well part 2 only got a 71. so yes, i do have a case then?

You have a case with one movie. Cherry picking much?

It's also hard to determine since Meta can't gather many reviews for movies from the 1970's. They happened to find a single terrible review which brought the score way down. It happens. Godfather managed a perfect 100, which is obcenely high looking at where all of the other movies fall, so I suppose we should lambast them for their crazily high reviews too huh?

What matters to me is that I can look at the top thirty movies reviewed in a year, and the bottom thirty and realize the inherent difference in quality. I trust it enough to check those movies at the top out. However, data is incomplete prior to 2004 I think, so anything before that time, and especially before the internet, could be grossly misjudged.

so lemme see.. what about before sunset? that peice of tripe gets a 90?

Hmmmm...probably not the right movie to use. I personally think Before Sunset may be the best Richard Linklater movie ever, and I give it my highest praise for anyone in the mood for a romantic movie. Have you seen it?

yea i saw it. i saw after the sunset too. my girlfriend talked me into watching em. i thought they both sucked bad. i mean, i'm not the kind of fella who turns down romance movies at the drop of a hat. but these ones just really were bad for my taste. the plot was just overly simplistic and well, nothing an 8 year old can't figure out.

i'm also seeing gladiator and braveheart in the 60's. i mean come on. how do you win best picture, best actor, best director, and best whatever in the oscars and then get a 60 something rating in metacritic?

Regarding Before Sunset, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "nothing an 8 year old can't figure out". Should romantic movies be complicated or something? Personally I don't think an 8 year old would sit through a movie taken as a single scene full of nothing but dialogue and underlying emotions bubbling under the surface for 90 minutes. Personally, I think that movie has some of the best pacing I've ever seen.

Now about Gladiator and Braveheart, I know a lot of people like them, so I'm going to take my own comments as utter blasphemy, but I don't think either movie deserved Best Picture. Also understand the Academy will always favor Fall movies and ones with good awards consideration campaigns. That's how Shakespeare in Love beat out Saving Private Ryan. Superior awards campaign.

Also when you refer to one of the movies as having won "best picture, best actor, best director, and best whatever", which one are you talking about? Braveheart never won Best Actor and Gladiator never won Best Director.

i was just saying that both movies won in many categories, not specifically mentioning which awards they got. i'm just saying that movies that win so many awards can't possibly be that low in a meta standpoint. it just doesn't make sense.

as to before sunset, i mean the entire plot is just a series of events that you already know is coming. you don't expect anything except just petty conversation. its like listening to a couple ramble on about themselves. in fact there's no plot.

Why not try to look at it from the other perspective? Ask the Oscars voters why they vote in movies that don't score that well overall. Let's take this year for example. Your critical darling of this year will be Wall-E, and yet we all know it'll never be up for best picture, let alone win it. So is that the reviewers' faults for over-reviewing Wall-E or the Academy for not recognizing it when the time comes? Considering how often I disagree with the Oscars, I'd say the latter.

Edit: I just realized that only my scenario actually makes any sense. How could a reviewer even know at the time of their review that these movies would go on to win awards? Back when they reviewed them, these were merely movies, nothing more and nothing less.

Your reasons for disliking Before Sunset are precisely why I love it. It's real. The dialogue is real and can be predicted because it feels as real as your own dialogues in life. The plot exists, but it's under the surface. You know that the light banter is going to finally lead to a more relevatory place, and you wait and see what is going to become of these two people that obviously haven't let go of that dream to be together after a 10 year absence.

meh, a movie that doesn't offer anything new isn't worth high praise.

on the note of the oscars, well i've disagreed with the academy a fair share of times as well. but they don't give awards for no reason. they aren't completely idiotic. so i will tend to give them the nod of trust over critics, because critics have messed up more times than i can remember over movies i love.

the examples i gave, groundhog day, the godfather 2 and 3, braveheart, gladiator, are masterpieces in my eyes. critics trash them for some reason, so i put my stake with the academy, and say the critics are insane. i just think that the critics are trying hard to find flaws in those movies because of some weird bias. i dunno.