15 Films Critics Got Right (But Audiences Got Wrong)

Rotten Tomatoes: 67% (Average rating: 6.3)

IMDb: 5.3

Spring Breakers is an incredible movie. Marketed as a shallow partying movie, it instead turned out to be one of the most artistically refined and powerful art-house films of the decade. In what world does that add up to a mere 5.3?

Sure, the film does require patience and was marketed in a misleading way, but once again, false expectations should not lead to unfair judgement of a film. Reviews should be based on the film we did actually get, not whether or not the film was what we thought we were getting.

Spring Breakers is genuinely brilliant. The visuals are flawless, the acting is great (especially from James Franco as a crazy drug dealer), the themes are emotionally resonant, the soundtrack is stunning,.. what's not to love?

Every movie should be given a fair chance and it seems that while critics (although the score of 67% is still too low) were more open to the movie, audiences just rejected it, seemingly just because of its weirdness. This really didn't feel fair and what should (and thankfully is in some circles) be regarded as a modern classic has the same IMDb score as A Good Day to Die Hard. That's pretty upsetting.

If judged as the sensory, hallucinogenic and surreal art-house movie that it is - instead of as a narrative drama - Spring Breakers is great. Remember: always give movies a fair chance.

Should Be Rated: 7.8