The other "average" movie thread got me thinking, and I was curious what people out there disliked that critics really enjoyed or gave high remarks.
I normally see eye to eye with most reviews, especially if they are above the 90% mark. I will RARELY come away thinking, "what the hell did I just watch or spend my time on?"
Mr. Turner (98% on RT) was a miss for me. I didn't get the point, or the true premise. A painter deals with high art society opinions and lives his life as an jerk. End of movie.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mr_turner
Under the Skin (85% on RT) wasn't as disastrous as Mr. Turner, but I still find it more or less just more of a unique stylized flick with interesting cinematography (nothing ground breaking). I read one review that basically said it would have been far better if it didn't try to be "artsy". I probably agree with that statement. The only redeeming quality was Scarlett Johansson
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/under_the_skin_2013
I normally see eye to eye with most reviews, especially if they are above the 90% mark. I will RARELY come away thinking, "what the hell did I just watch or spend my time on?"
Mr. Turner (98% on RT) was a miss for me. I didn't get the point, or the true premise. A painter deals with high art society opinions and lives his life as an jerk. End of movie.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mr_turner
Under the Skin (85% on RT) wasn't as disastrous as Mr. Turner, but I still find it more or less just more of a unique stylized flick with interesting cinematography (nothing ground breaking). I read one review that basically said it would have been far better if it didn't try to be "artsy". I probably agree with that statement. The only redeeming quality was Scarlett Johansson
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/under_the_skin_2013