Why would even anyone ever consider critical reviews on a centralized fiat websites as balanced perspectives?
Scammy.
We are all individuals with different experiences which shape our artistic tastes and biases, there are billions of POVs. Anyone who is just given the job to "review" art as a "critic", is going to suck at it. One voice per how many actual individuals POVs? And they are all paid to share with some sort of bias.
For me this review bias signals, this movie is probably going to be one of my favorites. Things that are actively silenced, that generally people enjoy. Probably a good movie, with content that one of our puppeteers thinks we may not "need" to see.
I thought it was an A+ movie. Sure there are many people that won't like it. But if you have a soft heart, love dogs, and love driving cars, it is kind of a banger. And it asks the biggest questions in life, questions about the souls journey. It reminds us that we are temporarily human, here to learn some lessons, before we move onto the next experience.
And who doesn't love dogs, seriously?
Most people can probably relate to at least 2 of those themes. If you don't like a tear jerker, it may not be for you. In my opinion, movies that are art, are supposed to evoke emotion. For me, movies without humor or emotion, are not that interesting.
And I realize that movies entertain a lot of people in a lot of different ways.
But 96% vs. 44% on a movie with a dog narrator?...
Come on.
For me, this movie nailed it.
I think "critics" lack the soft heart. And that might be key to enjoying a movie like this.
What do you think? Why do movies get such a variance between "critical" and user contributed reviews?
How do you pick what movies you like to watch?
Have you seen this movie? What did you think?
Lets make Stacker News a place to go get the hottest user contributed movie reviews. And when we have enough of them, people won't need "critics" anymore.