# Why listen to critics?



## The Weeknd (Mar 26, 2011)

A movie is something that entertains you. You see the trailer, it looks interesting, you love it. Go see it, get entertained, and that's how it is. You don't critique the movie and beat the shit out of it into the ground, that's not why the movies are here. I'm sure people here only see movies to be entertained right? If you listen to the critics and they are rating the movie you want to go see something like 2/5 or 1/3, don't let them stop you from seeing something that might aswell entertain you. Trust me, Battle LA, Limitless and Sucker Punch entertained me these past few weeks, but they were getting shitty reviews from critics everywhere. If you go to IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes and look at the user reviews, most of them enjoyed these movies, so you should go see them. Don't listen to the critics that might aswell steal an ahour and 45 minutes of your fun time. Because that's what movies are made for, to entertain the human body.


----------



## DracoStorm (Mar 26, 2011)

I don't.  A critic's opinion has no more weight than anyone else's.  Only easily swayed people/sheep would blindly follow critics.


----------



## Glued (Mar 26, 2011)

Save your money, I wish I had listened to the critics before paying 6 bucks to watch Jonah Hex.


----------



## Soca (Mar 26, 2011)

Esp?ritudePantera said:


> A movie is something that entertains you. You see the trailer, it looks interesting, you love it. Go see it, get entertained, and that's how it is. You don't critique the movie and beat the shit out of it into the ground, that's not why the movies are here. I'm sure people here only see movies to be entertained right? If you listen to the critics and they are rating the movie you want to go see something like 2/5 or 1/3, don't let them stop you from seeing something that might aswell entertain you. Trust me, Battle LA, Limitless and Sucker Punch entertained me these past few weeks, but they were getting shitty reviews from critics everywhere. If you go to IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes and look at the user reviews, most of them enjoyed these movies, so you should go see them. Don't listen to the critics that might aswell steal an ahour and 45 minutes of your fun time. Because that's what movies are made for, to entertain the human body.



agreed with you here buddy

and sucker punch fucking ruled


----------



## The Weeknd (Mar 26, 2011)

Marcelle said:


> agreed with you here buddy
> 
> and sucker punch fucking ruled


 High five bro.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 26, 2011)

Well, Limitless got decent reviews.

The point of critics is that you find one with similar tastes and go to a movie based on that(and even then, I'd say critics are only useful for movies you're up in the air about. If I want to see something, I will see it regardless of reviews).

Websites like Rotten Tomatoes has ruined the point of critics, as everyone now thinks thta % means anything.


----------



## Mr. Kaneda (Mar 26, 2011)

I ignore the critics they always ruin my favorite movies calling them "bad" or do not see this movie type of crap.


----------



## Ennoea (Mar 26, 2011)

Critics opinion remains that of a critics, people can make their own minds up but I'd like a heads up when I pay money to watch something.


----------



## Narcissus (Mar 26, 2011)

I agree that I don't keep up with critics because I do not always agree with their opinions (and sometimes I do). I like to judge a movie for myself. However, I have to disagree about not criticising a movie into the ground; sometimes I do just that because there are some terrible movies out there, and the entertainment value cannot always make up for this. I just like to decide that for myself.


----------



## ez (Mar 26, 2011)

if you consider film an art form like i do, criticism can be worthwhile.


----------



## Rukia (Mar 26, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> Critics opinion remains that of a critics, people can make their own minds up but I'd like a heads up when I pay money to watch something.


This.

At this point in my movie going career I have analyzed a film long before I ever head to the theater.  I know which actors and actresses will be in the film.  I know who the director is and other movies that he/she has made.  I have probably seen the trailer several times.  I visit enough blogs and film sites that I usually know miscellaneous factors regarding the film (budget, filming issues, etc).  Based on all this information, I will have an opinion before the show.  There might be things that I am worried about based on the trailers.

Critics can confirm my fears basically.  More often than not, my opinion matches up with the majority.

Martial is also correct.  Limitless had pretty good reviews.


----------



## Stunna (Mar 26, 2011)

I read critics' reviews because I'm interested in learning about people's opinions, and gaining insights on things I may have overlooked.

However, to prevent popular consensus from affecting my opinion, I often try to refrain from reading mainstream reviews until I've seen a film for myself.


----------



## bigduo209 (Mar 27, 2011)

I go to io9.com for movie reviews.

"Sucker Punch" goes beyond awful, to become commentary on the death of moviemaking

Like others have said, I've analyzed a lot of things about different movies before I've already seen them.  The one thing some critics can do is increase my expectations or lower them further.

The movies I've been to before I read this reviewer's opinion tends to hit the nail on the head on how I felt about a particular movie after I've already seen it. I know this reviewer shares my opinion on a particular film, so I know more than likely I'm not going like it. I ignored her review about Transformers 2 since I liked the 1st, I ended up wasting money on a movie worse than the last.

Don't get me wrong, I can make up my own mind on what I like. However the issue comes down the fact that I don't have the money to see every movie that I find mildly interesting. It's nice to have people out there with a similar point-of-view whose seen the films I'm likely not interested in.

I'd rather rent or download a movie I'm not quite so sure of, if that movie is good/decent then I'm comfortable enough to say I was wrong about it. If it's not good/decent then it just confirms what I already know.

Sucker Punch isn't looking that great...


----------



## Violent by Design (Mar 27, 2011)

This section is essentially dedicated to critics, the only difference is we do not get paid to post our opinions here.

I don't follow any mainstream critics, I actually only read reviews _after_ I've seen a movie for the most part. 

The most obvious answer to why "listen to critics" is because they will tell you if the movie is worth watching. Personally, I go by word of mouth sort of. After years of getting shafted, I know basically who to listen to and how much reception a certain movie has garnered.

Things like premise and trailers really do not mean anything. Trailers are designed to sucker people into watching a shitty movie. Premise really doesn't say much about the quality of the movie. Most movies with interesting premises do not even play off that premise. Personally, I don't care about the genre or plot of a movie - I often watch movies not knowing anything about the film. If I get word it is good, I don't see the difference.


----------



## Palpatine (Mar 27, 2011)

I've found that I generally agree with certain critics.

Besides, if a film is completely panned, it's a sign that I should just wait to rent it for like 2 bucks rather then spend 10 bucks to see it at the movies.


----------



## Rukia (Mar 27, 2011)

bigduo209 said:


> Sucker Punch isn't looking that great...


I heard it's the worst movie of the year so far.

I still remember that hilarious blurb I read on Rottentomatoes about it.  *"It's Last Airbender with bustiers."  *


----------



## Stunna (Mar 27, 2011)

Sometimes though, I feel like most critics are just flat out wrong.

I was shocked to find that the Pirates of the Caribbean movies received as many negative reviews as they did.

And then there are some movies where I'm a minority when it comes to liking them, like Speed Racer, and when it comes to disliking them, like Kick-Ass, or borderline Scott Pilgrim.


----------



## Taleran (Mar 27, 2011)

I listen to people tell me to read things or watch things based on similar interests we have all the time, critics are nothing more than people paid to do that.


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 27, 2011)

Depends on who the critic is and his prior review history on certain films. Of course it's a rotten system occasionally, but I would rather get some pointers on why I shouldn't watch a film for whatever reason instead of wasting my time. Like I did on Transformers 2 for instance, doesn't offer much entertainment when the film is basically void of any decent story structure.


----------



## The Weeknd (Mar 27, 2011)

bigduo209 said:


> I go to io9.com for movie reviews.
> 
> "Sucker Punch" goes beyond awful, to become commentary on the death of moviemaking
> 
> ...


 Go see it yourself first. Critics are just fucking horrible.


----------



## Taleran (Mar 27, 2011)

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA people are horrible because they do not like what I like.

Why isn't this thread called "Why listen to anyone with different tastes than myself."


----------



## The Weeknd (Mar 27, 2011)

Taleran said:


> WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA people are horrible because they do not like what I like.
> 
> Why isn't this thread called "Why listen to anyone with different tastes than myself."


 Well, essentialy, if we go down to buisness. Yes, that's what people mean when they say why listen to critics.


----------



## Just Blaze (Mar 27, 2011)

I like reading what they say because they usually find things that I didn't notice before.  

Plus it helps me choose what movie I should be spending my time and $$$ on.


----------



## Huntress (Mar 27, 2011)

Well anyone who blindly follows what critics is obviously a retard.
Critics are often negative about movies because it makes entertaining writing; its way more fun to read that they had a shit time than "The movie is fantastic, you must go and see it".
Also, just because a critic likes something does not mean its actually any good. Alot of critics are just posers and they praise somebody regardless of how good their movie actually is, just because the director made that moder classic 5 years ago or whatever.
What you should do is read what other people are saying as well as critics. If everyone is saying the movie is shit, then its highly likely you will be dissapointed if you go to see it.
But say you wanted to see an action movie, which the critics all hated, but your group of friends all said was awesome, then, its pretty likely you will enjoy the movie, as like minded people who share your interests have enjoyed the movie.

You go on about how you should go to see a movie to be entertained.
Well, what if you went to see a movie, to be entertained, and then the movie trailer turned out to be missleading and the movie itself is shit?
You just wasted a load of money on a ticket, your gonna be pissed lol.


----------



## Violent by Design (Mar 27, 2011)

This thread should just be locked really.

Reading the OP's post in this thread and other threads, the individual seems to actually be butt hurt that critics said "Sucker Punch" sucked. It's ironic because the thread is "why listen to critics", when it seems like the OP is the one who listened the most closely. 

And for the record, it is just not critics who have said "Sucker Punch" sucks. It is a movie that most people seem to not like. I have no idea why an individual would be so offended that someone did not like what they liked, that shows insecurity. 

"THIS REVIEW IS BULL SHIT, BECAUSE I CLEARLY HAD A DIFFERENT OPINION FROM THIS CRITIC" - ok good job. I'm sure there is a critic who had the same opinion of the movie as you, so it really is not saying much.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 27, 2011)

Violent By Design said:


> This thread should just be locked really.
> 
> Reading the OP's post in this thread and other threads, the individual seems to actually be butt hurt that critics said "Sucker Punch" sucked. It's ironic because the thread is "why listen to critics", when it seems like the OP is the one who listened the most closely.
> 
> ...



Yay! I can agree with you again. 

Seriously, the guy acts like he just realized critics exist. This is the type of movie that they usually hate anyway.

And it's not just the critics who hate it either.


----------



## Ash (Mar 27, 2011)

I tend to like movies that most others don't, so I don't listen to critics or anyone else when it comes to a movie that looks good in my eyes.

I'd rather waste the time on a movie that I might hate than miss out on a movie that I might love.

And I loved Sucker Punch as well.


----------



## The Potential (Mar 27, 2011)

Never listened to the critics. If the movie catches my eye, i'll go see it. Of course I don't like wasting money on a movie that might suck, so with alot of movies i'll just wait for the dollar show.

Nowadays" only surtain movies are worth my money. I haven't spent alot of money[*10 bucks*] on a movie in several months now.


----------



## typhoon72 (Mar 27, 2011)

The only time I read what critics have to say is after I already see the movie. If the movie interests you, go see it.

Yeah the movie may suck, but it probably wont. What if you listened to a critic and saw a movie they gave an A and you hated it? You win some and lose some, it goes both ways.

Now in the case of Sucker Punch (I havent seen it), we all knew from years ago this movie was most likely gonna get meh reviews. 99% of the time this is not the kind of movie critics review well. Why? Probably because most are too pretentious to just enjoy themselves, then again it is there job to find everything thats wrong instead of what's right in a film. Most action films are made to just entertain and be cool as hell, while skimping out on the less important story/ character development.

You guys act like this is a big surprise.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 27, 2011)

The problem is, Sucker Punch ended up being far more pretentious than any of its critics.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Mar 27, 2011)

I only read them to get a small idea of what I am gonna see. But I gotta say that the critics can sometimes exagerate alot, both in hating and praising certain films of their choice.

In the end only I can judge what was "good" and "bad".


----------



## Parallax (Mar 28, 2011)

It's always nice to get a good idea of what I'm going into when I see a movie.  If I see a movie get widely panned AND it's a genre I'm not fond of I generally don't bother watching it.

They're not the end all indicators but it could help if you wanna hear a wide range of opinions of a film.  I like the critics that go into detail what they liked and didn't like instead of going " THIS MOVIE SUCKS BECAUSE ITS TERRIBLE"


----------



## John Carter of Mars (Mar 28, 2011)

I do sometimes, don't want to spend money on a movie I'll regret paying to watch and sitting through a disengaging story is the worst...  you can leave but you know you've wasted 10 bucks of your money on that crap


----------



## Parallax (Mar 28, 2011)

If you leave early enough you can get your money back


----------



## Taleran (Mar 28, 2011)

typhoon72 said:


> Now in the case of Sucker Punch (I havent seen it), we all knew from years ago this movie was most likely gonna get meh reviews. 99% of the time this is not the kind of movie critics review well. Why? Probably because most are too pretentious to just enjoy themselves, then again it is there job to find everything thats wrong instead of what's right in a film. Most action films are made to just entertain and be cool as hell, while skimping out on the less important story/ character development.
> 
> You guys act like this is a big surprise.



HOLD 
THE
FUCKING
PHONE

I am going to go into RT to find reviews of ACTION MOVIES and give you their scores okay?

*DIE HARD* 94%
*TERMINATOR* 100%
*TERMINATOR 2* 98%
*ALIEN* 96%
*ALIENS* 100%
*Predator* 76%
*Commando* 69%
*Kill Bill Vol 1 & Vol 2* (mostly females doing the fighting here) 85%
*Scott Pilgrim* 81%
*Kick Ass* 76%
*Kung Fu Hustle* 90%
*IP MAN* 83%
*IP MAN 2* 91%


*SUCKER PUNCH* 20%

Here is a quote I found that perfectly describes why this happens. It has to do with Michael Bay's Transformers 2 and James Cameron's Avatar



> FLAPJACKS: So why didn’t you like Transformers 2?
> ME: Because despite the vast amount of money they spent to make that movie, Michael Bay is completely incapable of shooting a decent single shot, let alone a scene, or editing together a scene that looks coherent, or anything at all really. Even Michael Bay’s explosions are crappy, and given that all he really has a rep for is explosions, that’s just sad.
> FLAPJACKS: That’s not true. He also has a reputation for bizarre editing decisions!
> ME: This movie, on the other hand, is made by James Cameron, and even if the story frequently gets formulaic, illogical, or just plain stupid, it will look goddamned shitballs amazing, because James Cameron knows how to direct an action sequence like nobody’s business. Nobody else in Hollywood period can direct a scene with six billion things fighting six billion other things in it without it looking busy and incoherent and essentially impossible to watch: they’re directing the scene for DVD playback so nerds can jerk off to the one Jedi in the bottom of frame four million and twenty-three. James Cameron, on the other hand, says “twelve billion guys having a giant war? Hmmm.” And then he thinks about it for five years and then figures out how to make it look completely awesome and entirely involving all at once.




Critics do not hate action movies. People generally give positive reviews to good movies IN EVERY GENRE. Its just one or 2 films that for whatever reason you adore (for me this is Speed Racer which I am well aware of general audiences would not like), that the general populace will not.


----------



## Violent by Design (Mar 28, 2011)

Basically, I have no idea how critics "do not like action movies". It seems like people find comfort in their opinion by labeling other people pretentious. People like action movies that are done well, pretty simple concept that goes for any genre.


----------



## Spica (Mar 28, 2011)

I've enjoyed a lot of movies that have been panned by critics. Still fondly remembers S1m0ne.


----------



## -Dargor- (Mar 28, 2011)

Ben Grimm said:


> Save your money, I wish I had listened to the critics before paying 6 bucks to watch *Jonah Hex*.



It had Megan Fox in it. You should have known better 

Besides, most critics take themselves too seriously anyway.


----------



## Pseudo (Mar 28, 2011)

Without them, I wouldn't have seen all the great films I've seen.


----------



## Doom85 (Mar 28, 2011)

I've certainly stopped giving a shit about what Roger Ebert said, mainly due to these four reviews:

Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace (he gave it 4 stars........nuff said)
Gladiator (gave it two stars because the lighting in his theater sucked. Yes, he criticized the movie for something that was the theater's fault! Granted, he fessed up to this one later, but a foul is a foul)
Kick-Ass (actually thought the movie was genuinely telling us that 10 year-old girls really should go and fight crime. I suppose Scott Pilgrim was telling us to kill any or our girlfriend's ex's who try to pick a fight with us, eh Ebert? )
Battle LA (actually said you should question a friend's intelligence if they liked this movie (this is FUCKIN' entertainment, Ebert, lives aren't on the line here) or consider ending a relationship if your girl/boyfriend enjoyed the movie. It probably was a joke, but it just made him sound like an elitist who's getting too old for this job. I certainly wouldn't want to meet the man if he's going to judge me for something as irrelevant as taste in cinema)


----------



## blackbird (Mar 28, 2011)

Going to the movies has gotten so expensive the past couple of years. If I'm to spend $25 and an evening on a movie and snacks, I want nothing short of a memorable experience.

If I wanted short-lived, forgettable entertainment, on the other hand, I'd stay home with Jenna Jameson and a $3 lotion.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 28, 2011)

Doom85 said:


> I've certainly stopped giving a shit about what Roger Ebert said, mainly due to these four reviews:
> 
> Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace (he gave it 4 stars........nuff said)
> Gladiator (gave it two stars because the lighting in his theater sucked. Yes, he criticized the movie for something that was the theater's fault! Granted, he fessed up to this one later, but a foul is a foul)
> ...



In other words, critics are only good as long as they share your opinions?

1) There's nothing wrong with complaining about the theater as long as you say thats possibly what it is. That does effect viewing experiences after all.....

2) Ebert has never liked movies that 'exploit' children. I don't like movies that feature rape. So I guess I have no right ever to review a rape movie?

3) I do agree that the Battle LA bit was a bit much. But that's the only point you made that I consider fair or relevant.


----------



## Magnum Miracles (Mar 28, 2011)

Critics just don't like action movies. I personally liked Punisher : Warzone,because I walked in expecting an incredibly violent movie with The Punisher,and that's what I got . The same goes for Wolverine Origins.


----------



## Adonis (Mar 28, 2011)

What's weird is that I'm the biggest critic apologist here, barring maybe MH, yet you guys keep tabs on Rotten Tomatoes far more than I do.

I honestly can't remember the last time I've let a review sway me. The movies that get bashed I expected to get bashed (whether I liked them or not) and the movies that get praise tend to be equally predictable.

And yes, any movie that features a little girl being indoctrinated into highly-stylized violence will get panned by Ebert. No exceptions. He hated Leon: The Professional for the same reason, despite it being lauded elsewhere, for the same reason.

Finally, the "critic insulted people who like the movie" complaint is so passe. Critics snark. That's what they do. Not to mention how many times the opposite happens without a peep of objection from such "sensitive souls" where fans go, "Anyone who didn't like this movie has something wrong with them."


----------



## Ennoea (Mar 28, 2011)

> Critics just don't like action movies.



Where are people getting this from? Critics like all movies, they don't judge by genre, they judge by quality. You meant they don't like the action movies you did, there's a difference.


----------



## The Weeknd (Mar 28, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> Where are people getting this from? Critics like all movies, they don't judge by genre, they judge by quality. You meant they don't like the action movies you did, there's a difference.


 Roger Ebert. He's the only reason why tons of fucking critics follow his ways.


----------



## Ennoea (Mar 28, 2011)

Ebert is pretty fair most of the time. He doesn't like mindless violence, doesn't mean he hates all action movies.

People have different tastes in movies, simple as that. Why are people so hung up on SuckerPunch and Battle LA reviews anyway? Neither one deserves the attention and the reviews were expected.


----------



## The Weeknd (Mar 28, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> Ebert is pretty fair most of the time. He doesn't like mindless violence, doesn't mean he hates all action movies.
> 
> People have different tastes in movies, simple as that. Why are people so hung up on SuckerPunch and Battle LA reviews anyway? Neither one deserves the attention and the reviews were expected.


 What do you mean they don't deserve attention? They're great movies and because of the bullshit critics, people are missing in a whole lot of entertainment.


----------



## Ennoea (Mar 28, 2011)

Lol I think people can make their own minds up.

Plenty of great movies much more entertaining than these will make much less money than these two. No need to lose sleep over it.


----------



## typhoon72 (Mar 28, 2011)

Taleran said:


> HOLD
> THE
> FUCKING
> PHONE
> ...



Way to skew the numbers Tal. You and I know damn well you picked some of the best of the best. Now add in the other hundreds of action movie scores, I assure you they wont nearly be as great. This wasn't my point.

The point was that for some movies sometimes just entertainment is the goal. The movie shouldn't receive shitty reviews because it didn't say anything important or because it wasn't the second coming of Die Hard. 

Like I said I haven't seen Sucker Punch but I saw the bad reviews from a mile away. Sucker Punch never was shown to be anything more than a sci-fy CGI action titty fest for men, and im pretty sure that's the audience it captured and what it delivered. 

I'm not saying SP didnt deserve a 20% score, but for a movie that seemed to achieve everything on its checklist and the target audience seems to mildly enjoy, a 20% score sure does seem like bullshit to me. Or, at least, an overreaction on the part of the critics.



Violent By Design said:


> Basically, I have no idea how critics "do not like action movies". It seems like people find comfort in their opinion by labeling other people pretentious. People like action movies that are done well, pretty simple concept that goes for any genre.



The pretentious comment applies to the critics who feel their opinion as the end all be all of artistic integrity. Obviously, it doesn't apply to every critic VBD. Of course people like movies that are well done, the problem is when critics hold the whole history of cinema against every movie they see even when all the movie promised was tits, action, and CGI. Just judge a movie on its own merits, which a lot of critics don't seem to do.

In short, find critics that you often agree with and read/watch their reviews and/or just go see what you're interested in. It's all opinions.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 28, 2011)

Ebert has liked plenty of action films. They just can't be about shit blowing up. 



> Roger Ebert. He's the only reason why tons of fucking critics follow his ways.


Off the top of my head, I know Ebert liked: Wanted, Salt, Iron Man(1 and 2), the Hellboy movies, the Dark Knight, Terminator 2(I dont know about T1), Tron and Tron Legacy, Unstoppable, and the mad Max movies. 

Why should Ebert like "Battle LA", which is just a bunch of questionable action scenes of shit blowing up? (I dont mind shit blowing up, but Im not Ebert).



> What do you mean they don't deserve attention? They're great movies and because of the bullshit critics, people are missing in a whole lot of entertainment.



Yeah.......Im sure its just the critics who are keeping everyone from liking these 'classics'. 

How about this, since you seem to have the greater insight, why don't you tell us why you think these movies are so great?

I will only shoot you down if you say anything worth shooting down. I do believe good arguments could be made for both of these movies, I just want to hear you make it.


----------



## Ennoea (Mar 28, 2011)

> Like I said I haven't seen Sucker Punch but I saw the bad reviews from a mile away. Sucker Punch never was shown to be anything more than a sci-fy CGI action titty fest for men, and im pretty sure that's the audience it captured and what it delivered.



Your argument falls apart because 300 was made in the same vain yet loved by critics and audiences alike even with a lack of story. SP is the complete opposite for a reason, the film is shite.


----------



## Rukia (Mar 28, 2011)

Sucker Punch is the first truly terrible film of 2011.  Other bad movies came out but they never attempted to be anything more.  The Roommate realized that it was a January release.  Sucker Punch on the other hand was a pretentious time waster.  I'm fortunate to have missed it.


----------



## typhoon72 (Mar 28, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> Your argument falls apart because 300 was made in the same vain yet loved by critics and audiences alike even with a lack of story. SP is the complete opposite for a reason, the film is shite.



Well I said i havent seen SP so it was all speculation. But damn.



Rukia said:


> Sucker Punch is the first truly terrible film of 2011.  Other bad movies came out but they never attempted to be anything more.  The Roommate realized that it was a January release.  Sucker Punch on the other hand was a pretentious time waster.  I'm fortunate to have missed it.



Damn its really that bad? Jeez.


----------



## Gnome (Mar 28, 2011)

As others have said, If you have a specific critic you tend to agree with, they can save you some money and time. At least this is my reason, specifically the time thing.


----------



## Parallax (Mar 29, 2011)

typhoon72 said:


> Way to skew the numbers Tal. You and I know damn well you picked some of the best of the best. Now add in the other hundreds of action movie scores, I assure you they wont nearly be as great. This wasn't my point.



To be fair critics hate on a shit ton of genres, including critical darlings like period pieces or dramas.


----------



## Taleran (Mar 29, 2011)

typhoon72 said:


> Way to skew the numbers Tal. You and I know damn well you picked some of the best of the best. Now add in the other hundreds of action movie scores, I assure you they wont nearly be as great. This wasn't my point.



When you talk *ACTION MOVIES* you talk EVERY action movie including the best of the best. When people say things like *ACTION MOVIES* don't get good reviews I can point to a list of like 50 movies that flat contradict that.

Being good does not stop them from being Action Movies.


Also people name dropping single critics are pretty foolish, why only get a single review? RT and Metacritic both exist to give a wide frame of reference from a varied group of people.


----------



## Parallax (Mar 29, 2011)

Metacritic sucks though


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Mar 29, 2011)

Because they use big fancy words I don't understand.


They have to know what they're talking about.


----------



## Federer (Mar 29, 2011)

Reliable critics who share a similar taste for movies as yourself can save you a lot of money. 

Obviously, if you wanna watch a movie, you should watch it, despite what critics say. 
I usually download movies and watch them, that saves me money if the movie is horrible. If the movie is great, I pay money to watch it again on the big screen.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Mar 29, 2011)

I don't know any critics I actually trust.


----------



## typhoon72 (Mar 29, 2011)

CrazyMoronX said:


> I don't know any critics I actually trust.



Nostalgia Critic is the only one I like


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Mar 29, 2011)

What movies does this slob recommend?


----------



## Violent by Design (Mar 29, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> Your argument falls apart because 300 was made in the same vain yet loved by critics and audiences alike even with a lack of story. SP is the complete opposite for a reason, the film is shite.




This.

I am seeing Sucker Punch tonight (for cheap of course, not supporting that shit full price) - and I am honestly wondering what people mean by "of course it has no plot, you should expect no less".

300 had no engaging plot, and it had all fighting. It generally got pretty decent reviews, I'd say fair for the type of movie it was. I liked it. So obviously things like plot and transitions have to truly be terrible for Sucker Punch, other wise it would be held in the same light as ignorant movies like Kick-Ass and 300. So my guess is even if you're expecting there not to be anything other than mindless action (which I'm pretty sure everyone thought that going into the film) it probably still sucks a lot.


----------

