Not to my knowledge. I rarely look at usernames!
Star Trek Rotten Tomatoes Rating
- Thread starter Argus Skyhawk
- Start date
I'm only seeing 42.
They haven't updated the top, but if you scroll through the reviews, there are actually 45 reviews now.
Boycott Armond White!
They KNEW this guy was going to give it a bad review... and he did. I say we all comment. 
He didn't like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Reader, Revolutionary Road, Doubt, Milk, Slumdog Millionaire, Changeline, Vicky Christina Barcelona, The Dark Knight, The Wrestler, or Iron Man. Hard to please...
He didn't like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Reader, Revolutionary Road, Doubt, Milk, Slumdog Millionaire, Changeline, Vicky Christina Barcelona, The Dark Knight, The Wrestler, or Iron Man. Hard to please...
"Do it! Do it!"
It's 98% 
The sky is falling
The sky is falling
Holy crap it's down to 98% 
Who knew it ?
They KNEW this guy was going to give it a bad review... and he did. I say we all comment.
He didn't like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Reader, Revolutionary Road, Doubt, Milk, Slumdog Millionaire, Changeline, Vicky Christina Barcelona, The Dark Knight, The Wrestler, or Iron Man. Hard to please...
Does it say what the hell he DOES like?
I'm hard to please too -- I didn't like Titanic or Forrest Gump but come on!!!!!!!!!
Everyone at Rotten Tomatoes was talking about it. He just posts bad reviews simply for the heck of it, it looks like. He doesn't like Science Fiction, so I don't even understand why he bothered to review it.
He likes: Confessions of a Shopaholic, The Signal, Transporter 3, Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married and The Nanny Diaries... and War. Basically anything that's critically panned he goes and writes a glowing review. He's opposite man.
He points out that "Starship Troopers, Minority Report, Mission to Mars or even Blade Runner or The Matrix" set visionary standards, references Spielberg in a positive way, and alludes to Sam Peckinpah and Sergei Eisenstein -- I'd say these works/auteurs are people that impressed him in at least one way.They KNEW this guy was going to give it a bad review... and he did. I say we all comment.
He didn't like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Reader, Revolutionary Road, Doubt, Milk, Slumdog Millionaire, Changeline, Vicky Christina Barcelona, The Dark Knight, The Wrestler, or Iron Man. Hard to please...
Does it say what the hell he DOES like?
I'm hard to please too -- I didn't like Titanic or Forrest Gump but come on!!!!!!!!!
His complaint is the same as mine about modern Hollywood films -- they mostly just seem like expensive TV shows.
Let me get this straight: some film, scratch that, cultural critic decides that Star Trek is reflective of a cancer on society, an aesthetic disease that reduces audiences to immature adolescents. He presents exhibits A and B, Wolverine and Star Trek. He doesn't spend much time on either, except to lambast them for failing to meet his intellectual threshold.
Someone should send him a memo that spectacle-as-entertainment is neither new nor noteworthy. Enclosed with this memo, someone should send him a copy of Top Gun and the top grossing action film from every subsequent summer.
This critic shows a profound disrespect for the audiences he purports to esteem. He doesn't trust audiences to discern among different types of entertainment. If people want to watch visceral, popcorn cinema, this preference doesn't imply, as he does, that they are teenagers. Instead, they might simply enjoy some escapist fantasy to go along with their Herzogand and Kieslowski.
This critic implies that there is no place in our cultural pantheon for such film, except for immature mouth breathers. Perhaps he should trust audiences to make informed choices and judge movies by their own merits and not by whether they measure up to his intellectual evangelism.
Someone should send him a memo that spectacle-as-entertainment is neither new nor noteworthy. Enclosed with this memo, someone should send him a copy of Top Gun and the top grossing action film from every subsequent summer.
This critic shows a profound disrespect for the audiences he purports to esteem. He doesn't trust audiences to discern among different types of entertainment. If people want to watch visceral, popcorn cinema, this preference doesn't imply, as he does, that they are teenagers. Instead, they might simply enjoy some escapist fantasy to go along with their Herzogand and Kieslowski.
This critic implies that there is no place in our cultural pantheon for such film, except for immature mouth breathers. Perhaps he should trust audiences to make informed choices and judge movies by their own merits and not by whether they measure up to his intellectual evangelism.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
