We Are Still Here got 95% on Rottentomatoes. Why do critics not understand horror? Why did they love this middling jump-scare fest of cliches, but thumb their nose at better films that actually disturb you psychologically? I admit, I thought the film had its charms, especially the hilarious gore towards the end, but it didn't frighten or scare me or disturb me the way a true horror film would.
This is the state of horror now
It's either throwback style or lol so meta
Because the last half-hour is 11/10 and the rest was decent.
> but thumb their nose at better films that actually disturb you psychologically?
Pretty much every psychological horror film gets a critical love-wave. What are you talking about?
>>70742305
>but thumb their nose at better films
Like?
>>70742364
Psychologically was probably not the right word. I'm talking about horror films that make you feel nasty deep inside. They get to you on an emotional level. Lovely Molly, for instance, was hated by critics, but it made me feel disturbed and awful inside. Critics hated it.
>>70742433
It just depends on the type of film. Sun Don't Shine was incredibly nasty and disturbing and the critics loved it.
>>70742305
It is YOU that does not understand horror, kiddo.
>>70742433
>saying critics hated it twice
Special fucking snowflake here guys
>>70742537
I'll say this, We Are Still Here does not deserve the score it got. But I'll also do something that most /tv/ posters won't. I'll admit that I am wrong, and I was a dumbass for posting this thread. My anger at being roped in to see a shitty film put me into a retard frenzy that made me create a post where I generalized shit like a fucking spaz. I will own up to that, at least.
>>70742654
It's not 9.5/10, it's 7.2/10. The Witch got 91%, but it's still arguably a better movie because the average score is 7.8.
>>70742579
The whole point of the thread was to complain about critics. Why would I not mention them more than once, you twat.
>>70742735
Thanks for the correction. I never bothered to look at average score before, just the big numer on top.
>>70742790
I used to be surprised by how many /tv/ poster fail to understand the RT score is just a ratio of positive to negative reviews, and not a score. Every critic could give a movie a mediocre 6/10 score, but it would have 100%.
I'd tell you to either follow the average score, or go to less inflated review sites like Metacritic, but the problem is a lot of critics that only write on the internet are pretty juvenile, and far too young to have the experience to review films as well as critics in national publications. It's why more popular movies like capeshit have HUNDREDS of more reviews than period dramas, and they're usually "geek sites" that skew toward gushing out perfect 10s.
The only real way to win is to select a few critics you trust and see what they say. Or just see the movies for yourself.
>>70742305
>yet another person who doesn't understand how the RT score works
95% means that 95% of the critics thought that it was at least watchable. In other words they could have all thought of it as a 6/10 movie.
>>70742790
That's how they get ya
