To assume that critics are always correct is rediculous.
What is the purpose of a critic? To give a general overview of the movie and score of the movie, so that each standard-movie-goer has a good indicator of what movies they should have a higher priority of seeing. Their opinion should be as well rounded and a close estimate to what the general public's opinion should be, correct? No? then I ahve another paragraph for that later on.
Now if a critic gives a review contrary to the general opinion of the public, then that means they've failed at their job because their opinion does not represent what the public's opinion is. If their opinion doesn't match up with the public's, then their wasting their time leading the public to go wath all of tese lame movies to begin with.
And that's assuming that critics are even going to cater to te public. msot of the time, the public's opinions are too dichotomous to be narrowed down into a few selected person's approval. Lets say I agree with some album plugs and reviews by, say, InvisibleOranges, but I disagree with almost every review from Pitchfork. What does that mean? It means both reviewers/teams of reviewers **** ***, because there are plenty of people who disagree with InvisibleOranges and praise Pitchfork.
I liked Cloverfield. The public hated Cloverfield. I disliked the Dark Knight, Avatar, and The Godfather. Critcs loved those movies. I don't pigeonhole myself by following what other people have to say about anything. Why should you give a damn what critics OR movie-goers have to say about Drag Me To Hell? You should like it if YOU liked it. From now on, try excercising a little bit of original thought synthesis, and don't be a sheep. The OP was rather filled with nonsense.
Edit: btw I've never seen Drag Me To Hell. Might look it up somewhere.
Log in to comment