Are the critics actually fucking retarded?

DUDE
ALLEGORIES
LMAO

>>87784913
of course, of course, these renowned critics with 20 years of expertise in the area are all wrong

you should really trust the opinions of anonymous people on the internet, who are most likely children, they'll tell you all you need to know

It was really good. Funny it triggers a number of demographics for various reasons.

>>87784913
The average goy is just too stupid to get it. Low IQ trash. God I hate the goyim.

File: 1489102164903.gif (4MB, 273x153px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 273x153px

>>87784969
>renowned critics with 20 years of expertise

>>87784969
Get a load of this loser.

Critic can be bought. Critics can get jaded. Critics with "20 years experience" or whatever gayness you're on about can fall out of touch.

Don't you have a faggy ANTIFA rally to plan?

>>87784995
>triggers
>bad
>>87784969
You know damn well this fucks take money under the table to push some bullshit. I always go by the audience because they spend money to tell me if it trash or not

saw it today, it was very good.

>>87784913
that painting of jennifer lawrence is more attractive than she is in real life

>>87785065
>Critic can be bought.

This really they pay these fucks

>>87784913
All the more reason for people to watch it. These days if the critic peanut gallery throw out vague hand-wavy reasons like this, it probably means the work in question pisses in the face of whatever ideology, political or otherwise, they worship.

>>87785004
>>87785065
>>87785070
>oh yes, of course! they get paid, how could I possibly be wrong? that's ridiculous, people cannot disagree with me

it's the jews again, right?

File: 1496258479771.jpg (25KB, 480x439px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 480x439px

>>87785124
>it's the jews again, right?

Make a movie that cost a trillion bucks give like 100k payment to critics to endorse your crap so you get some money back

File: film criticism in 2016.jpg (517KB, 1478x1221px) Image search: [Google]

517KB, 1478x1221px

>>87784913
>Are the critics actually fucking retarded?

>>87785204
Hurr durr big money is paying them to import more cheap labor obviously

This is why holly wood is losing money

File: 1505451523506.png (443KB, 960x948px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 960x948px

>>87785079
It or mother?

>>87784913
Film criticism is dead.

Years ago they routinely took a dump on flicks like Dumb & Dumber of Kindergarten Cop, funnier and better constructed than acclaimed mainstream comedies today.

>>87785204
>Those superfluous descriptions
Why the hell can critics get away with this? I've been told numerous times in the writing classes I took to keep the reports as succinct, with as little wordy statements as possible. Most of these reviews just keep repeating the same criticism, that's it's racist, right-wing patriotism, but does so in the least effective manner possible.

>>87785347
>Holding Dumb & Dumber and Kindergarten Cop as films undeserving of scorn

>>87785441
I didn't say that. Dumb & Dumber is wittier than any big American comedy from the last 15 years, at least.

File: 1435803107239.jpg (57KB, 895x895px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 895x895px

>>87785393
>>87785393
>repeating the same criticism

BECAUSE THEY ARE PAYED AND GET GIVEN A FUCKING NOTE ON WHAT TO SAY.

THIS IS WHY I ALWAYS GO WITH THE AUDIENCE RATING UNTIL THEY START RIGGING THAT SHIT THEN THE WHOLE DAMN THING IS USELESS.

FUCK HOLLYWOOD I DON'T EVEN WANT TO GIVE THEM A SINGLE FUCKING DIME EVEN IF THEY MAKE A 10/10 FLICK

>>87784969
>20 years of expertise
>expertise

>trusting critics after BvS

>>87785065
>Critic can be bought.
Name three examples where you have something other than conjecture or outright bullshit

>>87785565
>Trusting critics after they started pretending any modern capeshit movie was good

File: black swan leon 4432281252_eb4ab29b43.jpg (52KB, 500x213px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x213px

mfw I like Aronofsky but don't like JLaw

File: Yes_(2004)_poster.jpg (27KB, 295x437px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 295x437px

>>87785346
Yes.

File: Old Jewish man.gif (2MB, 316x213px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 316x213px

>trust the retarded critics
>or trust the retarded audience
How about you trust no one, not even yourself?

>>87785604
>caring enough about shills to catalogue them
lol no fuck you retard

>>87784913
>Average rating 6.7/10

I wish Rotten Tomatoes would start using the actual score instead of putting the percentage of people that gave it a positive score.

File: Untitled.png (8KB, 946x432px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 946x432px

>>87785685
trusting they are loosing money because of shit like this. They are paying off these fucking critics to push some stupid fucking leftist agenda.

Next Antifa man will save the world from Nazi's

Kristen Wiig is in this.

>>87785800
It is still not even fucking remotely close to how bad the Audience reacted and that is saying something because the Audience can like some complete shit.

File: Capture.png (557KB, 1599x789px) Image search: [Google]

557KB, 1599x789px

>>87785815
Shit like this?

>>87784913
aronofsky is pretty bad, so not having seen the movie i feel pretty safe in assuming the critics are correct

>>87785815
At least when antifa man tilts against windmills he's making friends
Critics are paid whores, who gives a fuck what they think
Audiences are tasteless plebs, who gives a fuck what they like
Don't be stupid, anon

>>87785520
You sound like a huge pleb.

>audience rating
kek, I bet you also play video games.

>>87785815
So you'd rather trust the retard who pays to see the latest Transformers?

>>87785815
Personally I've stopped paying to see movies because everything is a commercial for something else coming out in five years and I care not
Most of what I watch I rent

File: 1504230509350.jpg (6KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 184x184px

>>87785942
No, I just look at the Audience and the critics if they are completely fucking off like the movie in this thread then you know some nigger got paid.

But if it is even or close to even it might be legitl good.

THIS IS OBVIOUSLY SOME GIMMI DAT VOTES.

>>87785393
>Those superfluous descriptions
You know the original reviews are a bit longer than that?

>>87786001
Pleb.

File: 1495869963128.jpg (8KB, 261x217px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 261x217px

>>87785924
All, I am saying is before I put money into seeing something like most normal people I will look to see online if it worth the cash. Just like everyone fucking else and why these dumb fucks are pushing politics over actually quality content and it is costing them money.

HURR DURR LETS PUT A NIGGER AS A LEADING MAN IN EVERY FUCKING ROLE WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

NIGGER DON'T HAVE JOBS

OH WAIT...

>>87786055
>Pleb.

Faggot

>>87785872
>Rotten Tomatoes, Average Rating 6.7/10
>Audience, Average Rating 5.4/10

It's not that diffrent.

>>87784913
Honestly rottentomatoes isn't that bad. It lets you see what a variety of critics think of a movie, and understand the general consensus on what kinda movie it is.
Unfortunately retards like OP have nothing better to do than look at percentages and whine why some numbers are bigger than others.

>>87785393
it's the fast food of reviews. Read a review by an actual film scholar and you'll feel like a retard who started watching movies yesterday

>>87786073
If you don't buy their products they'll stop making them
Maybe its a good thing those people like their jew stories about how babies are evil

>>87785800
>>87786215
Someone should make a browser extension that would fix Rotten Tomatoes scores.

File: Untitled.png (911KB, 1548x800px) Image search: [Google]

911KB, 1548x800px

>>87786215
>It's not that diffrent.

5.4 is a movie you never want to see.

6.7 is maybe DVD if bored.

it is trash. like honestly I have seen the Audience like complete horrible shit that the critics completely trashed. The audience is normally more forgiving then the critics also.

>>87786073
I'm sure it works great for you. You sound like a huge pleb who watches only mainstream crap. Let's look at some recent films that trigger /pol/.

Get Out
C: 8.3, TC: 8.1 A: 4.2/5 IMDB: 7.8

Wonder Woman
C: 7.6, TC: 7.7 A: 4.3 IMDB: 7.7

London Has Fallen
C: 3.9, TC: 3.1 A: 3.3 IMDB: 5.9

It seems like normal people generally agree with the critics.

>>87784913
>Other half hates it for muh soggy knee
>Other half hates it for being too pretentious

Aronofsky getting shit thrown by both sides

I saw a trailer for this when I went to see the meme clown movie. Looked pretty spooky, but is it actually good?

File: raceinc.jpg (41KB, 737x486px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 737x486px

>>87786375
>It seems like normal people generally agree with the critics.
>>87786375

No, it is not just triggering pol >>87785815

It is not like you are paying attention to the thread or the money they are losing because they are not selling tickets to Africa and niggers are unemployed or sitting in jail

>>87786384
see>>87786459

>>87786480
See what? And why are you talking about niggers all the time? Get Out is liked by the audience, All Eyez on Me has a higher audience score.

12 years a slave? 4.3 audience score, 8.1 on IMDB

Selma? 4.1 audience score, 7.5 on IMDB

Dear White People? Critics - 7.5, Top Critics 7.8, Audience: 3.4/5 (which is pretty much 7/10)

I get it you hate black people, but it has nothing to do with RT.

Is this a remake of that 2005 Korean film Mother?

All this thread is teaching me is that LONDON HAS FALLEN might be worth the watch

Is it on the 'Flix? The 'Zon? 'Lu?

>>87784913
Not in this case no.

It's not truly great though

>>87786728
No, it's telling that critics base their criticisms on political narratives than the quality of the film itself

>>87786653
>has a higher audience score.

You have got to be mentally retarded what good is a score anyway when people are not buying tickets. >>87785815

>>87786728
The glib facsimile of your reading comprehension skills are laughable

>>87786727
It's self-flagellation for feminists, basically saying how every woman is a saint and a martyr for putting up with men, but feminists hate it more than anybody because they take movies at face value.

>>87786375
Audience scores have that factor where a bunch of assholes give 0/10s and 10/10s for no reason.

And its impossible to tell how many of them are being genuine with their scores.

>>87786880
>no reason.

They actually bought the product the have more invested and are less likely to be bought by the film maker.

>>87786795
4.3/10 vs 3.4/5 (6.8/10)
That's a pretty big difference.

>when people are not buying tickets
Not for political reasons. Netflix and popularity of TV shows are probably the biggest reasons why people don't want to watch movies in theaters anymore.

>>87784913
This is part of a concentrated effort by Hollywood is discredit RT as a reliable source of information.

>>87786868
Weird, because most critics don't see it like this.

>>87786880
Maybe they have the same system that IMDB has that doesn't count scores of accounts with only a few reviews so that people don't start making multiple accounts to make the score higher or lower by giving it a 1 or a 10.

>>87786935
I can honestly believe it. Undermining the value of criticism to sow skepticism is in the best interest of these billion-dollar industries because it keeps people in check to keep lining up for the shit they keep putting out.

>>87786728
It's still schlock.

>Mike Banning: Why don't you boys pack up your shit and head back to Fuckheadistan or wherever it is you're from.

>>87785854
does anyone know what her character was supposed to represent?

File: Untitled.png (227KB, 1364x673px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1364x673px

>>87787035
It's all in the numbers.

Critics hate aggregate sites like RT just as much because they devalue their individual contribution.

>>87786977
No idea what critics are saying, but I've seen feminists say stupid shit like "depicting sexism is still sexism" in regards to it. They think Aronofsky is a raging misogynist now.

>>87786375
i find a lot of 6.7 to 6.9 movies to be best
the plebs bring it down but not too much.

lots of 8.0 movies are nowhere near that but the pleb brigade hurr durrr 10/10 masterpiece

>>87786375
Is this supposed to defend American Assassin? My friend (huge pleb) saw it and even he said it was painfully generic

>>87787120
>Poke a stick into the psychology of Mother! you might come up with something like this: The male artist both punishes and worships the muse; he needs her to get stuff done, but 99% of the time he doesn’t really want her around. He needs chaos to create while she craves peace and order. Sometimes he’s nice, but mostly he’s cruel. The muse smiles and brings him a snack, hoping that will help.
That's from a feminist writer.

>>87787290
She didn't like the movie.

>Aronofsky, to his credit, doesn’t take delight in torturing his lead character. His sympathy is with her every minute, and ours is too. But even though the movie’s effects are elaborate and expensive-looking—the house itself becomes a character, a prison folding in itself, or a mansion exploding like a grim flower—the picture leaves us with nothing, or very little, to hang onto. It tries so desperately to be crazy and disturbing that all we can see is the effort made and the money spent. No wonder there’s an exclamation mark in its title. Aronofsky just doesn’t know when to quit.

>>87786812
Oh hey look, an intellectual. How's your lit degree treating you? Better than your bald spot?

File: img000017.jpg (675KB, 1322x2048px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 1322x2048px

>>87785065
But those are multiple critics and not just a single one like you said!
>Critic can be bought.

File: 1496503786602.jpg (46KB, 600x496px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x496px

>>87787329
>>87787329
>But even though the movie’s effects are elaborate and expensive-looking—the house itself becomes a character, a prison folding in itself, or a mansion exploding like a grim flower—the picture leaves us with nothing, or very little, to hang onto

What the fuck does that mean?

>>87787482
Ask the director, it apparently happens in the film.

File: 2147483647.jpg (85KB, 710x823px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 710x823px

>>87787482
it insists upon itself

>>87786426
If you're going into it expecting a horror movie, then you'll hate it. You'll also hate it if you expect it to be straightforward.

>>87787482
Do you have the reading comprehension and analysis skills of a ninth grader?

>>87787482
All the best critics have LSD induced psychosis.

>>87787606
>Do you have the reading comprehension and analysis skills of a ninth grader?
keep in mind these are the types who are ripe for the pseud-skepticism sowed by the culture industry to keep them in line and antagonistic against those that would call out filmmakers and studios to stop releasing uninspired garbage

>>87787701
Not my problem you can't read.

>>87785604
Any Marvel movie and flopbusters

>>87787762
i wonder if it's you that has a problem with reading comprehension because i'm not him and am, in fact, agreeing with your original point

Can someone explain why OP is so upset? I've seen a few of these posts, the movie doesn't have good or bad ratings, it's just average. But that seems to trigger people's autism a great deal...

>>87785604
red letter media and episode VII

>>87788149
OP hates women, especially women with opinions, and can't stand the idea of a movie starring a woman he hates being liked by others.

>>87788149
its part of the JLaw hating faction on /tv

no idea why, something about the fappining leaks and her down to earth interview technique that triggers some people