Critics lie and say that their love of a movie (or hate of one) is not based in politics. Roger Ebert himself made this claim.
He also proudly gave a 0 star rating to a film about a man on death row who is trying to get off. Except the character really was guilty and the movie took place in Texas. He so disagreed with the concepts (and the location) even though he acknowledged the writing and acting and actors were good. He said that you couldn’t make that movie, not in Texas.
He also said that there was no bias in only covering left-wing documentaries because there were so many from the left, so few from the right, and was unwilling to see any conservative documentaries (or film fests) even in his own neighborhood.
Time was the public had to turn to established critics to get a sense of whether a film was enticing or not. Now they can see the trailers online, see what other “common men” are saying about it, etc.
And the track record of the films an audience liked (but that the critics hated) is there to call into question their other picks or slams.
That's because critics/reviewers are liberal bed-wetters who want to live in nannyworld. This movie was made for an audience of Americans fed up with wussyland.
If you want to know which movies are worth seeing—go to rotten green tomatoes. Ignore the critics reviews and pay attention to audience reviews. Movies that score above 80% will not make you feel like you wasted your money. Movies above 90% will make you feel like you got your money’s worth.
Good movie. Reviewed it on my FB page
I have seen a number of films that critics raved about and found them boring.
Sounds like it is the anti-Last Jedi. Tells me I will enjoy the movie.