18% critic 77% audience - so is it good?

Assassins Creed only chance of doing well in North America was it getting good reviews, the same for Passengers because both had boring trailers with not very clear premises. Only Leonardo DiCaprio can sell almost any movie, stars alone cannot save a bad looking movie with an unclear premise.

As for Fassbender every actor has a a bunch of flops on their resume and I adore him as a performer but he should have known better than to do a videogame movie. I understand Vikander doing Tomb Raider because women don't get very many lead roles in action films so she has to take what she can get but Fassbender is a handsome white dude, he could have played in a more interesting would-be franchise starter.

[deleted]

Audiences are plebes that watch what they already know they'll likely fawn upon, irrespective of objective quality, and they'll also lie to themselves and others that they like something (even when they do not), just to save face.

As for critics: they itch to rip on schlock that they're not forced to gild because of industry pressure, so they go to town on crap, like video game adaptations etc. -- films only kids and autists care about. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm not a gamer, no idea about the game. And the film stunk the cinema up.
Wish I'd gone to watch Underworld instead!
Maybe, if you played the game as a kid it might be a thrill.

Early audience reviews are always really high or, if there's been some kind of controversy, really low.
Because of that, there's really no point in trying to make an argument about a possible divide.

Best to wait a few months till the ratings level out a bit first.

I rated it an 84%. Not perfect, but still quite good.

such a divide

77% is probably from fanboys who would overrate it even if it sucked. So I would trust the critics.