Now, I understand everyone has different tastes, and that's okay. But when a person sits down to watch a movie that's beloved by many people, and they fail to see why others enjoy it so much, then the critic fails at their job. If you sit down with a bunch of people who love the movie and you go, "What's wrong with you?", then chances are you're an idiot who doesn't understand what it is other people enjoy. What is the job of a critic? To inform other people not what they personally thought about the movie, but what they believe others will enjoy it. A good critic will try to figure out what types of people would enjoy the movie, and which types wouldn't.
I'm just venting, because the critics for this movie are ***.
No he/she doesn't. A critic has to analyse more than what we see, he has to dissect the script properly, the acting, the special effects, and more, whilst most of us get sucked into 2 hours of high octane fun and laughs. Or tears and screams. A critic doesn't need to figure out what we want. Look at Christgau, he dissed most major rock/metal acts, yet he is highly respected. Ebert too.
A critic bases his opinions on his own feelings and thoughts. Why would you care if he or she hates it? It's as if one feels that one's own tastes and preferences are being attacked. Well they are not. Critics are entitled to their own opinions and rightfully so.
They can like a movie that is made, acted worst than a 7th grade Shakespeare production and yet give a bad rating. Or they can dislike a movie like Titanic, but give it a high rating. And we complain incessantly about being sucked into a single zeitgeist of consumer culture and big studio conspiracies?
A critic bases his opinions on his own feelings and thoughts. Why would you care if he or she hates it? It's as if one feels that one's own tastes and preferences are being attacked. Well they are not. Critics are entitled to their own opinions and rightfully so.
i agree whit this. but also that the critics have done a bad job on boondock saints.(if these are the real ratings) if they all fail to see the great things in that movie then i think the wrong critics have been doing it.
Look at Christgau, he dissed most major rock/metal acts, yet he is highly respected.
so if you like rock/metal, than you do not listen to what christgau has to say about it. the same can be done for the movies critics.
They are different ratings. One is from the critics collectively, and the second from users.
Anyway, claiming it's the home of idiots is a harsh generalization, and ad hominem at any rate. It's one thing to disagree violently with critics, which all of us surely have in our lives, and another to go all out with a verbal twelve gauge like some of the users on the RT sites.
I agree with nichodemus. A critic should break down a film/album/book/etc. in a way such that people have an idea of what to expect. Then the layman can determine whether or not he wants to watch/listen to/read it.
And also, the title is a bit misleading, since Rotten Tomatoes only aggregates reviews in an objective way.
No he/she doesn't. A critic has to analyse more than what we see, he has to dissect the script properly, the acting, the special effects, and more, whilst most of us get sucked into 2 hours of high octane fun and laughs. Or tears and screams. A critic doesn't need to figure out what we want. Look at Christgau, he dissed most major rock/metal acts, yet he is highly respected. Ebert too.
Meh, I guess I just hate critics then.
A critic should break down a film/album/book/etc. in a way such that people have an idea of what to expect.
Of course. But when a critic gives something most people enjoy a low score, they give the impression that it's not enjoyable.
Of course. But when a critic gives something most people enjoy a low score, they give the impression that it's not enjoyable.
Yeah I know right. It used to pissed me off, then I realised I could do nothing about it. Life moves on, and more films I like come out, get ripped, but get rewatched. Again and again and again.
You know, I find that I disagree with most ratings done by critics, although, one example of something they did really well on, is Eragon (That film was horrible)
Yeah I know right. It used to pissed me off, then I realised I could do nothing about it. Life moves on, and more films I like come out, get ripped, but get rewatched. Again and again and again.
Eh, making a thread and calling the critics idiots allowed me to vent. As soon as I hit enter, I didn't feel so bad anymore.
Why're you guys acting as if critics operate as a single entity? "They did well..." or "They did poorly...." Never mind the fact that you're criticizing a critic for his subjectivity; they each have their own opinions, and other than getting paid to write about movies, they're no different from the regular audience.
And in regards to The Room, you're still in the minority. Only 46% of the audience on Rotten Tomatoes liked it.
