Okay, you set yourself up for this, but you can further add it to your self-annihilation tally (as Barry Burton might say, you are the master of self-annihilation).
At no point in time did I say that Aliens was poorly received. Your initial point was that it has a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, thus it is somehow a perfect movie (or something). I don't know, I can't keep track with how your clown school mind works anymore.
The problem, as I said, is that an aggregated score for a film that was released over twenty years ago - prior to the point where they archived reviews from major publications - is not an accurate reflection of critical reception of the time. Aliens' Rotten Tomatoes score consists of 43 reviews (many that were not even published at the time of its release), which is unlikely to have been the number of published reviews at the time of its release. And although the fact that it was well-received by critics is no secret, if you're going to say it was well-received by all critics at its release, you're a moron.
This is why, although very popular with pop-cinema and genre fans (such as yourself), Aliens never received major awards consideration outside of a nomination for Sigourney Weaver. If, indeed, it had received one-hundred percent support from critics at release, you would have to conclude that it would have likely been nominated for Best Picture or Best Director.
I mean, even a mediocre film like Avatar is will probably secure such nominations.
So, as I stated, a 100% Rotten Tomatoes is not an accurate reflection of critical reception upon release. You're a moron. But, to be honest, I would not expect any less from you.
Poll
