I mean, "your kid will love it but you'll think it sucks" seems like a fair review of a movie who's primary audience is going to be children and the parents they got to drive them to the theater/rental store
They intentionally added a character saying "Oh shit!" purely to bump the rating up to PG, so like legally parents had to accompany their kids to see the toy commercial, so I think it's fair enough in this case.
Hard disagree. I liken it to walking into a steak house and then complaining there is no vegetarian option. A critic isn't suppose to inform me of a movies clearly defined genre.
If they're publishing reviews in a periodical that targets a vegetarian audience, it makes a ton of sense for them to point out which meat-heavy restaurants actually have decent vegetarian options and which don't.
I don't have kids, so I don't really care if kids will like a movie. I want to know if I will like it. Reviews like this are useful for me. As a couple random examples off the top of my head, Zootopia and The Mitchells vs. the Machines are both movies I enjoyed that I would have dismissed as kids movies if it weren't for reviews saying that they're movies that adults will like too.
More like informing people who are gonna get dragged into the steak restaurant by their aggressively Texan uncle who's declared war on his own arteries that this is gonna be the kind of asshole steak restaurant that rags on you over not also being carnivorous enough to make a Tyrannosaur blush
You're supposed to cultivate your critics, get to know them, and use them as barometers. Different critics have different perspectives, goals, and styles.
I think we can all agree that random critiques on the internet don't typically speak to you personally.
I do not look to critics to tell me which obscure 80's cartoons I'm not going to like. I guess some people do. But if you were seeking out 80s cartoons and they told you this one was a miss then they did you wrong.
For example, one review writes, "really good and kind of underrated." Then proceeds to give it a 7/10.
One reviewer informs potential viewers that the movie intended for children isn't intented for adults.
One critic says, "The nostalgists and fanboys are welcome to this one." Then gives a 1/4. Which isn't really a review it's just him insulting the fan base.
One critic calls it a "90-minute television episode." When in fact it is a movie to complement a television series.
So, if this is all kosher with you then I guess you're just better then anyone who might appreciate the big swings and true to genre themes that this movie is all about.
You gotta relax my man, reviews are subjective and scores don't matter. Nobody is going to rotten tomatoes to decide if they're going to watch Transformers 1986, they've already decided. Find some reviewers who align with your taste and follow their recommendations, that's why critics exist in the first place.
So your problem with critic reviews is they don't hold your opinion about Transformers? I don't find any of the takes particularly vapid. They actually find the movie vapid.
It absolutely was a toy commercial, meant to introduce its audience to a new line of characters as sales were flagging for the old toys. It blew up in their faces when all the kids got all upsetti spaghetti over the deaths of their most beloved characters, so much so that the GIJoe movie had to be rewritten because Duke was meant to die.