Critics

[Sir Awesomesauce]

Another movie topic.

A while back I saw the movie "A History of Violence". I had heard it was a critically acclaimed "depicition of how violence affects a person," and "Viggo Mortensen's magnum opus". It was shit. The bad kind. This movie got freaking 87% (94% from "Top Critics") on Rotten Tomatoes, and I am seriously doubting if I saw the same movie as they did. The acting was vomit-inducing, mainly because the entire cast was flat and characterless (especially the two stupid children who couldn't act their way out of a paper bag). The plot was retarded as well, and the movie desultorily wandered, fizzled, then died. Not soon enough, though. I could go on and on about how much this movie sucked, (there are two of the most awkward sex scenes in that movie you will ever witness - cheerleader roleplay with people who could be your parents, and semi-rape on a staircase) but this topic is about critics.

Thanks a lot, critics. Thank you for stealing 2 hours of my life.

Critics are retarded. They are supposed to be used as a tool to determine whether or not a movie is good, so you can go see it. But they don't know if a movie is good or not. It's all personal taste. You might as well ask your friends, or an 8-ball for that matter.

Anyway... list any movies that were critically acclaimed (but sucked) or critically insulted (but rocked). Also feel free to insult critics who are particularly idiotic, like A. O. Scott.

[SuperFireKirby]

Transformers 2 got a B- when rated by St. Petersburg Times, but some how 9 scored lower with a C. How does that happen. transformers 2 was THE WORST movie I saw last year while 9, though not the best, was still pretty awesome. Its not just personal taste that determines how good a movie is but that seems to be all critics care about when rating them. Their own taste.

[KefkaticFanatic]

This is because you are looking solely at the review by the St. Petersburg Times.  You need to check the metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes score.  And you clearly have never read a review if you think they're all based on personal taste.  Of course some personal opinions will go into a review, but they aren't based around a "I don't like fighting so this action move is bad" kind of thing.

[Sir Awesomesauce]

There are "esteemed critics" who may review a movie well, and "esteemed critics" who may not review the same movie well. There is usually no clear consensus, with lots of positive and negative reviews for each movie. Even when there is a consensus, it may still be idiotic, or its something anybody off the street could have told you.

It's lame.

[SuperFireKirby]

This is because you are looking solely at the review by the St. Petersburg Times.  You need to check the metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes score.  And you clearly have never read a review if you think they're all based on personal taste.  Of course some personal opinions will go into a review, but they aren't based around a "I don't like fighting so this action move is bad" kind of thing.

I know that, but this is a critic bashing topic so therefore I am bashing critics at St. Pete Times.

[Harvest]

Yeah I would agree with you except for one major point.

A History of Violence is fucking awesome.