Would it be reasonable to judge an automobile by the standards of a submarine? What if I gave a review for a car and started out with the observation that it wasn't water tight to even 1 meter? Or pointed out that when put in the water whether submerged or not it would stall the engine? Or pointed out that its built in sonar system was only capable of detecting objects a couple feet behind it and only when it reversed?
Does any of that sound rational? Obviously not. It is fucking retarded.
And that is what most of the bad reviewers are doing... especially from the newspapers. They're idiot observations like "Dopey and gorey" - the boston globe. No shit, boston globe... it is a screw ball comedy. They're all dopey, you fucking morons.
Or this genius observation: "Has gross jokes" - Star Tribune. Really? Crass humor in a screw ball comedy? That is fucking shocking.
Or how about this idiot comment: ""A silly, sloppy and sophomoric slob-comedy...to paraphrase Shakespeare, it's much ado about very little. "" - SSG Syndicate. Really? A slapstick comedy that is sophomoric? And anyone even vaguely familiar with Shakespeare knows that the "great bard" wrote lots of stupid comedies that weren't about anything either. Much ado about nothing for example was not especially about anything either. It was a lot of jokes and funny situations stitched together into an improbably plot. Yet this twit ironically cites Shakespeare's play in a pathetic attempt to make herself sound sophisticated. When really all she did was confess a lack of understanding as to the subject matter as well as sound laughably pretentious.
I could go on, but you get the point.
Judge a slap stick comedy by the standard of slap stick comedies. Not by the standards of submarines, computer graphics cards, or women's lipstick.