Since nobody cares about my redditr comments anyway, allow me to be a smartass for a second, okay? :-) I often feel like many people still don't understand what Rotten Tomatoes does.

A score of 35% doesn't mean a film is 65% bad - with 100% being the perfect film. It means that 65% of the reviewers didn't enjoy the film. It's not actually a rating of the film's quality - it simply sums up the number of critics who did or didn't like a film. No movie "deserves" a certain RT score. That's just not what RT is about.

IMO Snyder saying "It's not a movie for critics" is just lazy, though. Critics become critics because they love movies - not because they feel better than "regular" people. Someone who watches 100+ new films a year (and spends time reflecting upon them and their place in cinema history) obviously has a different perspective on what makes a great movie - because more often than not, he actually does have a deeper understanding of filmmaking and storytelling.

That doesn't make a critic's taste in films better than anyone elses - but it might raise his standards as to what he expects a movie to bring to the table.

I feel like saying "It's not a movie for critics" actually says: "It's not a film for people who analyse storytelling, character development, or basic technical issues."

Enjoying a movie is a personal and subjective experience, yes, but there's a craft to creating this experience.

I think a big issue is: People who enjoy movies that get panned by critics, often have no idea how great a film could be, if the director had made a few different decisions - and (some) critics do.

That being said: Yes, sometime critics are dumb. One of my favourite films of all time is "Crank - High Voltage", by the way. Honestly. It's a misunderstood masterpiece.