Actually, a good movie to do a critique about would be that Hunger Games movie. You might not enjoy it, but it's a "critical success" that's actually very poorly done mainly due to the piss poor writing/story. There are a lot of very awkward, unnecessary scenes that could've been easily cut. I know there's going to be a lot of people out there that's going to be mad because they love the books and whatever, but the thing you have to do even with adaptations is to take the movie on its own merits and try and forget about the books. If you do that, there's a lot of necessary information that was either not included or cut that makes it a truly poor movie.
There's a lot of people here who are saying to go with birdemic or the room or other such travesties, but the fact of the matter is that there's so much wrong with these movies that your critique would simply be "it's broken," and nothing would be learned or conveyed, it would just be a waste of time. For my money, go with the Hunger Games. It's a terrible movie that made a lot of mistakes but also made a ton of money. And before anyone chimes in about how the movie was just trying to appeal to the book's existing fan base, I'll tell you right now that that's a terrible way to make a movie and no existing studio would do that. Why appeal only to the existing fan base when you can wrangle in more fans by explaining everything correctly and not relying on the audience's prior knowledge.