That’s how the people who use and consider RottenTomatoes valid should be called; but let me explain why I say so - and after I do, you’ll agree with me.
Today I went to watch Robin Hood with Taron Egerton and Jamie Foxx (and I absolutely loved it ♥♥ ); on RottenTomatoes the movie has a score of 52% and is described as a silly cash grab with confusing action scenes and little of Robin Hood, which translates to “the film is sh*t because it doesn’t tell the story the usual way”....as if not being the (umpteenth) traditionally-set screen version makes it automatically bad. That way of thinking is nothing but sheer narrow-mindness.
It’s true the movie is not historically accurate or a by-the-book depiction of the canonical legend, but as I see it there are already too many Hood movies like that. This new version spins things around - starting from the opening battle scene (which is a parallel with the real world) and the final twist - and visually shows us (with the set, clothes, characters, etc.) how and why the Robin Hood tale is literally ageless.
If people don’t see or understand that, it doesn’t mean the film is bad....it means those people need to broaden their (prejudiced) horizons - the same horizons that made the RottenTomatoes “reviewers” rate Guy Ritchie’s King Arthur movie as sh*t exclusively because it had a David Beckham few-minutes-long cameo, as if that scene made the whole movie....talk about closed-off minds.
This “rant” is the perfect example of why RottenTomatoes reviews are even less reliable than the reviews made by the trolls on YouTube, and should be trusted as much as the chinese clone of some tech product.
See you on next entry; many cheers. XOXO