Ignore most of the reviews

I just don't really listen to critics. I judge the movie for myself and I think I will enjoy this one for the action and kaiju fanservice. I love Godzilla and have been a fan since I was really young.

Ditto. The only critic I listen to (even then) is the Nostalgia Critic. Also the Angry Video Game Nerd XD

Godzilla has a 43% on rotten tomatoes, but rotten tomatoes is untrustworthy

They're rotten to their core XD (I'M JOKING!!!!! But they aren't extremely trust worthy)

I don't think you should ignore something just because you might not agree with it.

That's true when it comes to something that may affect others, but me having my own opinion on Godzilla King Of The Monsters isn't really going to affect anyone. Except for my friends who aren't particularly interested in Godzilla, or in other words, my friends (irl) because I can't stop talking about Godzilla XD

G. H. (Gman) The problem may be the critic's expectation. Critics are entitled to review a movie however they want, but you may be a little too supportive of critics I think, since you claimed to be one yourself at one time, you might be a bit biased in supporting them, no?

Godzillatheking123,
Considering the lambasting they're getting from many fans who haven't even seen the film yet, I think the bias is on the other side of the court.

Claiming the problem is based on expectation is another cop out argument, especially since expectation is a problem the audience suffers from as well--Many of which don't think about movies as objectively since it's not their job.

G. H. (Gman): Why is "expectations" a cop out? Why must audience members have the same expectations as critics? Sorry, I just don't buy that argument. I can find a movie entertaining even if the critics don't like it. In fact, I can think of quite a few movies I can fault or even say are plain "bad movies" but still enjoy it. 

As for lambasting against critics, that's fair game. Yes, some of it is not really well-founded. But not all. Critics have no issues lambasting films for perceived faults, why is it that they can't accept criticism against their own review?

Godzillatheking123,
It's a cop out because critics, the better ones at least, are specifically paid not to succumb to expectation. If they see an action movie attempting simplistic storytelling with heavy focus on kinetic cinematography and choreography, the expectation may be something boorish and mindless. But if the film accomplishes what it sets out to do with resounding success then pointing it out is part of their job. (Enter, John Wick 1, 2 and 3.)

No one ever said you can't enjoy a movie even if critics don't like it. Nor did anyone suggest you couldn't be objective about a film's poor quality, but still enjoy it. However, that's an entirely different topic altogether.

I'm also not sure where the idea that critics can't accept criticism for their own pieces came from. Many do. Even (or especially?) Roger Ebert changed his opinion on films, like Donnie Darko and revisited Independence Day.

You seem to be cherry picking related issues that really haven't been part of the topic, nor are issues I've addressed at all--I'm not entirely sure why.

What I have covered is that art needs to be kept in check, otherwise we get the cinematic equivalent of paint being thrown against a wall. I've said that film critics' jobs are not to tell you whether or not a film is good, but to help audiences engage it intelligently. Just because they do it through their opinion doesn't mean you have to take it at face value. I've also covered that film criticism has been compromised by a website that turned the process of helping audiences engage with movies into a bland statistic. None of this is necessarily a blatant defense as it is an industry truth. The best way to combat the deluded state of the profession is to stop putting stock in Rotten Tomatoes--Which was always a bad idea.

G. H. (Gman): Hehehe, you clearly didn't read the reaction from critics after fans were upset over some of their bad reviews of the Dark Knight and bad-mouth the critics. Not really excusable behavior for Batman fans, but those critics who took issue with the fan reaction can be also be seen as rather thin-skinned.  

As for enjoying movies without regard to critical opinion, be honest, in this day and age with RT being all the rage, is that really all that realistic for most casual moviegoers? Come on. You and me (and those other posters on this site) may beg to differ over the credibility of RT, but the general audience? I'm not sure they can escape from the influence of RT so easily...

Godzillatheking123,
I likely missed it because there weren't many bad reviews for The Dark Knight to pick at. Imagine a movie getting almost universal praise and the select few that aren't on board get blasted. At that point the critics and audience are in agreement against a minority and there's really no reason for Batman fans to get up in arms about something so mild.

"As for enjoying movies without regard to critical opinion, be honest, in this day and age with RT being all the rage, is that really all that realistic for most casual moviegoers?"

Considering the audience score vs. the critic score on RT, you could say yes. But then you would have to put stock in the critical score as well.

Granted, we know RT has the power to effect box office numbers (not always, but industry insiders say otherwise) which is why it's a bad idea. Again, this isn't the fault of critics this is the fault of a website, owned by a conglomerate (Disney) that's always been a very bad idea for both critics and audiences. That's sort of been one of the key points I've been driving at for the last two pages here. I'm not sure where the disconnect is.

But enjoying a movie despite the "tomatometer" is still a choice. And I see/know plenty of casual audience members that go against the grain. Or tomato.