I'll read some reviews because I'm generally interested in what other people thought about something. It won't affect my going to see the movie either way though and I'll just do what I did with the previous two Bay movies and wait for the home release to see it.

 

If it's below 10% on any movie I won't watch it. Everytime thi has happened and I watch that particular movie it is always pure crap. I like to read spme of their reviews though, some are interesting.  

 

I never listened to Rotten Tomatoes, I'm a firm believer that if you seriously let other people tell you what to think (I'm not talking about considering recommedations or advice or stuff like that, but just agreeing with whatever "critics" say instead of forming your own opinion) then you got some serious problems.

 

Em, I don't find fans to be a good source of reviews. We tend to be a rather opinionated lot and we tend to color everything with our fan goggles on. I mean just look at how some fans ripped Transformers Animated apart just on one picture instead of waiting to see what the show would be like.

No matter how bad Dark of the Moon might be some fans will defend it as the best thing ever made because the movie stuff is their thing. If the movie is a really good film other fans will rip Dark of the Moon apart for no other reason than the movie stuff isn't their thing.

 

No need to wait. The critics are going to hate it as they do with any movie made solely for entertainment value. What a novel idea! Movies made for entertainment with no thought of political motive or 'life lessons'. Want to watch a movie that gets good reviews? Sorry, summer blockbusters aren't on that list*.


*Nolan's Batman series is an exception to this rule. Even if I do think critics unjustly praise anything Nolan does.

 

Again, PLEASE understand, I'm not interested in whether it's good or not. I just want to know if it's as tolerable as the first one(over 50%) or as much of a disaster as the second one(under 30%).

 

I think the 93% for Spider Man 2, 94% for the first Iron Man, and the 88% for X-Men 2 kind of knocks a few holes in the theory that movie critics are just fuddy duddy old farts who forgot how to have a good time at the movies.

Just because it's a summer film with a budget larger than some nations and released in the summer months doesn't mean that it has to be a film for nothing more than bang, boom and no other qualities. I'm not sure that big action and expensive special effects excludes a movie from story and character as well.

 

Form your own opinion. Simple.

 

The crybaby attitude toward movie critics on this forum is laughable.

Critical reception had little to no effect on box office takings of either movie, and I know how people here just fucking love to use dollars taken as a measure of quality film making. Yet the general consensus here is that "critics suck", "they are worthless dinosaurs" and "out of touch with the people". If that's the case, why do we get thread after thread of "OH GOD THIS REVIEW GAVE MY FAVOURITE MOVIE A TERRIBLE REVIEW SO I WILL MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT IT" followed by pages and pages of pitchforks and torches?

Utterly pointless.

 

This.

 

With who's money?