I didn't understand his motivation to be a criminal, I mean clearly he could have made a fine living without it.

>>85343840
Wasn't the story of this film so bad the studio actually sued the writer? You know your story is bad if a Hollywood studio of all things is suing you for bad writing.

Baywatch.

>>85347048
>w-w-was it autism?
hated it for all those posts

File: Untitled.jpg (57KB, 768x320px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 768x320px

Comedies are almost cheating but whatever

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-23 at 5.18.06 PM.png (550KB, 1144x594px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 1144x594px

>drive does well
>beyond the pines does well
>gosling stars in literal kino
>critics get mad its not in english and gosling doesn't talk enough for there to be quips
>critics shit on refn
>gosling gets spooked and runs back to normie bait

>>85344859
>>85347049
also john carter

>>85343840
They seem to be pretty much on the same page with the audience.