I'm not entirely sure taking an average from critics is really useful. They don't judge it on a set of technical merits (although sometimes that plays a part) but its an impression. I think the best way to read a review is to find someone whose taste is similar to your own. I don't really care if some feel-good sports film has a good critics' rating because it's not likely to interest me. And there are many times when the critics' score and the audience score are miles apart. I think that's because the critics are not the audience so they are not suitable judges for someone who is a fan. Looking at the aggregate critics' score isn't really going to tell you if you'll enjoy a film or not. If enjoyment is the point of watching a film then it might not even tell you the film is good or not.
On a side note, Pokemon 3 was the best reviewed? Seriously? I watched that years ago and all I can remember is that I thought it was the most boring thing I had ever seen. It's been a while since I watched it but I remember Pokemon 2000 being so much better than Pokemon 3.
Even more evidence those critics are confused? Lara Croft Tomb Raider got 20%! Is there even a single bad scene there? It's got cool action, great humour and is completely over the top. My sister and I still quote lines from that film! I'm pretty much incapable of unscrewing anything without adding "It's my map, so I know where they all came from." It even has huskies. The sequel was pretty bad though.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
I'm not entirely sure taking an average from critics is really useful. They don't judge it on a set of technical merits (although sometimes that plays a part) but its an impression. I think the best way to read a review is to find someone whose taste is similar to your own. I don't really care if some feel-good sports film has a good critics' rating because it's not likely to interest me. And there are many times when the critics' score and the audience score are miles apart. I think that's because the critics are not the audience so they are not suitable judges for someone who is a fan. Looking at the aggregate critics' score isn't really going to tell you if you'll enjoy a film or not. If enjoyment is the point of watching a film then it might not even tell you the film is good or not.
On a side note, Pokemon 3 was the best reviewed? Seriously? I watched that years ago and all I can remember is that I thought it was the most boring thing I had ever seen. It's been a while since I watched it but I remember Pokemon 2000 being so much better than Pokemon 3.
Even more evidence those critics are confused? Lara Croft Tomb Raider got 20%! Is there even a single bad scene there? It's got cool action, great humour and is completely over the top. My sister and I still quote lines from that film! I'm pretty much incapable of unscrewing anything without adding "It's my map, so I know where they all came from." It even has huskies. The sequel was pretty bad though.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~