Complete Bewilderment

Rating: 3/10 (21 January 2017)

I never write movie reviews on this site. Now, I feel obligated to do so after seeing the Meta and User scores of this particular one.
So, I've tried to decipher the reason behind the scores. Is it because Patrick Stewart stars? Am I missing something that makes this movie highly appealing to fans of metal? If i were to clutch at straws, was the marketing on point? Are the reviews from attendees of one or more of the many film festivals that also praised it in the form of awards? And this would at least explain the User scores; did raters watching the film post-death of Anton Yelchin allow their sympathy to override their logic?
I am absolutely baffled. This film is SO similar to SO many mediocre- to-poor (of which this is the latter) horror/thriller films of the past that I almost feel personally insulted to see it receive feedback movies ten times greater in quality didn't even come close to reaching in the mediasphere.
So shall we start on why this movie is such a common, run-of-the-mill substandard product that you'd rightly think of as just another cheap, formulaic horror movie the first time you laid eyes on it when browsing on-demand movie service collections? Let's.
From the get-go, no effort is made to build or present the characters as likable; not helped by the dull, bored acting of the typical group of DUMB kids the movie focuses on. The plot, featuring heavy mention of the neo- Nazi cult the group of dumbasses fall 'victim' to breaks absolutely no ground, rather your attention span or desire to even care. A cast that would have benefited more from anonymity yet is filled by high-profile names such as the aforementioned Stewart, Imogen Poots, and Anton Yelchin? (Many people act like he was a Hollywood dynamo since his passing, like they always do). Deaths of key characters that had far less innovation than the remake of Cabin Fever, which has Meta and User score ratings of 14 and 3.7 (even though it was more entertaining to watch). A villain (and actor, most likely; I can't imagine this role was made his for anything other than a favour to a friend. If not, then boy did he need to remain in X-Men) that excludes blandness. The neo-Nazi angle was interchangeable. Rewrite the setting as a club and the antagonists as drug dealers then not only would the back story and culture of the group be just as non- fleshed out and unexplored, it probably would have been better to watch. Nothing else is worth mentioning as the movie is just that common and mediocre. We've seen this done better numerous times before in films like Red State, a decent movie that actually incorporated the identity of the antagonists, yet that movie is sitting at a Meta and User score of 50 and 6.2.
Me caring too much is what I've been told, but as a passionate film fan, I'm meant to care. I hate seeing movies receive recognition they don't deserve. I'll use The Wolf of Wall Street as an example. Is it not obvious to every watcher of movies and their mother why that film received great acclaim despite being more on the crappy side? Everybody knows why that film and others like it are successful. But what one reason is there for Green Room to receive the scores it has? Truly, I have never been more perplexed.
This whole review could have been avoided had this movie slotted into the 40 max and 4.5 max Metacritic and User score category it deserved. Or, perhaps I'm just over-analyzing it. Maybe critics were paid off and a high-percentage of raters really did rate this movie after Anton Yelchin died. I have no f'ing idea. Anyone with a clue, please contact me. This is a genuine mind****.