Boogahz wrote:Keverian FireCry wrote:Wait for someone elses opinions? LOL
I'm not a fan of Star Trek and I don't like wasting money on crappy movies. If reviews come out and they are overwhelmingly good or bad then why shouldn't that influence whether or not I see the movie? /shrug
If you have found any critics that seem to mirror your own tastes, go for it. I have not found any which were consistent enough with my own to refer to before scheduling my theater trips.
I don't rely on critics but getting multiple opinions in one place helps sometimes. Metacritic is good for checking out Movies, Games, Books, DVDs, TV shows, Music etc.
http://www.metacritic.com/
Movies always get much lower ratings than PC games. (because movie critics are anal bitch-bastards on the whole) so a movie rated 60 is the equivalent of a game rated 85-90. At the very least, you'll get an idea of whatever you're looking into is about and be able to track down some screenshots, movies etc to see for yourself.
I agree that you can't rely on one critic. Here's two summaries for the movie "Elizabeth: The Golden Age"
75: Expect a fast-paced, beautifully mounted and well-acted soap opera with overripe dialogue that plays fast and loose with history - just like they did in the '30s, '40s and '50s - and you won't come away disappointed.
50: It is a silly film about serious matters.
-----
Critics rate the movie based on their tastes. (they shouldn't, but do) In the case of Elizabeth, If the critic likes drama and isn't worried about historical accuracy, it will get a high rating, if the critic is a historian, they'll rate it lower. Problem is, you could be either so you can't rely on the critic to tell you what's good but scanning over several review summaries will give you a better idea of whether you'd like it or not.