1) The Last Jedi got high grades because, despite it being a bad Star Wars movie, it is still a good movie (according to most critics). The critics are supposed to review a movie as a movie, not as a sequel.

2) Okay, you wouldn't give The Last Jedi more than a 5/10. Great. Most critics disagree. It's okay to disagree with the critics. I myself wouldn't give Frozen more than a 3/10, and you don't see me going around saying that critics can't tell a good movie from a bad movie because it has a Metascore of 74 and a 90% on RT. Because that's MY OPINION on the film, and it doesn't need to be in accordance with the critics. That doesn't mean the critics are bad at critiquing movies. That just means that they liked a movie I didn't.

3) Scores are surprisingly subjective. The level of quality I want a film to have before I give it an 8/10 is surely different from the level of quality you want a film to have before you give it an 8/10. Two people can enjoy a film exactly the same and give it radically different scores.

4) Critic scores for games usually align with your scores because a game involves much more technical aspects than a movie does. And technical aspects are much more objective than creative aspects. A game's score involves gameplay, bugs, etc., while a movie's score will mostly care about its story. That's why movie scores generally vary so much more than game scores too (Venom's scores vary between 12 and 75. Super Mario Party's scores vary between 60 and 90.)

Venom's average rating is 4.5, BvS's is 4.9, so I wouldn't say that.

To be fair, the school I go to if you get a 30% or above on your test, you are considered gifted.

Are we shocked?

I usually don't trust RT with movie scores, but Metacritic has Venom at 35 right now so I'll trust their score .

aren't socialists supposed to fight the concept of hierarchies?

ot the trailers looked good but i haven't watched it

You mean I should trust critics and journalists who get paid by the number of people that look at their material. How does one get viewers over another aritcle/review? By having unique, new and original material.

Well let me ask you this then. What are the chances that Disney invites you to one of their closed door events, or a private screening, or many of the other things they do if your reviews are largely negative towards them? Probably not. How about gaming. Lets say you give shit reviews allt he time. What are chances Sony sends you a review copy?

What about all the free swag you see companies send reviewers/critics that they open for viewers? Ect.

How can I trust someone who's livelihood is dictated by a company that they are reviewing giving them stuff or letting them see stuff only "press" get to see? 

Then you have the reviewers that write a review with words that no one ever uses. They just sound like they are smelling their own farts like their a fine wine. That's great and all you spent 100k+ on an education to write about how amazing Ant-Man and the Wasp was. Good for you.

That logic does make sense theoretically, but in practice things are very different. Let's take Disney as an example since you mentioned them. Critics should be afraid of giving bad scores to their films since they make up more than a third of every released movie, right? But the last Pirates of the Caribbean has a 39 on Metacritic, one of the scores being a 0. Alice Through the Looking Glass has a 34, with one of the scores being a 0 too. Those are just two examples.

Let's talk about gaming. Using Sony as an example, since you mentioned them too. Here is a list of games published by them in 2018 with yellow ratings (mixed or average reviews, what people usually consider bad scores): Track Lab, Animal Force, Salary Man Escape VR, World of Warriors, Frantics, The Inpatient. And Bravo Team, also published by them, has a 45, a red rating (generally unfavourable reviews). Out of the 14 games published by them this year that have Metascores, only 7 have green ratings (generally favourable reviews). And still, Sony seems to be letting these reviewers get exclusive "press stuff" and sending review copies to them.

You're hating critics for what you think they do, and not for what they actually do.

That's called writing a compelling text. If you just keep reusing the same words over and over, your text will get stale and boring. They're not trying to look fancy and smarter than you, they're just trying to write a good text. Don't blame them for your lack of vocabulary.

Lets be honest. It doesn't matter what quality the movie had. It was going to get negative reviews from critics with agendas regardless. Some probably want Sony's movies to fail and some are probably Disney MCU fanboys who just want Venom in the MCU. I watched it last night after reading and watching every negative review from "professional" film critics and "professional" Youtubers. I can confirm that these "professional" critics are either lying or dumber than a box of rocks. Shortly after the negative reviews from critics and shortly after regular people started watching, you may have seen the nonsense narrative pop up recently claiming the film is "so bad it is good". That is probably because the film is actually just good.

SPOILER ALERT. I will try to keep spoilers to a minimum but it is difficult to filter the negative propaganda from these garbage critics and not give at least some stuff away.

Many critics have tried to poke holes in the plot of the movie yet they all seem like they're either lying to trash the movie or just being dumb.

- They claimed that it doesn't make sense how Venom decided to help Eddie and defend Earth from Riot. NEWS FLASH! Venom fought other symbiotes in the comics. Symbiotes compete over hosts and Venom was not liked by other symbiotes. Venom was helping Eddie because he needed Eddie as a host and Venom wants Earth for himself. He doesn't want the other symbiote to come to Earth.

- Angry Joe attacked the way Riot made his way from a different country to the Life Foundation. Riot was trying to use Carlton Drake to bring the other symbiotes to Earth. Carlton Drake was basically Eddie's enemy while Riot was Venom's enemy. They both had a common goal and decided to work together. It was their relationship that made the movie.

- Many critics attacked the tone of the movie, claiming it had 3 different tones. I only experienced 1 tone in the movie. It felt like a dark comedy similar to Deadpool but with much less sexual, raunchy themes. It also felt like an MCU quality movie with the light hearted humor but mixed with a bit from Deadpool. 

The tone of the movie was perfect in that they succefully portrayed Venom as a violent alien that wants to feast on humans while still keeping it PG 13 for upcoming cross over. Venom lacks morality. He was sinister but also funny at times because he doesn't understand humans. Venom and Eddie shared this strange relationship. Once Eddie discovered that Venom needed him to survive Eddie realized he had leverage over the symbiote. Venom doesn't want to lose his host.

- Critics attacked the way Venom was funny. Venom was a sinister goof ball in the comics. He's an alien that preys on other species. Humor is exactly what they were going for. Think Infinity War. Infinity War was a dark, grim, and serious movie overall but it had humor at times with Thor, Starlord, and others. Venom feels similar but you didn't see people complain about it in Infinity War.

Many of these critic reviews don't even read like professional reviews. They read more like lazy, incoherent, sh*t posts written in 5 minutes just mocking the movie because they want it to fail.

I thought they did an amazing job and I don't get what many reviewers are talking about. Venom is a more complex character to portray in live action. It was risky, and could've easily gone wrong but they nailed it for an actual trilogy. Much better than I expected. I expected a dark serious horror type movie but instead it surprisingly felt like an MCU quality movie with light humor. It felt like something that could fit into the MCU. For example, one funny part was when Eddie hears Venom for the first time. Eddie is looking into a sink mirror because he feels sick, sees his face change, hears Venom's voice, and he immediately screams like a girl and gets thrown into a bathtub and passes out. The scene was in the trailer but was funnier in the movie. It wasn't as good as Civil War, Infinity War, or Winter Soldier but it was better than Thor The Dark World, Antman, Spiderman Homecoming (movie was hot garbage and only praised because it was in the MCU) and Doctor Strange. The movie does not deserve a 31%. I think the movie did Venom fans justice which is why the audience score is so much higher than the critic score. If Marvel Studios had made this exact same film I would guarantee the score would be higher.

The downside to the movie was that there wasn't as much action as I hoped but the time they spent establishing Eddie as a character before meeting Venom was crucial to the movie. The highlight of the movie was how Eddie and Venom learned to work together. Why Eddie decides to embrace the symbiote. Eddie is better portrayed in the movie. He's a good guy that accepts Venom's violent nature. The final scene is important also. It shows the culmination of everything in the movie. Venom as a character didn't exist until that scene.

As a Venom fan since the 90's this movie was sort of a relief. Tom Hardy was excellent. I thought they were going to screw it up but this has given me confidence in Morbius. I hope this leads to sequels. If you go into the movie expecting to see the terrible stuff critics are saying, I think you will be pleasantly surprised. Go watch it for yourself if you're a Venom fan.

I'm gonna see it because I like how venom is awkward, goofy but lethal and dangerous. What does he know about slang jokes etc. He's from outer space. I do believe there might be some issues but i think overall it'll be better than thor the dark world, iron man 3, the amazing spider man series etc. Yet not reach the levels of winter soldier or avengers. I think it will be an okay movie to watch