I usually go for a metric along the lines of Chesterton&#x27;s Fence: do the negative critiques seem like they&#x27;re dismissing the film out-of-hand, or do they seem to show an understanding what it was going for and still think it failed to do it well? Roger Ebert was usually pretty good about this, which gives his truly scathing reviews that much more bite [1].<p>[1]: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.rogerebert.com&#x2F;reviews&#x2F;battlefield-earth-2000" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.rogerebert.com&#x2F;reviews&#x2F;battlefield-earth-2000</a><p>my favorite bit: &quot;The director, Roger Christian, has learned from better films that directors sometimes tilt their cameras, but he has not learned why.&quot;