Ignore most of the reviews

"Too many monsters"

I see nothing wrong with this

G. H. (Gman): Well, it's true some critics just don't get Godzilla, haha. ;)

As for the rise of RT, it is part of the larger trend of the move towards quantification over qualitative analysis in society. You see it in sports, businesses and the academia. Everyone demands a number, a correlation and so on. No one cares about qualitative analysis anymore, sadly.

Godzillatheking123 

 Everyone demands a number, a correlation and so on.

That's what I was talking about. I think if something sounds interesting, one should just check it out. Deciding whether to experience something like a movie based on metrics is a form of peer pressure. 

Godzillatheking123,
And as true as that may be, it doesn't make it right. Like I said, in 80s and 90s critics were reserved after audiences had seen the film. Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel even insisted on that kind of order. The former even wrote about the death of film criticism in the mid-2000s as publications were pulling word counts from newspapers and magazines.

When Rotten Tomatoes came into being it only belittled it further. Quantifying thought and analysis may be trendy, but it's not accurate. And in the case of film criticism, we as audiences that assimilate this kind of information have allowed it to happen by turning to RT's numbers.

We certainly have the power to make something as arbitrary as a "tomatometer" irrelevant, but apparently not the will.

We certainly have the power to make something as arbitrary as a "tomatometer" irrelevant, but apparently not the will.

For starters, we could just check out stuff that interests us. Or we can be mindless consumers and just watch and pretend to enjoy whatever comes out with tons of hype and nod heads , be happy and ensure being current for water cooler discussions. 

Do as you are told, buy your tickets,snacks and parking- and enjoy the block buster you are told to enjoy. It sold a lot of tickets so it must be great, right? Whatever. It is both your time and dime. Hopefully you will enjoy- the numbers say you should!

Yes, this is intentionally provocative. The intent is to encourage people to not get caught up in so called expert previews and reviews. 

Screw film critics imo. They don't know a good Godzilla movie and King of the Monsters is looking amazing based on the trailers and t.v. promos. I'll enjoy it if it's kaiju action to the max!

It's not entirely the film critics fault, as some others on here have said.

I'm not saying it's their fault, but to me, they seem to bash anything that isn't up to their high, oscar-tainted standards. It's a movie about giant monster fighting not an award show designed "masterpiece". It's Godzilla not The Departed.

fluttashift54,
And most critics do understand this--People who were once filmmakers and studied film get that not every movie is supposed to be an "Oscar winner". That's a cop out argument. They just expect certain movies to live up to their promised potential and for some it has not.

Look at John Wick: Chapter 3 or Avengers: Endgame for example. Neither are going to win big awards, but both were highly praised by critics for delivering the types of movies they were meant to be.

Now granted, there's some grey area with Godzilla since it comes from a Japanese franchise and there are many American critics that have not studied Japanese cinema. However, seeing as this is an adaptation of that franchise, rather than a cultural transplant or foreign film, that shouldn't be too much of a hurdle to get over.

What he said XD

I just don't really listen to critics. I judge the movie for myself and I think I will enjoy this one for the action and kaiju fanservice. I love Godzilla and have been a fan since I was really young.

Ditto. The only critic I listen to (even then) is the Nostalgia Critic. Also the Angry Video Game Nerd XD

Godzilla has a 43% on rotten tomatoes, but rotten tomatoes is untrustworthy

They're rotten to their core XD (I'M JOKING!!!!! But they aren't extremely trust worthy)

I don't think you should ignore something just because you might not agree with it.

That's true when it comes to something that may affect others, but me having my own opinion on Godzilla King Of The Monsters isn't really going to affect anyone. Except for my friends who aren't particularly interested in Godzilla, or in other words, my friends (irl) because I can't stop talking about Godzilla XD

G. H. (Gman) The problem may be the critic's expectation. Critics are entitled to review a movie however they want, but you may be a little too supportive of critics I think, since you claimed to be one yourself at one time, you might be a bit biased in supporting them, no?

Godzillatheking123,
Considering the lambasting they're getting from many fans who haven't even seen the film yet, I think the bias is on the other side of the court.

Claiming the problem is based on expectation is another cop out argument, especially since expectation is a problem the audience suffers from as well--Many of which don't think about movies as objectively since it's not their job.

G. H. (Gman): Why is "expectations" a cop out? Why must audience members have the same expectations as critics? Sorry, I just don't buy that argument. I can find a movie entertaining even if the critics don't like it. In fact, I can think of quite a few movies I can fault or even say are plain "bad movies" but still enjoy it. 

As for lambasting against critics, that's fair game. Yes, some of it is not really well-founded. But not all. Critics have no issues lambasting films for perceived faults, why is it that they can't accept criticism against their own review?

Godzillatheking123,
It's a cop out because critics, the better ones at least, are specifically paid not to succumb to expectation. If they see an action movie attempting simplistic storytelling with heavy focus on kinetic cinematography and choreography, the expectation may be something boorish and mindless. But if the film accomplishes what it sets out to do with resounding success then pointing it out is part of their job. (Enter, John Wick 1, 2 and 3.)

No one ever said you can't enjoy a movie even if critics don't like it. Nor did anyone suggest you couldn't be objective about a film's poor quality, but still enjoy it. However, that's an entirely different topic altogether.

I'm also not sure where the idea that critics can't accept criticism for their own pieces came from. Many do. Even (or especially?) Roger Ebert changed his opinion on films, like Donnie Darko and revisited Independence Day.

You seem to be cherry picking related issues that really haven't been part of the topic, nor are issues I've addressed at all--I'm not entirely sure why.

What I have covered is that art needs to be kept in check, otherwise we get the cinematic equivalent of paint being thrown against a wall. I've said that film critics' jobs are not to tell you whether or not a film is good, but to help audiences engage it intelligently. Just because they do it through their opinion doesn't mean you have to take it at face value. I've also covered that film criticism has been compromised by a website that turned the process of helping audiences engage with movies into a bland statistic. None of this is necessarily a blatant defense as it is an industry truth. The best way to combat the deluded state of the profession is to stop putting stock in Rotten Tomatoes--Which was always a bad idea.