ITT: times when critics were objectively wrong

ITT: times when critics were objectively wrong

Other urls found in this thread:

rottentomatoes.com/m/butterfly_effect/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

What's with Sup Forums.s love for weak early 2000's lighthearted Hollywood films? Do you fuckers not realise it's nostalgia talking?

Anyway, pic related is a time when the critics actually were actively wrong.

For a comparison, Oldboy and The Thing are rated lower.

Sort of a weird example since it's intentionally bad and everyone knew it.
When Phantom Menace first came out critics were afraid to say it sucked and not be part of the cultural phenomenon or whatever. There is no way it deserves 55%.

>Sort of a weird example since it's intentionally bad and everyone knew it.

But that's the worst kind of movie.

> Hehehe, it's dumb, poorly made and uncreative...IRONICALLY
> Holy fuck what do those Cannes fuckers know MOVIE OF THE YEAR

I get it, I'm just saying that the critics who said it was "good" didn't think it was good, so it's a bad example of critics being wrong.

>rotten bloggers
>critics

You're right. It deserves at least a 80% or above.

I don't know why this movie got shit on so much. All I ever heard people complain about was "the budget was too big" and "Johnny Depp is being Johnny Depp".

They get paid to review movies. How are they not critics?

>EXSQUEESE ME
Where were you when Star Wars died?