I can understand it flopping but why did every single critic bash it so bad?

I didn't realise it was ever seen as a bad movie. I watched as a kid on TV and thought it was brilliant. It's still my favourite horror movie.

Anyone can be a critic and most people have shit for taste.

It didn't have any women in it. And AIDS was a thing at the time.

It was just released at a bad time for its type of film.
Contemporary viewers can relate to the autistic stone-faced emotionless characters.

Because 98% of the critics are casual idiots and people who doesn't have a clue about the medium as a whole. Who gives a fuck. Ebert was considered a gold standard for critical thinking and he destroyed this masterwork with prejudices and stupid statements. Fuck all of them.

Because it’s shit like blade runner 2019

What was the reason for the hate again, too violent/gory and no happy ending? Both are way more common in films since, no wonder it was vindicated

>mfw the kid from stranger things 3 is giving a lecture to his friends about how Carpenter's The Thing is considered a classic in 1985

Attached: giphy.gif (250x257, 1.67M)

The critics are like a school of fish reacting to stimulus and pressure. The individual fish was no mind of its own its just goes with the school

BR49 released in 2018

wrong.

The chess computer voice, the alien was a female , Windows acted like a women , and the Black cook was gay.

OP, go read a critic review on any movie out right now. You'll realize that nothing has changed. Critics are almost always shit-eating retards with no taste or self awareness. Roger Ebert was the only critic worth a damn, God rest his cynical soul.

Attached: ....png (640x482, 299K)

>A computer with a female voice taking care of an all-male crew's needs
H-haha imagine that being someone's actual fetish haha

Attached: 1540078558422.jpg (799x580, 88K)

>female computer beats Macready in a chess game
>tfw no advanced therapeutic femdom AI

Because Spielberg's "E.T." family film came out right before it (still in the summertime) and it was a huge success, more than anyone dreamed.

I understood it was good instantly. Maybe you are dumb dumb?

ET home phone
youtube.com/watch?v=6xZif3WmG7I

>why did every single critic bash it so bad
Because that's what critics do. If it's not Oscar-bait, dreary drama about blacks or disabled, made by an acclaimed director (who they are friends with or want to be) or stars a popular actor (who they want to be friends with), or they've been paid for positive coverage. That's the reason why the Golden Globes exist, so journos can be friends with rich celebrities

Critics have always been shit. They have their own subculture and change opinions with the trends. The list of classics that fit shit reviews is so long and embarrassing. Paid shills literally have more integrity than pre-internet movie reviewers.

critics are hacks and are never representative of the people. pretty much humanity is way worse by listening to anyone that is considered an "expert"