When the HBO series, “True Detective,” unveiled its fourth season, attention soon fell on the website rottentomatoes.com because of an apparent difference between critical reaction to the latest version of the series and audience opinions.

One writer, Lewis Chilton of The Independent (independent.co.uk), reported “the show runner of the returning anthology complained that the Jodie Foster-fronted series has been targeted by ‘bros’ on Rotten Tomatoes.”

I wasn’t absolutely sure I followed what Chilton was saying — ‘bros’ confused me a bit — but I took the column to mean that some people attacked the fourth season because the two detectives are played by women. Chilton did say there was a feeling the harsh criticism offered by audience members was an effort to protect the reputation of the well-received season one, which featured two male detectives played by Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey.

And the headline on this piece in The Independent was: “The True Detective review debacle show Rotten Tomatoes is becoming the internet’s most useless film website.”

Actually, there is no debacle. Reviews of almost every movie and television series on Rotten Tomatoes and any other entertainment website can be construed as useless. There is no accounting for taste, but, in general, I trust audience reviews more than those of critics, many of whom seem to write in hopes of impressing actors and directors with knowledge of their previous works.

Okay, so why did I even care about this particular program? I guess it was because I’d always been impressed with Jodie Foster, even back when she was a child. Also, I enjoyed season one of “True Detective,” though like almost all multi-part films, it seemed padded and probably could have been twice as good in half the time.

Foster’s season is called “True Detective: Night Country” and is set in Alaska (but mostly filmed in Iceland). The program is dark and dreary, and seems more like a horror film than a mystery. As I watched the first episode, I wondered if other viewers were as disappointed as I was, though I stuck with it through two more episodes, each one worse than the previous, before I gave up on what I decided was a waste of time.

Nothing against female cops — I loved the women who’ve been featured in “Fargo,” both the movie and the TV series, watched every episode of “Cagney and Lacey” and my two all-time favorite TV heroes are U. S. Marshal Mary Shannon (Mary McCormack) of “In Plain Sight” and Nicola Walker's cold case detective Cassie Stuart in the wonderful "Unforgotten" — but Foster’s Chief Liz Danvers and state police detective Navarro (Kali Reis) are impulsive idiots.


So I went back to Google and this time looked for entries under “True Detective sucks” to find out if anyone agreed with me, and found more than I bargained for, with my favorite piece written by Erik Kain on forbes.com.

Kain didn’t mince words, calling “Night Country” one of the worst mystery shows he’d ever seen. “I’m struggling to think of another detective series that I despised as much ... The mystery itself hardly feels like a mystery at all, with no sense of organic urgency or even a coherent investigation ... None of the characters is particularly likable ... Jodie Foster’s Liz Danvers has barely a single redeeming quality and her partner, Detective Navarro (Kali Reis) is just as hard to stomach. You can get away with having a detective be this awful of a human being only if they make up for it with a Hercule Poirot-like intellect. Neither Danvers nor Navarro possess much in the way of little gray cells, however. In the end, I felt nothing but disdain and disgust for both characters.”

Ditto. (Also I am beyond being impressed by indigenous people in scenes intended to teach us about their mysterious ways. Not all mysterious ways are interesting.)

Obviously, those are only two opinions. There are critics who praised the show and said they were impressed by Foster’s performance.

However, there are critics who are impressed with every performance by certain actors. My favorite fairly recent example includes critics who praised the performances of the miscast Robert DeNiro and the over-the-top Al Pacino in Martin Scorcese’s dreadful “The Irishman.”

There comes a point when almost every actor starts phoning it in. They may deny it, but eventually most actors play the character that made them famous. That’s why they’re hired.

Pacino slightly differs from the norm because in the beginning of his career his intensity was contained, and he often seemed on the verge of exploding. Later he played characters who exploded over and over.

DeNiro was most impressive early on, and then became someone who did the best DeNiro impression in a series of forgettable movies.

But that’s just my opinion, one most likely shared by a small percentage of would-be critics.

Anyway, to those who hated “True Detective: Night Country,” you’ve got plenty of company, and the same goes for those who hate Rotten Tomatoes, though I find it a wonderful website for comic relief.

My best laugh came from a line by critic Matt Brunson from a website called Film Frenzy (thefilmfrenzy.com) who reviewed “The Little Things,” a 2019 crime drama that starred Denzel Washington, Rami Malek and Jared Leto.

“Despite the participation of three Oscar winners,” wrote Brunson “it (the film) offers little that’s fresh of exciting.”

Can you imagine a reputable critic saying the same thing many years ago about a film that featured Red Buttons, George Chakiris and Myoshi Umeki, all of whom won Academy Awards?

Oscars, like reviews, are merely matters of opinion, and are awarded for specific achievements. If I were a producer, I wouldn’t bank a dime on a film just because it starred Malek or Leto. Washington? He’s the real deal, though he’s risking his reputation in those “Equalizer” films.

But that is only one person's opinion.