Battle: LA- A-
Red Riding Hood- B+
Just Go With It- B+
Beastly- B+
Big Mommas: Like Father Like Son- B+
Season of the Witch- B

The people who take the time to review on Yahoo basically like everything. And I mean EVERYTHING. I looked through bad movies today and couldn't find anything lower than a B-. And I was trying.

So with Yahoo user ratings, you need to grade it on a scale.

A+= actual A
A= actual A/B
A-= actual B/C
B+= actual C/D
B= actual D/F
B-= actual F

^^^ this is going to lead you down a more accurate path.

Other comments regarding critics:


>given that professional critics are a bunch of douchebags who
>often have far reaching criticisms, i take that c from 9 of
>them with a grain of salt. people will say "oh, if 9 of them
>say its a c... it must be a c!"....

What comments about the actual film in Ebert's review did you think were far-reaching? I haven't seen it yet-- maybe this weekend-- but these types of movies are often strewn with one-dimensional characters and action without stakes. I usually enjoy them for what they are, but they're not "good movies."

>but then, you know, 165 people who don't get paid to rip
>movies with actual budgets to shreds and actually watch movies
>to be entertained and not write a fucking dissertation on it

Ebert gave 4 stars to Salt and Inception. He also just gave 4 stars to Rango. So he loves what he considers a well-made big budget film. Tons of critics feel this way. Even Armond White, who I dislike strongly, raved about Jonah Hex and the Crank films. Sure, they may be some snooty frappalattechino critics who have blogs or write for indie mags who only praise little films, but the overwhelming majority of major critics love well-made big-budget fare because it's so entertaining when done right.