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 ***.
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.
Just because a critic's opinions are subjective doesn't mean we can't subjectively criticize the critics.
People, for some reason, pay these people. That means there are people who value their opinions. No stopping that, nor should it be stopped. Criticized, on the other hand, why not?
At least they got it right with the Last Airbender. Man, that movie just blew it. Completely destroyed any expectations of it.
You had expectations other than blowing for that movie? They were just trying to cash in the popularity of a great show without understanding what made it great and they had M. Night direct it.
You had expectations other than blowing for that movie? They were just trying to cash in the popularity of a great show without understanding what made it great and they had M. Night direct it.
Well, to be fair the trailer looked decent, so I had expectations. I watched it on board the first time, and it was horribly inept.
I liked some of M Night's shows, but now it just confirms he can only direct small supernatural flicks.
refer to how popular something is instead of using a relevant argument for its worth.
I know you already basically admitted that you were just butthurt that critics didn't like your favorite montage of sex and violence, but I feel like it's important to say that how popular something is has nothing to do with whether or not it's good or bad. 93% of people liking it doesn't mean it's good, it could very well mean that 93% people have bad taste.
Look, Birth of a Nation was super popular. If you see Birth of a Nation with a bunch of people who love it and you go "what is wrong with you people?" it doesn't mean that you are "an idiot who doesn't understand what people enjoy." It means you aren't a horrible person.
Similarly, I happen to know that people enjoy Boondock Saints a lot, while the film itself was pretty bad. That doesn't make me some aberrant autistic moron incapable of analyzing film, it just means that people enjoy things I don't think are very good. Opinions that agree with the majority aren't better than those that do not just because they're popular. Honestly Nemo you're usually the go-to mod for well-thought-out, cogent arguments defined by their no-nonsense direct application to real life. But if you want to critique criticism, you might have to accept that some things that you like aren't, you know, good.
