>>212488117
Yes.
On Rotten Tomatoes, multiple critics literally admitted that not only is he the best part of a good movie but that it’s “passable”. Yet gave it a rotten review anyway. They didn’t even try to hide their bias.
Had he not been canceled the score would have been higher.

>>212471389
>no argument against the data
Post all the ugly WEBM’s you want, doesn’t change reality
Having critics do this fundamentally makes it a non-level playing field