Don't care if critics hate it. I loved it. Good if they hated it. Then it wasted 2 1/2 hours of their lives and more to write about it and think about how much they hated it.

 

A critic who spouts nonsense and jumps up and down to decry what he personally dislikes should be stoned to death.

A critic who gives reasonable, thoughtful analysis of why something is good, and conversely, why something is bad, should be respected and heeded.

At almost any point in human history, it was up to someone to say 'That's a bad idea' and give thoughtful, intelligent reasons for why. A critic, by job and trade, is trained to look for flaws, weaknesses, strong points and merit all at the same time, with one or two glances at the material. A 'common person', (generally) having no training in constructive criticism, is only qualified to express a response to personal experience.

Unless you are willing to become a subject matter expert on everything, then you will have to rely on well-educated and objective critics to make decisions on every piece of software, of hardware, communication, travel, games, transportation, books, movies, television, music, investments... whether or not you want to admit it or not. Every time you read a product review, or someone explaining how the new tax code affects you, you're reading a critic. If you watch one of Peaugh's reviews, you're watching a TF critic. Do you make travel arrangements based on your buddy's "Vegas is awesome!" or do you go and see what the cost is, what the hotel rates, how the food compares, etc?

My point is, even if you can get the same result by mining a data-population (like this site) and getting an aggregate response, it's as good, and faster, to find what the experts think. In an age built on speed and accuracy of information, I'd think the good critics would become more valuable, not less.

 

Actually I am with most people,that even if a critic don't like a movie that ain't gonna
stop me from seeing it,and like one said bout that Australia movie it tanked like Megs
at the bottom of the ocean,dead in other words.So point is it don't matter if a critic gives
a movie an F then it won't stop people from going,as critics are not all that reliable.

 

The first live-action movie seemed to have scored better reviews compared to ROTF, at least on rottentomatoes. Would that still make them "10 times more trust worthy than a million fanboys", or are you just saying that because their reviews are now more in line with your own rather vocal assessment of the movie franchise?

 

They did? Most of the reviews I saw were lukewarm, at best.

 

I loved it, regardless of what anyone thinks.

 

this thread is useless. would any one on the site care.

 

You're not supposed to agree with "ALL" critics.

Generally, though, you find one or two whose sensitivities are aligned with your own, and you begin to trust them. IGN likes the same games as I do. Gamespot doesn't, ever since Kasavin left. So, if Gamespot says a game sucks, but IGN liked it, I know I probably will, too. Other people might be more aligned to the staff at Gamespot.

That's how critics are SUPPOSED to work. The movie reviewer at my hometown paper hates everything I love, and vice versa. So when she pans a movie, I make sure to see it!

 

I'm going to have to disagree, the internet is the best thing to ever happen for both critics and the people looking for some sort of professional review of a movie.

In the pre-internet days you were stuck with just the local critics or the critic you could find on TV. If you didn't agree with critics assessment of films then you were just out of luck and unless you saved newspapers it was hard to go back to see how they reviewed other films.

Now with the internet you can check reviews from all over the US instead of just the local paper. So a critic who only had readers in say Seattle can now have readers in Atlanta. With sites like Rotten Tomatoes you can check several critics at once for an over picture and read that person's past reviews to see if they are someone you agree with. Far better to have the pick of several critics instead of the old method of risking a bum review from just your only local source.

Plus pros still have place because with say Yahoo User reviews you have to weed out the rabid fan boys, or the inarticulate reviews of "This film rockz" or "This film sux". At least the odds are better that a person who does reviews for a living can give you the good and the bad so you can make up your own mind in the end.

 

Loved this Movie - Nuff Said

no critic will tell me what to like and dislike.
especially the critic's who call people "idiots" and "******s" because they enjoyed a movie

 

I'm not they piss me off.

 

I disagree with the opinions of some critics, but I have a totally different reason than the OP for being glad they didn't like it. Before the '07 movie came out, the idea of TransFormers as the basis for a movie had virtually no credibility. Summer of '07, some notable critics saw the movie and were surprised to see that it actually had at least a little to it that was worthwhile. Now, I don't think the standards they're juding ROTF by are the same standards they held TF'07 to, and that's unfair but it's a good thing. It means that the critics are now at least considering the idea that a TransFormers movie actually could live up to their standards.

 

That's how I see the critics as. Its considered 'sexy' for critics to be kind of righteous and anti-mainstream. Bickering and nitpicking over things.

There were a couple of plot holes, and a couple of unnecessary parts, but it was not anywhere near as bad as some of these sky-is-falling-bad critics said it was. And those parts really didn't take anything away or distract from the movie as a whole. I thought that it was overall a very very good film.

 

I've always thought of people who base their decisions in life based on reviews, as being puppets who can't think for themselves.

Take for instance GI Joe the movie. Lots of people say they are waiting for reviews, and are quick to run to sites like Rotten Tomatoes, when they should be perfectly capable of making their own decisions.

I also liken this to gamers. I own 1021 games, and I have never bought a game I regret buying. I look at videos, and pics, and make the call myself. Well before reviews come out. Other's are quick to look at a review, and all the sudden feel the same way. I call that psychotropic. They believe so much, what the reivewer says, that they themselves, end up feeling the same way.

Call this an example of sorts. A karate master in Chicago says he can knock people unconscious without even touching them. He gets it to work alright, but only on his followers. When a news reporter dared him to try it on him/her, he did, and it didn't do anything. Likewise with other karate masters in the area. My son's sensei said that when other karate masters said to perform the move on them, nothing happened. He then said it is all in one's mind.

So case in point, I believe people are brainwashed by reviewers, wether they believe they are or not. When one person says something negative, the human mind starts looking at the subject negatively.

I make my own calls in life. Not because it is some stupid high-school, blah-blah-blah, renegade rebelious person. Rather, it is because I refuse to be a puppet in life, when there is only one life to live.

I loved the movie, and thought it had a better story than the first movie, which took an hour before the real movie started. This movie made perfect sense, and I didn't say "oh hey that doesn't make sense."

I bet I will like G.I. Joe too, becuase frankly, I'm not gonna go all dweeby and nosebleed because Duke isn't dressed how he should be, or because they devised a suit that excelerates people for one scene in the movie. It is Stephen Sommers, and he has only messed up once, and that was Van Helsing. He's currently 2-1 in my eyes in terms of good stuff he has made. I have a feeling he will go 3-1 (2 for both Mummy films, 1 for GI Joe, with 1 point against him for Van Helsing,) after all is said and done.

Topic creator, I agree with you. Sometimes I like seeing these reviewers with their panties up their asses get theirs, for trying to pursuade people into believing their beliefs on a movie, thus making the movie flop, only to have it be the highest grossing movie of the year. What is a reviewer anyway? Some fat slob who calls themself a professional (can you get a degree in movie criticism,) when they are nothing more than we are... HUMAN!!! Prone to the same faults.

 

And how does one make a decision as to whether to see a film without listening to people who've seen it? Clairvoyance? Remote viewing?

 

I wonder if the critics give a bit more breathing room when you are doing something new. Sort of giving you a bit of credit for taking a chance.

Perhaps by the second film they figure okay we went easy the first time because you were figuring things out but you better have your act together now if you are giving us a squeal.

 

I wouldn't really care if the critics loved it or not.

 

WIN.

 

Just because the critics think it's a waste of money doesn't mean you don't have to see it.
Screw the critics and go see the movie. You will be glad you did

 

Good point.