If the studio had spent as much money on story development and animation as it did for the "bot reviews", this motion picture could have been at least an "8". It seems Tim Story and the rest of the people involved in creating this mis-step either have not seen any of the original Tom & Jerry shorts, or have seriously misunderstood them. Off the top of my head, I can think of four different scenarios that would be faithful to the original cartoons and still make it relevant. And I'm not even WGA.
After "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" set the animated characters-and-live actor bar (many years ago, no less) any effort that does not at least come up to that standard is inexcusable. It is, however, a good example of the lengths a studio will go to in an effort to try and salvage a movie that they know is off the mark: trailers and promos that make it seem better than it is, and paid reviewers to boost the overall rating.
After "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" set the animated characters-and-live actor bar (many years ago, no less) any effort that does not at least come up to that standard is inexcusable. It is, however, a good example of the lengths a studio will go to in an effort to try and salvage a movie that they know is off the mark: trailers and promos that make it seem better than it is, and paid reviewers to boost the overall rating.