You can't be an expert at everything. You can't possibly be able to provide a fair review on something you know nothing about, or not enough of it. I wouldn't critique a movie in a particular universe if I wasn't knowledgeable of that universe to begin with.
Like many others, I paid honest money to sit down and view Batman v Superman after reading all the negative reviews it was getting. Yes, speaking only for me, I found some elements that didn't meet MY expectations, but I would not dare rate the movie as bad. It wasn't horrible, I never found a scene boring.
So I couldn't understand why the rating from Rotten Tomatoes was so bad? Fans are now questioning conspiracies in Hollywood that suggest media outlets are being paid off to give particular movies a bad review. That's the tone of the conversation with movie fans as we are all agreeing on the same thing: Batman v Superman may have not met the superhero team movie standards set by The Avengers & X-Men, but it surely didn't deserve the level of negativity in the reviews it received by well known media outlets.
Even DAREDEVIL got some hate. I ran into a review piece from The NY Times and it wasn't a really good view of what the series was, in my point of view. The reviewer stated there was plot confusion in the storylines, Charlie Cox was "bland" as Matt Murdock, and the result of season 2 of Daredevil "was a talky, pokey narrative, that wasn't brought to life by its action scenes, no matter how good they were."
That was the NY Times talking about a show that most fans would agree hit all of its marks this season. I found the story done very well, and would never call Charlie Cox's performance as the blind lawyer from NYC that can open up a can on Hell's Kitchens bad guys bland at all.
Yet, I know about the Daredevil universe, and judged it against what the comic books originally portrayed. I was entertained and from the majority of great reviews season 2 received, I ain't the only one who can say they disagree with The NY Times.
What am I trying to say? Media outlets should seriously think about letting writers with a better understanding of the different universes within the comic book genre judge how good or how bad a movie or series is. Better that than some snooty, up-nose, too good to enjoy the movie because they'd rather be at Sundance-type of critic who is more qualified to pick Oscar contenders.
Maybe it sounds biased, but look at it this way. Fans stuck a fork into the new Fantastic Four movie, not because it was a bad movie but rather because it did not depict nor tell story correctly. Now, had it NOT been Fantastic Four but rather just a science fiction film that had nothing in relation to the Marvel brand then it wouldn't have received that much hate. The movie wasn't bad, it just wasn't Fantastic Four.
Moviepilot has blessed me every now and then with sneak peek screenings where I have sat next to some of those critics who go in looking at whether a movie is an Oscar or Golden Globe contender; I, on the other hand, sit there waiting to see if the movie is going to entertain me, as it will many others who eventually will see it too.
Modern comic book genre projects deserve to be judged by those looking to be entertained by those universes. I don't care whether Batman v Superman is going to win the Oscar, or trample every other comic book movie record in existence. I just care that it will justify the $11 ticket price needed to see it at the box office, and leave me entertained. I think most fans will agree with that too!