Seriously... What's wrong with film critics?!

[Kyriakos]

While the movie, as it got released, isn't that openly right or left wing, the same cannot be said about the original footage (some 40 min were either left out or bits of them altered) :



I think it is great the original wasn't aired, cause imo it was very convoluted and had a rather ridiculously non-subtle (ie badly done) feminist message, in that the girl in the original had a real relationship with Joker, and was sexually harassed by rich people. Which, tbh, is just dumber than the plot we saw (despite its own many faults)

Tldr, if we go by memes, the original had the Joker be closer to antifa than right-wing incel etc.

[Love Mountain]

Well I'm not sure why the film is even criticized as it is. I would personally give it a pretty solid B or 4/5. It's no masterpiece, but it does not fail in any relevant criteria either. Most of its elements are pretty well done.

[Knight of Heaven]

Tldr, if we go by memes, the original had the Joker be closer to antifa than right-wing incel etc.

i remember discussions, way back about Heath Ledger joker, comparing him to Anarchism and such.

Well I'm not sure why the film is even criticized as it is. I would personally give it a pretty solid B or 4/5. It's no masterpiece, but it does not fail in any relevant criteria either. Most of its elements are pretty well done.

It was criticized even before was out about the incel thing. How could become a hero for them etc. Honestly this online outlets, all they do is click bait articles, to generate this kind of buzz, and contorversy. It is how they make a living.

People should be wiser to ignore such things.

Personally i feel the same way, i do think that Joker movie is overrated, or over hyped, most probably. But it is a good film at the end of the day.



Speaking of the critics on Rotten tomatoes, i noticed that Batwoman CW show has a higher critic score then the critic score for the Joker Movie.

I find it hilarious. Movie Critics are useless.

[mishkin]

Speaking of the critics on Rotten tomatoes, i noticed that Batwoman CW show has a higher critic score then the critic score for the Joker Movie.

I find it hilarious. Movie Critics are useless.

It is absurd to generalize based on the percentages of Rotten Tomatoes ("movie critics are useless"), and it is absurd to generalize based on the percentages obtained by one, five, or ten movies / series rated bt Rotten Tomatoes

If you want to say that Rotten Tomatoes is not very useful I agree, I stopped consulting that page a long time ago. (Here I have recommended another web, Love Mountain has made other recommendations iirc)

[Knight of Heaven]

I dont have the habit o using those websites, personally. Probably more easily i do watch some youtube review channel, then i go see rotten tomatoes or something like that.

But i do find the discrepancies in values, amusing. Its obvious there is a lot o bias when people review this things. And there is always the cooperate chills as well.

[mishkin]

But i do find the discrepancies in values, amusing.

Regarding these discrepancies, maybe we should worry a little (or quite) about the tastes of the rotten tomatoes audience. I gave examples a few pages ago, I am seeing now that the last fast and furious movie (absolute garbage) is a good movie for 88% of them.

its obvious there is a lot o bias when people review this things. And there is always the cooperate chills as well.

What bias? What things?

[Knight of Heaven]

Fast and furious never been good movies. But isn't usually audience score more indicative of popularity, then quality? There is a difference between audience reviewing things, then professionals. Of course cant say critics this days tend to judge on quality either. Hence the amusing part.
it is more worrying what professionals say, then the general audience. You cant equate them both. Not in the same manner.

What bias? What things?

Several bias, it varies from critic to critic, social political bias of late seems to be in order of the day. And by things, i mean movies shows etc.

Case in point, i fail to understand how a movie like joker, can relate to some pop korn action flick like fast and furious. It cannot be compared. And having lower ratting, then a crap CW show is hilarious.


Here some decent debate, about the nature of this controversy, and the film.

[mishkin]

I bet you can't find five good recent movies that have been undermined by most critics for political/social reasons. (Joker still has a good percentage (critics who have considered it good) in Rotten Toamtoes, 68% of them)

[Knight of Heaven]

Joker deserves a bit more than that. I mean you have blockbuster movies probably on the level of fast and furious, with 90% or 80% ratings on Critic score. Star wars and quite a few of the Marvel movies, for example, which generally i dont consider them that good.

It doesn't make sense to me, how the last Jedi for example gets that Critic score, while joker only gets 68%... It is amusing to me. I mean the number one criticism from those critics, of Joker it is that is a dangerous movie.
Personally im baffled by that.
US is crazy.

Btw this isn't just movies. Have you seen the critic score of sticks and stones Chappelle special?

[Kyriakos]

I think that Joker was an ok film, with a very memorable scene (Murray). Which is more than can be said for the vast majority of films.
It isn't a classic or anything, imo.

As for superhero movies... I detest them. I could only bare watching Bane in DKR, and some of the second movie, but they are ridiculous with people in rubber suits going around playing karate :/

[Common Soldier]

It's not a cop-out, and if someone on this board is going to claim to be "neutral" I'm just going to laugh. The only cop-out here is the accusation that I'm being political, which boils down to an ad hominem.

If nobody is neutral, then why are you criticizing those who point out the fact? Why are you criticizing those complain of the bias of critics? It is a question to ask is why do critics all apparently have similar biases. Why are the critics biases so different from that apparently of the general audience?

It wasn't a cop-out. Im starting to think you don't know what a "cop-out" actually means. The point is that Citizen Kane clearly demonstrates that criticism of of the media has existed well before 2016. Centuries, in fact.

The movie Citizen Kane criticizes one man, I don't see anywhere it criticizes the entire industry as a whole. I beginning to wonder if you have actually this and many of the other films you are mentioning. Exactly where in Citizen Kane is the entire media criticized, and not just the exploits of one man?

And saying that criticism of the media has existed for a long time proves there is no real problem is like saying that people have been abusing opiates like heroin and prescription drugs for a long time, so there is no real Opiate Crisis today, it is just a myth made up by people who are into holistic medicine. The fact that criticism has been around doesn't mean that the media hasn't gotten worse,, or that the criticisms are not justified. It is a cop-out, since you are avoiding the issue as to whether the criticisms are justified - saying there were criticisms in the past does not address the issue.

Journalism today promotes and propagandizes a variety of different views. Fox News supports conservative agenda, Mother Jones support liberal agenda, Breitbart supports the "gay frogs" agenda. I'm also not sure how my example demonstrates the "better part" of 100 years ago. Quite the contrary, the magnitude of yellow journalism was a lot worse 100 years ago. Most major news outlets today are a lot more subtle.

Fox News is about the lone major news agency, and it is heavily criticized and dismissed by the left. PBS used to have conservative talk show host like Buckley, but no longer does.

Seldom favor the right - you really don't read anything besides CNN do you? Though I imagine you only read CNN to look for things to criticize them with, which is a little funny to me.

You watch CNN, you don't read it. CNN is not a publishing agency. And no, I listen to NPR everyday with the BBC for one.

Why does any of this justify Zimmerman following Trayvon Martin with a gun? If Zimmerman wants to claim self-defense, he shouldn't be following someone.

If Martin didn't want to get shot, he should not have attacked Zimmerman. He should have just walked home.

I'm not sure why you're asking me to explain it when I literally did just that by quoting the relevant parts of the article.



I quoted the relevant sections of the Wikipedia article because it's fairly self-explanatory, but since you seem to be having difficulty understanding this, I'll explain. Following the Boston Marathon bombing, social media identified Sunil Tripathi as a suspect. Reddit users quickly crowdsourced information in an attempt to identify and find the suspects of the bombing. After FBI released pictures of the suspects, Reddit users thought there was resemblance between Sunil and pictures of the suspects. Since this activity got massive attention and quickly spread through Reddit and social media, Sunil's family was constantly contacted and harassed by various people who thought Sunil was a perpetrator. After the real perpetrators were caught and killed, Sunil was also found dead a little later.

And where is the real evidence any of this happened? Do you have copies of the Reddit post?

In any case, it still isn't as bad as happened to Zimmerman, when even the President got into the act. Did Sunil lose his job,, be put on trial?

What this demonstrates is that non-traditional media outlets and amateur journalism can very easily get it wrong and this can lead to horrible consequences. The reason why mainstream outlets are important is because of their experience and high level of public trust to tell the truth in a responsible manner. While criticism of the way these media giants cover news, and their occasional hiccup is valid and important, dismissal of media outlets as simply mouthpieces of ideologies and propaganda is not only inaccurate, it's dangerous.

And so the mainstream media needs to be held to a higher standard, since they are professionals. They were no better than the social media groups you complained about.

This would be relevant if the Democratic Party was actually "leftist", but they're not. In fact, Democrats like Joe Manchin and Joe Donnelly may as well be Republicans in all but name. In fact, the entire Democratic Party can be described as center-right. The only thing you've shown us, is that Republicans are remarkably poor at appealing to educators.

Your comments reflect your own bias. Sure, to someone to the left of Ortega as you seem to be, Warren would look like a conservative. The fact that you can make such a claim I think reflects more on you than the facts.

Zimmerman wasn't on neighborhood watch, and he follow Martin in his car, before losing sight of him and attempting to find him on foot. If Zimmerman stayed home instead of pursuing his own warped view of vigilante justice, Martin would be alive. Police records corroborate this event.

If Martin had kept on walking, he would be alive.

1. I would definitely jump a guy if he's been following me for ages and I think he's going to kill me.

Then you are a fool, and still would be wrong. How do you know someone wants to kill you? Are you a mind reader? What if rhe person is following you because he was adopted, and thinks you were a long lost sibling and is working up his courage to approach you and ask some questions? Or maybe he is following you because his client is thinking yournare cheating with his wife. If you wonder why there is so much violence in the US, look at yourself in the mirror.

And what you propose would be really, really, foolish. Even if he was planning on killing you, what if the man was armed, attacking him would give him a chance to shoot you at a close, can't miss, range. And what if he was not intent on killing you, but was armed? He likely shoot you in self defense , causi the very thing you were trying to prevent. In all cases, what you propose would be the wrong course of action, and liky to get yourself killed, and it would be all your own fault.

2. It's irrelevant why Martin is there. He did not break any laws.

Martin did break the law, he assaulted Simmerman, that is why Martin is dead. The law doesn't say you can assault someone for following you.

3. We have multiple witness accounts and actual police reports as well as Zimmerman himself to tell us that Martin was not breaking into any house when he was killed. Zimmerman deliberately follow him and caused the incident to occur.

Doesn't matter why Zimmerman was following Martin, what Zimmerman did was not against the law. Even if he was not on formal patrol, he was in his right to walk up and ask a strange man what he was doing in the neighborhood. Martin was not in hisnright to beat up on Zimmerman simply because he didn't like Zimmerman following him. And if Martin was scoping out houses to break in later that is highly relevant, since it makes Zimmerman right to follow him.

If Martin didn't want to get shot. He shouldn't start beating up on Zimmerman as he did. He should have walked home, and then complained to the police. Contrary to what you think, you don't have the right to beat up on someone simply because you don't like them. If you are afraid for your life, you run away, knock on a neighbor's door, you don't start beating up on some one, because they might be armed and you could shot. Even if they didn't intend anything bad fornyou, you could still get shot. Which is what happened to Martin, which makes the shooting Marin's own fault due to his poor judgment.

4. That's pretty irrelevant considering that Zimmerman followed Martin.

Highly relevant. Since Martin is the one who started the fight. Following someone is not necessarily a crime, beating up someone is.

5. The US Constitution is irrelevant, as it is local codes, laws, and circumstantial evidence that determines what constitutes self-defense.

One again you are wrong. The Constitution does govern criminal procedures, and rules of evidence, and can supercede local laws if they are in error. If it was a local matter, then what was Obama and his minions doing getting invovled? The rules of marriages are determine by local state law, but that did nott prevent the US Supreme Court from overturning local laws that are not regulated on national level by invoking thr Constitution.


[Quote]

A. Luke had never flown an X-Wing in his life before blowing up a Death Star. He had no military training and no experience in espionage before breaking into a military installations and rescuing a valuable prisoner. [/Quote@]

Once again you demonstrate that you haven't actually seen the film you you are talking about, and you demonstrate both your lack of knolwdge and arrogance.

1. Luke did not out fly Vader. Vader was all set to destroy Luke if Hans hadn't interfered. Getting yourself blown up is not proof of your superior flying ability.

2. Luke was an experienced pilot back home, Rey had never fought with a light saber, totally different. It was specifically said in the film the X-Wings were not that much different from the crafts Luke had flown back home. I have rented out lots of different cars, and have had no problems even though I might never had driven that type of car before. Again you appear to be parroting comments by others as if by rote memory, like a person who doesn't understand Arabic memorizing Arabic Koranic passages

3. Luke was in the prime of life. Darth was an old middle age man who had been severely injured. His artificial limbs might not have been as good as Luke's natural ones, not as fine as a control as Luke's natural limbs. That could advers my effect Vader's flying even with the Force. No one but younsaidnDarth Vader was the best pilot in the fleet.

4. They were flying straight at top speed down a narrow corridor. Not much fancing to be done.

5. Leia specifically said they were allowed to escape, so they could track the Falcon back to the Rebel base. No Mary Sue invovle here, and Hans and Leia were as.much responsible for the escape as Luke. It was Leia who got them out while trapped at the jail cell. It occurred to neither Luke nor Hans to escape that way, and it probably didn't occur to the Death Star planners that an escape prisoner would be armed and escape that way either. And without R2, they would have been crushed anyways. R2D2 mY look like your standard droid, but it is not, as the movie makes plain.

Again, nothing Mary Sue about it. The only time Luke demonstrates anynreal force ability is using it to target thr Death Star, nothing comparable tonwhat Rey did in thd first

B. Rey was against an injured and delirious Sith who had no intention of killing her. In fact, she was on the run the majority of the fight. You have no idea what a Mary Sue is.

No, you the one who doesn't. Running when outnumbered does not mean you are not a Mary Sue. What makes her a Mary Sue is her repearsd ability to demonstrate Force powers and abilities equal to the best Force users with no training. She holds here own aagainst Kylo WI no training on using a light saber at all. Luke was an experience pilot, the movie said so, and his X-Wing may have been faster and more manueverable than the Tie figure used by Vader.

And it is not just the lightsaber battle. She used Jedi abilities and mind control to escape from being restrained , having no training whatever. That is being a Mary Sue..

C. It's a little ironic that Vader's heart wasn't really into it, but when Kylo Ren explicitly tries to get Rey to join him, she defeats him fair and square.

In the first movie, Kylo was not trying to recruit her, and she still new him. In the second movirle, she defeated the guard who would have been the most experience and best troops available, and they were most certainly trying to kill her.

If Midi-Chlorians were a thing, the Jedi should be blood-testing every child in the galaxy. So no, you're just manufacturing reasons to not like the New Trilogy. Yeah, "Feminist Star Wars". I can see how Poe Dameron's character is so feminist. Or Rey's constant self-doubt and intimacy issues. Very 3rd wave Feminist. This is silly .

Most Star Wars fans of the original intensely disliked thr idea of Midi-Chlorians as well, and think the Force Awakens and the other 2 following movies were greatly inferior to the original trilogy. However if does not conflict with anything in thr other movies. Tatoonie where Anakin was living was outside rhr Republic, and the Jedi have only aurhority within the Republic. For all we know, maybe every child in the Republic is tested.

ou are clearly defending the new trilogy because you like the agenda it pushes. I don't see Rey having any intimacy issues, I don't see Rey having any real personality at all, as a matter of fact, and which is a complaint I have made before. And yes, she is very feminist, she is typical of the new feminist who insist on showing they can be as macho any man. I don't agree with your assessment.

PS - Poe is portrayed as a dangerous irresponsible hot head, who needs the wisdom of women to contain him. The giraffe neck woman treats him as a child, refusing to answer his very reasonable request. The movie is sends rhe message "Trust Women". Feminist to me.

Actually I like the originals. I don't like the New Trilogy because it's a literal copy-paste of the originals.

The Force Awakens was a lot like rebooted, but greatly inferior version of original, but the second movie went out of its way to be different from the Empire Strikes Back.

1. Instead of undergoing training by a wise and experienced Jedi, Rey is told to get lost by an embittered old man. Luke gets invovled in a climatic but pointless fight at the end of the movie, Yoda never leaves his home.

2. The Rebels successfully escape in Empire Strikes Back at the beginning of the movie, and for most of the movie the Rebel fleet is not part of the action. In the TLJ the escaping Resistance fleet makes up most of the central part of thr movie, and in the end the Resistance fleet was all but destroyed, with only a handful of people escaping, including thr totally incompetent leadership then led the Resistance to destruction. After 20+ years of fighting, thanks to Leia's incompetent leadership the Rebels/Resistance is down to just one ship , which technically wasn't even a Resistance ship at all. Way to go Leia.

3. In the Empire Strikes Back, the Emperor is alive and still very much in charge. In the TLJ the First Order Leaders is dead, and essentially the inferior Darth Vader wanabee is in charge.

So exactly how is The Last Jedi a cut and paste the link he Empire Strikes Back? Because they both have TIE Fighters and Star Destroyers?

You need to stop making stuff up about the New Trilogy.

What did I make up about the New Trilogy? Give specific examples.

You haven't exposed anything. Every single thing you said has been refuted.

No it hasn't. I have knocked down everyone of your arguments.

I'm wrong because you claim I'm wrong?

No, because I have shown you are wrong lots of specific examples to show you are wrong.

Okay, sure. I simply said 20 years because it was a simple estimate that's largely correct. If you want to be pedantic and precise about the date, yes the World Wide Web was launched in 1995, or 24 years ago. How childish.

The Internet has roots going back before the World Wide Web, back into the 1980's, so you are not largely correct. While the Internet has become synonymous with the World is Wide Web, they are still not the same.

But I did back them up. How is Luke Skywalker capable of outlfying Darth Vader, the best pilot in the Galaxy, without a day of training in an X-Wing? How is Luke Skywalker capable of blowing up the Death Star, without the aid of a computer no less? Yes, I know, Space Magic, The Force. In other words, Gary Stu that's necessary to make the plot compelling.

Already answered and refuted. You hadn't backed them.up to me before, this is the first time I am seeing them. Since earlier in this post, ai have already explained it, I will just repeat the main point - Luke didn't outfly the Darth Vader. (PS, Luke had R2-D2, which qualifies.as a computer) And using some Force ability is ok, Luke might have been able to blow up the Death Star anyways even without the Force. He seemed confident ofnhis ability when the pilots were told of their task. And Luke had some training by Obiwan in the first movie, and he had Obiwan's voice to instruct him when blowing up the Death Star, Rey had none of that. And she was using far greater and more sophisticated Force abilities than Like had even in Empire Strikes Back, despite Luke having far more training.. So no Gary Sue. But definitely Mary Sue for Rey.. Does Luke defeat Vader in a lightsaber battle despite Yod's training? No, he gets whipped by Vader, believable. But in the 3rd movie after some time has past, and Luke has been continuing his training as Yoda instructed him to do, he manages to defeat Vader. Again no Mary Sue.

Rey - was able to lift a lot of Boulders with no training from Luke, and not much time on her own to train herself. Mary Sue.

Rey - defeat trained guards with her lightsaber so no training. Again, a Mary Sue

Rey - able to use the Jedi mind trick to escape with no training. Again a.Mary Sue.

Rey - able to use the Force to unlock and escape her confinment in the first movie, no training. Again, Mary Sue.

You have yet to show me how critics are selling out their opinions. Critics have masses of different opinions. Just like there are feminist critics, there are also conservatives, christian, military, etc. It's both, disingenuous to clump critics into one group, and to claim that they're all leftist SJWs.

Since most of the media is leftist, most of the critics would likely be too, as I previously said. Critics are not uniformly distributed, the 9O+ % rating of TLJ proves it. If they are all voting the same way, then it is legimatd to speculate why. If there any conservative movie critics these days, I haven't seen them. But then, you think Warren and a the other Democrats are center-right. Naturally you are going to be denying you are a Social Justice Warrior. Admitting what you are putting out is propaganda makes the propaganda less effective.

Rotten Tomatoes was founded 20 years ago. So no, this information was always available.

The information could still be available, even if Rotten Tomatoes did not exist. Just more work to find, is all.

[Common Soldier]

Actually I like the originals. I don't like the New Trilogy because it's a literal copy-paste of the originals. You need to stop making stuff up about the New Trilogy.

As I already explained, you are once again wrong and don't know what you are talking about. In The Last Jedi, the entire middle of the movie was about the Resistance fleet trying to escaps and ultimately failing. In the Empirs Srrikes Back, the Rebels successdully es

I can't take you seriously if you're going to claim you haven't seen it.

Typical cop out answer. You make an asserion then refuse to provide facts backing it up because you can't. Maybe I live I an old folks home where no one knows what Milleniala is and don't even know what the word means. Maybe I am a Millenial myself and all my friends are and none of havs any contact with Baby Boomers. Maybe I live on a a desserted island, and only interact in websites like this. The point is, ai haven't personally seen what you assert.

Again, if what you claim is so common you should have no problem in providing an example. Failure to do so means you were being dishonest.

(PS - if some Baby Boomers thinks you don't know what you are talking about, it is nkr a generational thing, it is because you really don't know what you are talking about - it is an issue with you specifically, not your generation. )

The character are cartoonish, the special effects are comedic, the plot was often incoherent. If you want to discuss the movie, make another thread. I'm not going to type out two more pages of an already, fairly long post.

Providing an example or two would be helpful to illustrate you claims. So far everytime you tried to back up your assertions. I find the facts you provide don't support them. Why would this time be any different?

Again, another make a claim, then avoid havinf to back up the claim.

[saxdude]

Has it occured to yall that the people who become critics and have been so for a while, tend towards certain qualities in films that other people don't require to judge a movie good?

Also why does it bother you people what a critic thinks about a movie, most of you guys think LOTR and Star Wars (as a whole) are good, imagine thinking that? But I let you guys like whatever you like.

[Roma_Victrix]

[Alabama sheriff's deputy accent, while stroking my American bald eagle belt buckle]: The only fancy high falutin film critic I could ever trust is Jay Sherman! Yee-haw!



As for the OP, I agree, there is a weird discrepancy between critics and audiences, probably due to pressure from the industry but that can't be the case for every single film critic - especially super duper independent ones - to pan or promote a certain film. It probably also has a lot to do with group think and living in an elitist bubble.

That being said, I don't really care for superhero flicks, burned out on them, too much market saturation and the only ones I really cared for lately were the Nolan Batman flicks. I'll wait until Joker is on Netflix, then I'll give it a watch.

Also why does it bother you people what a critic thinks about a movie, most of you guys think LOTR and Star Wars (as a whole) are good, imagine thinking that? But I let you guys like whatever you like.

I would say Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy is bad but LOTR still holds up to this day despite some parts or aspects of it that are super cheesy. The first film, the Fellowship, was the best of the bunch in terms of both a coherent narrative and excellent cinematography, despite Return of the King having a flashier, more grandiose use of CGI.

[Knight of Heaven]

That being said, I don't really care for superhero flicks, burned out on them, too much market saturation and the only ones I really cared for lately were the Nolan Batman flicks. I'll wait until Joker is on Netflix, then I'll give it a watch.

I do think Joker is probably better then any of the Nolan batman flicks. And in truth isn't really a comic book movie. Even if it is with a comic book character.

I would say Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy is bad but LOTR still holds up to this day despite some parts or aspects of it that are super cheesy. The first film, the Fellowship, was the best of the bunch in terms of both a coherent narrative and excellent cinematography, despite Return of the King having a flashier, more grandiose use of CGI.

LOTR is a good trilogy, objectively speaking they are good films, specially fellowship as you mention. Of course you can argue the books are better, but that doesn't take away from what the movies accomplished cinematographically. IMHO.

The hobbit was just bad. It had a good dwarf song though.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[mishkin]

I am still amazed that people continue to blame some discrepancies only on film critics, as if the film pages (case in pint rotten tomatoes) were not plagued by fanboys and haters (and plain idiots with aweful tastes) that make the audience score in many cases somewhat laughable.

As a curiosity, observe how these criticisms are generally very positive ("best movie of the decade, I give it a ten") or very negative ("leftist garbage, worst movie since TLJ").

Edit:

Seriously... what's wrong with the audience? Part II

Rambo: Last Blood. User score: 8.1

[athanaric]

I am still amazed that people continue to blame some discrepancies only on film critics, as if the film pages (case in pint rotten tomatoes) were not plagued by fanboys and haters (and plain idiots with aweful tastes) that make the audience score in many cases somewhat laughable.

As a curiosity, observe how these criticisms are generally very positive ("best movie of the decade, I give it a ten") or very negative ("leftist garbage, worst movie since TLJ").

Again, the sheer numbers of users involved in making up the audience score make manipulation or ideological conformity less of a factor than in the comparatively small group of featured professional reviewers. And the latter don't always bring valid arguments, either. Some reviews from supposed professionals read just like the examples you just cited. Try the reviews for the latest Dave Chappelle special, for example.

LOTR is a good trilogy, objectively speaking they are good films, specially fellowship as you mention. Of course you can argue the books are better, but that doesn't take away from what the movies accomplished cinematographically. IMHO.

Agree; while the LotR movie trilogy is certainly not the best possible adaptation of the source material, it works on its own merits and still comprises three of the best fantasy movies (it helps that most other fantasy movies are mediocre or bad). The original trilogy of Star Wars is pretty entertaining, too, even for people like me who're apathetic about the background lore and find the setting mildly ridiculous. These movies work as movies, despite their technical or source-related flaws.

[mishkin]

Do you really think that it is crazy nowadays to think that 3 or 4 thousand people/idiots can go to vote on a website to boycott or support a movie?

Also, think about what kind of parabola the movie critics' scores draw and what kind of parabola the scores offered by the users draw.

---------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_W...ence_reception

User-generated scores at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic were more negative. At Rotten Tomatoes, 44% of users rated the film 3.5 stars or higher,[136] while at Metacritic, the average user score is 4.4.[157] Several reviewers speculated that coordinated vote brigading from internet groups and bots contributed to the low scores.[158][159][160] Audience scores found on sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic require only registration and do not ensure that contributing voters have seen the film.[161] Quartz noted that some new accounts gave negative ratings to both The Last Jedi and Thor: Ragnarok, while Bleeding Cool stated that reviews for the latter film had tapered off but then "skyrocketed".[162][163] In response to tampering claims, Rotten Tomatoes released a statement that they detected no unusual activity on The Last Jedi aside from a noticeable "uptick in the number of written user reviews".[164] In 2019, a Rotten Tomatoes spokesperson stated that the film had been "seriously targeted" with a review-bombing campaign.[165]

the last jedi alt right

[Kyriakos]

I find political messages in movies to be almost always badly done and to (further) detract from the film. In the internet age you cannot realistically expect people to not follow other media which may refer to a film and therefore in turn lead them to its page in services like RT or IMDB.
Personally I find it offensive than any garbage film can be protected by being "left" or "right" in the first place.

[mishkin]

Do you have any evidence that certain movies have received good general reviews from proffesional critics based on their "political" content? The Last Jedi?