recently I was reading some reviews of the movie "Hancock" with Will Smith. Normally reviews are very much filled the persons opinions of various things and not often specific about things in the movie.

This time I noticed a few getting very specific about the relationship between 2 characters in the movie. What I noticed was in the movie the relationship is explained is pretty specific details, but many critics seemed liked they watched the first half of the movie or maybe 15 minutes then the last 15.

So I wonder with such a simple job can't they bother to even see a movie all the way through? I never paid a lot of attentiond to them before, but reading the ones recently really showed me how it seems like most of them got their jobs for an ability on how well they can something is bad.

Answers on a postcard please !!!

maybe some critics are better than others

if you are so smart you should be able to find a good one.

and if you are so smart why dont realize that you are doing the exact same thing you are accusing them of doing - pointing out how bad something is

I never read review of any movie...

I don't do my job properly, i don't expect others to do theirs.

You can't write a simple sentence in intelligible English. So why should I believe you could understand something as "simple" as a movie review? I doubt you have the capacity to understand TV Guide.

for example.... www.rottentomatoes.com

how hard was that?

is that movie al out?