Movie Critics Annoy Me

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 1:29pm

I was taking a look over at rottentomaotes.com and found that SPIDER-MAN 3 has (currently) a 76% rating. While reading the negative reviews, the main "fault" of the movie, was that it did not match the sequel. Um . . . DUH! It is a miracle that the sequel was better than the original (following Hollywood's formula), so odds are that the third will not be the greatest. Some have valid points to why they don't like it . . . but in almost every single negative review, the person admits that it is still a good movie. So, why do they give it 2 and 3 stars?

With other movies, a lot of reviewers (Roeper, I am looking at you) gives a movie a negative review because the star in it wasn't as good as their last movie . . . or the director didn't do as good as his last film, etc.

Movies (like theatre, books, music) should be reviewed on it's own merit, which critics tend not to do. That is why a lot of movies that are butchered by critics, I end up loving!

Updated On: 5/1/07 at 01:29 PM

[lildogs]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 3:25pm

Why is it that people only complain about critics when they pan something they like?

And the people who post on Rotten tomatoes aren't ALL legit film critics--many are just folks like the people who post here. Most critics have no educational background in the arts, they're journalists.

[Kringas]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 3:31pm

Well, as a sequel is riding on the name of its predecessors, I don't see why it shouldn't be judged against it.

[Mischief]

Posted: 5/1/07 at 3:39pm

Just because a reviewer says a film is not as good as it's predecessor does not mean that it is the only criteria they are basing their ranking on. In this case it might be true that it is not as good and ALSO just not that good of a film on it's own merits.