Is Rotten Tomatoes overrated?

[Duderonomy]

It's kinda ridiculous how it's the end all be all for if a movie is good or not, when it's really just kids who spent 7 hours a day on the web. Of course everyone is a movie expert now. :rolleyes: Do I really need to read 20 reviews before I see if I should watch Nick of Time ?

[Rnbizzle]

Yeah. It's the Pitchfork of movies.

[DeuceWallaces]

Cream of the Crop critics reviews you dolt; not a bunch of kids.

[andgar923]

Cream of the Crop critics reviews you dolt; not a bunch of kids.

Basically this.

Is the OP even looking at the correct site?

[B-Low]

To me RT is just a bunch of hipsters. In fact I actually saw one critic on there give Lion King a bad review because he said the Elton John songs weren't hip enough :oldlol:


Also when you have a 50 year old white woman reviewing Barbershop or Next Friday or something, you're not gonna get an accurate interpretation of it because the movie's not aimed at her. I can tell what movies are gonna be horrible, which ones will be stupid funny, which will be a more clever brand of humor, and which ones have good potential to be something special. I don't need "professional movie watchers" to tell me that.

[Unstoppabull]

I've always preferred IMDB anyways

[KevinNYC]

What you want to do is find a couple of film critics whose views you trust...they match up with your own taste and then you check vs them. Rotten Tomatoes makes this much, much easier.

and yes, there is a difference between the audience response and critical response.

[Myth]

First, to be one of the critics that count for the main score, you need to have your reviews published routinely (there is some credential that you must meet, it is explained somewhere on the site).

Then there are a few things one should look at when determining certain things. First, most people look at the %. However, that can be misleading if you overlook the average score. Some movies will have an 85% approval rating, and people interpret that as a great movie, but the average rating may only be 6.4/10, meaning that 85% of the critics thought the movie was slightly better than average. Even more important than those scores IMO, is the quotes from different reviews. If you know what you like in a movie, the quotes (which generally are good at avoiding spoilers) give you some idea of strengths and weaknesses, and you can compare those to what you like in movies. I've seen reviews for movies with 25% approval ratings, which sounds like a terrible movie, but then I will see that many of the critics hated the over the top violence of said movie. I personally like over the top violence in my movies, so that sometimes is an indication that I may like the movie more than the average critic.

[KDTrey5]

imdb >

[Timmy D for MVP]

If it's extremely in one direction or the other then you have a pretty good idea of the quality of the movie. Movie critics don;t agree to that degree often.

If it's in the middle then you just have to take a leap.

I often only check it after I've watched a movie. To see if my personal thoughts had been echoed by others. Sometimes I disagree whole heartedly (Ping Pong Playa in particular), but for the most part I find them to be spot on.

But it's just a collection of professional reviews, you can assign importance to whomever you want on the site. It's a nice site.

[-p.tiddy-]

I like RT...I have found that the audience ratings are more in line with how I feel...but those are generally in the same area as the critics.

there are exceptions though...

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/underworld_awakening/

Underworld Awakening
Critics: 27%
Audience: 62%

this is a type of movie that is suppose to be just raw action and stupid fun and would be impossible to get a monster score from critics, it isn't an Oscar type movie, but it doesn't try to be...

but the audience went into the movie understanding that it isn't trying to be a masterpiece, and it hit their expectations...so it scored high with them, and they are the only ones that really matter.

[Draz]

imdb. >

[Timmy D for MVP]

I like RT...I have found that the audience ratings are more in line with how I feel...but those are generally in the same area as the critics.

there are exceptions though...

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/underworld_awakening/

Underworld Awakening
Critics: 27%
Audience: 62%

this is a type of movie that is suppose to be just raw action and stupid fun and would be impossible to get a monster score from critics, it isn't an Oscar type movie, but it doesn't try to be...

but the audience went into the movie understanding that it isn't trying to be a masterpiece, and it hit their expectations...so it scored high with them, and they are the only ones that really matter.

That's a tired argument prime.

For example:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/men_in_black/

It can be a stupid fun movie, but also be a good movie. The way it's built and such plays a big role. Underworld does not have those things.

[blablabla]

imdb>>

[Myth]

For those that say IMDB is better, what is it that they offer that RT doesn't? Do you trust the people who rate the movies more? I like how RT has critic and fan reviews, while IMDB only has fan reviews, correct? Is it that you side with the users of IMDB more? I use IMDB more for movie information and casts, etc, while I use RT for the reviews.

In the end, I think the better one depends on which is easier for a give person to interpret and predict how well they'll like a movie.

And for those who say that a trailer is all they need, sometimes trailers are misleading. The Watch is a current movie that I thought looked good, and I expected a rating in the 70% range. After reading the RT reviews, it sounds like crap and I'm going to save my money. I'll still see it eventually, and I could still be pleasantly surprised, but I'd much rather save my money and give it a chance later rather than regretting spending $10 on a movie that is potentially a huge waste of time.

[Draz]

For those that say IMDB is better, what is it that they offer that RT doesn't? Do you trust the people who rate the movies more? I like how RT has critic and fan reviews, while IMDB only has fan reviews, correct? Is it that you side with the users of IMDB more? I use IMDB more for movie information and casts, etc, while I use RT for the reviews.

In the end, I think the better one depends on which is easier for a give person to interpret and predict how well they'll like a movie.

And for those who say that a trailer is all they need, sometimes trailers are misleading. The Watch is a current movie that I thought looked good, and I expected a rating in the 70% range. After reading the RT reviews, it sounds like crap and I'm going to save my money. I'll still see it eventually, and I could still be pleasantly surprised, but I'd much rather save my money and give it a chance later rather than regretting spending $10 on a movie that is potentially a huge waste of time.

It's both bro.

[DaHeezy]

it's been pretty bang on for me. I've disregarded the reviews and went to films coming out completely disappointed.

I'll loosely use it as a guide, but if I'm invested I'll go regardless.

[Loneshot]

I've always preferred IMDB anyways

Same. Never liked RT for some reason. Seems a bit...idk, arrogant? I've never been a fan of "expert critic" reviews. I'll look towards experts when it comes to politics, science, finance, things of that nature. When it comes to movies, books, and video games, i tend not to look for a special crop of opinions who i'd trust above all others.

[Myth]

it's been pretty bang on for me. I've disregarded the reviews and went to films coming out completely disappointed.

I'll loosely use it as a guide, but if I'm invested I'll go regardless.

Same here. It certainly isn't the end all be all, but it is a great guide in determining whether a movie is worth giving a chance at all, if it is worth $10, or if it is worth a watch once it doesn't cost extra through TV or Netflix.

[Timmy D for MVP]

My go to reviewer is Movie Bob from the Escapist magazine. I like how he breaks down films, much the way I do. And he's good at it.

[-p.tiddy-]

That's a tired argument prime.

For example:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/men_in_black/

It can be a stupid fun movie, but also be a good movie. The way it's built and such plays a big role. Underworld does not have those things.
this proves my point that that audience is more spot on IMO

how did the critics give this a 90%? :oldlol:

73 is more accurate IMO

same with Underworld...the audience was more accurate

[-p.tiddy-]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/drive_2011/

^^^ audience was right here too, 78 is about right, not 92

[Timmy D for MVP]

this proves my point that that audience is more spot on IMO

how did the critics give this a 90%? :oldlol:

73 is more accurate IMO

same with Underworld...the audience was more accurate

So again I ask you:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/twilight/

Are they more spot on? Or is it maybe that the critics are more equipped to make consistent reviews based on prior knowledge?

I watch a TON of movies, and have a tendency to really break down a movie from production, to acting, to script, etc. My gf tells me I ruin things for myself because I'm always trying to work ahead of the movie, and always breaking it down. So I would likely side more on the critic style.

The fan style is great too. The whole point of movies is to have fun.

The problem with that is that fun is entirely subjective. I think Men in Black is that great a movie. It's just really really enjoyable. You liked Underworld, which I found to be lame.

I thought Twilight was shit. But I know tons of people who enjoyed it.

Since the differences from person to person are so great in terms of enjoyability there is no way to truly review a film as a fan. That's where the critics come in. They will follow it's structure, it's pacing, acting, etc. So if a group of truly knowledgeable critics get together (and I say truly because some are not really) and agree that the film was a good one, at the very least you know it's well made. This is important because even if the plot and ideas fail you, you know that it SHOULD be easier to get through.

Like Men in Black. The ideas failed many, but stuck with me. But even if the ideas fail you, the structure is great. The script and acting is top-notch. So it's still enjoyable. Twilight is a hot mess. So since it's plot and ideas fail me, I see nothing redeemable in it.

Sorry for the long post. But imo the critics are what you want to look at, and read just to get a general sense.

Again personally I tend to watch a movie without reviews first, and then go from there. Sometimes if I'm on the fence I'll see what people think, but for the most part I just advocate watching a movie you're interested in regardless or reviews, whether it turns out to be good or bad you can have a fun experience. And if it's unbearable you can just turn it off.

[DonDadda59]

metacritc>rottentomatoes

[-p.tiddy-]

^^^ all that goes back to my point with the Underworld post...I liked it because I was a fan of the series and it had what I (and the audience) was looking for, the critics are NOT Underworld fans, thus they hated it.

same goes for Twilight, fans of the series loved it (the audience aka teen girls)...the critics are not fans



so in that regard the audience can be more accurate

[Loneshot]

IMDb got the Twilight rating right http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1099212/ (5.3)

And in comparison to RT, the audience has a better rating for X Men First Class, though still a bit too high. Not as ridiculously high as RT though.

[kentatm]

To me RT is just a bunch of hipsters. In fact I actually saw one critic on there give Lion King a bad review because he said the Elton John songs weren't hip enough :oldlol:


Also when you have a 50 year old white woman reviewing Barbershop or Next Friday or something, you're not gonna get an accurate

so movies should only be reviewed by people they are aimed at and if you dont like the music in a well regarded film like Lion King you should STFU?

[DaHeezy]

so movies should only be reviewed by people they are aimed at and if you dont like the music in a well regarded film like Lion King you should STFU?

Precisely

[Timmy D for MVP]

^^^ all that goes back to my point with the Underworld post...I liked it because I was a fan of the series and it had what I (and the audience) was looking for, the critics are NOT Underworld fans, thus they hated it.

same goes for Twilight, fans of the series loved it (the audience aka teen girls)...the critics are not fans



so in that regard the audience can be more accurate

The critics are not supposed to be fans. It doesn't always work that way but that's the idea. So they hated Underworld because from a movie making standpoint it was pretty shit.

Same for Twilight. They were bad MOVIES. Now they can still be enjoyable if you dig whatever the movie presents but the movies themselves are not good.

See what I'm saying? In no way is it a bad thing, and you can view whichever side of it you'd like, but it makes more sense to me to view the critics. You can look at what they say like: "Oh shit Men in Black wasn't my favorite but I see what they mean by the sets and the chemistry."

You're less likely to be led astray.

I LOVE Mortal Kombat. But I know it's a terrible movie. But as a fan I'd rate it far higher. So it'd be wiser to view my critic review if you really want to get a sense of what you're getting into.

[-p.tiddy-]

The critics are not supposed to be fans. It doesn't always work that way but that's the idea. So they hated Underworld because from a movie making standpoint it was pretty shit.

Same for Twilight. They were bad MOVIES. Now they can still be enjoyable if you dig whatever the movie presents but the movies themselves are not good.

See what I'm saying? In no way is it a bad thing, and you can view whichever side of it you'd like, but it makes more sense to me to view the critics. You can look at what they say like: "Oh shit Men in Black wasn't my favorite but I see what they mean by the sets and the chemistry."

You're less likely to be led astray.

I LOVE Mortal Kombat. But I know it's a terrible movie. But as a fan I'd rate it far higher. So it'd be wiser to view my critic review if you really want to get a sense of what you're getting into.
you're saying the exact same thing I am saying...I said from the get go that Underworld was not an Oscar winning type movie and it was never intended to be, it is aimed at its fan base...it is a given the critics would rate it low.

[Timmy D for MVP]

you're saying the exact same thing I am saying...I said from the get go that Underworld was not an Oscar winning type movie and it was never intended to be, it is aimed at its fan base...it is a given the critics would rate it low.

No you're assuming that all critics are movie art house snobs. They are not. They don't look at every movie thinking: "where will this fall on my Oscar list?" I would bet hard money that any real critic was not walking into Scott Pilgrim wondering if this would be Oscar worthy.

But they recognize a shit movie when they see one. It's a tired argument as I said before because there are plenty of "stupid movies" that both fans and critics alike agreed upon as good.

In fact what does that say about the fan base you speak of if they feel like a little effort project is what it's base wants.

Lemme put it this way. Do you think Underworld could be improved? Maybe greatly so? How could that happen? Where did it go wrong?

That is what the critics look at.

[Jackass18]

I use my own intuition when it comes to movies. I'll look to see who the director is, the cast and what it's about. Generally, I find "expert critics" to be too biased, too stuffy and a bit out of touch. If I want a general view of the movie, then I'll check IMDB and RT, but I prefer to not look at any reviews/ratings before I watch a movie.

[Jackass18]

this proves my point that that audience is more spot on IMO

how did the critics give this a 90%? :oldlol:

73 is more accurate IMO

same with Underworld...the audience was more accurate

The critics didn't give it a 90%. That just means that 90% of the critics reviewing it gave it a positive review. There where 72 overall reviews. 65 gave it a positive review while only 7 gave it a negative review, and what is 65 divided by 72?

[macmac]

The critics didn't give it a 90%. That just means that 90% of the critics reviewing it gave it a positive review. There where 72 overall reviews. 65 gave it a positive review while only 7 gave it a negative review, and what is 65 divided by 72?

Fukk you man, I'm here to have fun and to argue and waste some time, not sit here and do arithmetics.

[-p.tiddy-]

No you're assuming that all critics are movie art house snobs. They are not. They don't look at every movie thinking: "where will this fall on my Oscar list?" I would bet hard money that any real critic was not walking into Scott Pilgrim wondering if this would be Oscar worthy.

But they recognize a shit movie when they see one. It's a tired argument as I said before because there are plenty of "stupid movies" that both fans and critics alike agreed upon as good.

In fact what does that say about the fan base you speak of if they feel like a little effort project is what it's base wants.

Lemme put it this way. Do you think Underworld could be improved? Maybe greatly so? How could that happen? Where did it go wrong?

That is what the critics look at.
just about every movie ever made could be improved upon...


look, all I was trying to point out is that the audience score more reflects the people looking forward to whatever the subject matter of the movie is, where as the critic score reflects someone's opinion that doesn't necessarily give a rat's ass about the subject of the movie, that's all...

it makes PERFECT sense that the audience would rate Twilight high and the critics would rank it low...the audience is teen girls (their target demographic) and the critics are not...THUS a teen girl going to see Twilight should ignore the critic score, their opinion doesn't represent hers very well.

[Myth]

The critics didn't give it a 90%. That just means that 90% of the critics reviewing it gave it a positive review. There where 72 overall reviews. 65 gave it a positive review while only 7 gave it a negative review, and what is 65 divided by 72?

Yeah, this is what I was saying about people getting confused by the % and misunderstanding what it means.

The average critic rating for Drive was 8.2/10 while the average fan review was 7.8/10.

[Duderonomy]

When I go to see something like Spiderman, I expect a popcorn flick that stays close to the scourse material not shawshank redemption or 8 1/2. Which are the types that rank in the high 90's.

[Myth]

When I go to see something like Spiderman, I expect a popcorn flick that stays close to the scourse material not shawshank redemption or 8 1/2. Which are the types that rank in the high 90's.

I like more mainstream movies that happen to float around 90%. I agree that the upper 90% movies typically seem to be snobbish movies about emotions, which are solid films, but not usually very entertaining.

[Jackass18]

it makes PERFECT sense that the audience would rate Twilight high and the critics would rank it low...the audience is teen girls (their target demographic) and the critics are not...THUS a teen girl going to see Twilight should ignore the critic score, their opinion doesn't represent hers very well.

Who would do a better job of giving a proper analysis of Twilight, teen girls or movie critics? Teen girls would be much more likely to enjoy the film, but they won't give you a review with much substance. If you're going by the quality of a film, then which side do you trust? We're talking quality here, not how much teenyboppers will enjoy a movie, so why would the misguided opinion of teenyboppers mean more than critics? Which side can do a better job of assessing the quality of a movie is what's important.

[JustinJDW]

I mostly use it as a guide. It does interest me a lot to see the percentages many movies get, but if I've already decided to see a movie that I'm looking forward to, I'm going to see it regardless. If I see a movie is being critically acclaimed by many, it would interest me to see it, but a low RT score could never discourage me to see a film.

Like J. Edgar for example, which I think only got about a 50%. I had that movie pegged months before, and although I had high expectations for it, the average reviews it got didn't discourage me in the least. If I want to see a film, I'm going to see it, and make my own judgement there. I thought J. Edgar was ok.

But something like Cabin in the Woods, which I hardly even knew existed, but got great reviews, did interest me to go see it, due to my curiosity and my love for the genre. Cabin in the Woods turned out to be amazing.

So I simply use Rotten Tomatoes as a guide to check up on movies that aren't exactly on my radar. I would never let it influence my decision to see a movie in which I've already made a decision to go see. RT ain't God. Sometimes I do think they are way off, and I swear sometimes the reviews on there take some movies way too seriously. Max Payne got a ****ing 16%, but God damn, what the **** were they expecting going into that movie? Its a ****ing video game PG-13 movie where Whalberg's family gets killed, and he gets revenge by shooting up the city with bad ass bullet special effects. That's pretty much what we got. What the hell else did they want? The ****ing Departed?

[bagelred]

To me, Metacritic is much better. Every critic's review is given a number rating from 1 to 100. Instead of just a red or green tomatoe. This way you know HOW good a movie is....not just yes or no.

Metacritic for the win. :pimp:

[IcanzIIravor]

I roll with IMDB myself, but mostly I just read up on what the movie is suppose to be about and if it appears interesting to me I go see it.

[dunksby]

To me, Metacritic is much better. Every critic's review is given a number rating from 1 to 100. Instead of just a red or green tomatoe. This way you know HOW good a movie is....not just yes or no.

Metacritic for the win. :pimp:
Metacritic is the mother of all these rating websites, I don't understand why people would use other databases for ratings. On the other hand they suck at providing info about stuff they rate. I use IMDB for info mostly and Meta for ratings but at the end of the day I choose what I watch.

[nathanjizzle]

rotten tomatoes suck, ive watched 3 movies that were highly rated on there site and was very shit and boring, i even thought perhaps that if the tomatoe meter was high the shittier the movie would be which would explain why the movies were shit.

i like IMBD. they can give you a reference of other movies similar to one you have watched and enjoyed.

[Scholar]

I judge movies not off of other's reviews but off of whether or not the trailer/synopsis intrigue me.

[ukplayer4]

The critics are not supposed to be fans. It doesn't always work that way but that's the idea. So they hated Underworld because from a movie making standpoint it was pretty shit.

Same for Twilight. They were bad MOVIES. Now they can still be enjoyable if you dig whatever the movie presents but the movies themselves are not good.

See what I'm saying? In no way is it a bad thing, and you can view whichever side of it you'd like, but it makes more sense to me to view the critics. You can look at what they say like: "Oh shit Men in Black wasn't my favorite but I see what they mean by the sets and the chemistry."

You're less likely to be led astray.

I LOVE Mortal Kombat. But I know it's a terrible movie. But as a fan I'd rate it far higher. So it'd be wiser to view my critic review if you really want to get a sense of what you're getting into.



No you're assuming that all critics are movie art house snobs. They are not. They don't look at every movie thinking: "where will this fall on my Oscar list?" I would bet hard money that any real critic was not walking into Scott Pilgrim wondering if this would be Oscar worthy.

But they recognize a shit movie when they see one. It's a tired argument as I said before because there are plenty of "stupid movies" that both fans and critics alike agreed upon as good.

In fact what does that say about the fan base you speak of if they feel like a little effort project is what it's base wants.

Lemme put it this way. Do you think Underworld could be improved? Maybe greatly so? How could that happen? Where did it go wrong?

That is what the critics look at.


:applause: :applause: pheeww, its nice to see someone has a grip on things.



The critics didn't give it a 90%. That just means that 90% of the critics reviewing it gave it a positive review. There where 72 overall reviews. 65 gave it a positive review while only 7 gave it a negative review, and what is 65 divided by 72?

exactly, this is why often even really great films that are controversial or off beat can get a much lower rating then solid films that didn't offend/too abstract for many tastes.




just about every movie ever made could be improved upon...


look, all I was trying to point out is that the audience score more reflects the people looking forward to whatever the subject matter of the movie is, where as the critic score reflects someone's opinion that doesn't necessarily give a rat's ass about the subject of the movie, that's all...

it makes PERFECT sense that the audience would rate Twilight high and the critics would rank it low...the audience is teen girls (their target demographic) and the critics are not...THUS a teen girl going to see Twilight should ignore the critic score, their opinion doesn't represent hers very well.


no it isn't the job of a critic to assign different criticism for each audience, just simply to state if the film was any good or not. critics are far more intune with what comprises a quality piece of film making or not. they understand film language and how it communicates and they are suppose to write without bias, i.e not from a perspective of a certain fan base or audience expectation. just because a film is badly made doesn't mean people won't like it, a lot of people enjoy films because of content and subject matter but these say nothing of wether the film is well made or not. no one can imagine the thoughts and preferences of every human being on earth. the best that can be done is to critique each film based on the quality of its technical execution and communication of ideas/narratives.




rotten tomatoes suck, ive watched 3 movies that were highly rated on there site and was very shit and boring, i even thought perhaps that if the tomatoe meter was high the shittier the movie would be which would explain why the movies were shit.

tell us which films, maybe we can then discuss the problem

[Hotlantadude81]

It's kinda ridiculous how it's the end all be all for if a movie is good or not, when it's really just kids who spent 7 hours a day on the web. Of course everyone is a movie expert now. :rolleyes: Do I really need to read 20 reviews before I see if I should watch Nick of Time ?

I'll say below 60% is a fail....

There are some movies that I enjoy at some level that fail according to the meter. It's sort of a use it for entertainment purposes sort of thing. Just don't take it extremely seriously.

[Hotlantadude81]

I like RT...I have found that the audience ratings are more in line with how I feel...but those are generally in the same area as the critics.

there are exceptions though...

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/underworld_awakening/

Underworld Awakening
Critics: 27%
Audience: 62%

this is a type of movie that is suppose to be just raw action and stupid fun and would be impossible to get a monster score from critics, it isn't an Oscar type movie, but it doesn't try to be...

but the audience went into the movie understanding that it isn't trying to be a masterpiece, and it hit their expectations...so it scored high with them, and they are the only ones that really matter.

The audience seems to lack respect for gritty genre pieces.

Example:

Look at the audience meter for 48 Hrs.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/48_hrs/

And look at the meter for tired and repetitive Rush Hour 3:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rush_hour_3/

That's why I say the audience can go **** themselves.

[Duderonomy]

Is Batman v Superman getting a 30% enough for you RT snubs to stop taking it seriously?

Was Mad Max Fury Road really a near perfect film to warrant a 97% ?

Doc Savage holds a 61% while Danger Diabolik has a 67%, is 6% the difference between something unwatchable and another thats a masterpiece?

[Im Still Ballin]

Is Batman v Superman getting a 30% enough for you RT snubs to stop taking it seriously?

Was Mad Max Fury Road really a near perfect film to warrant a 97% ?

Doc Savage holds a 61% while Danger Diabolik has a 67%, is 6% the difference between something unwatchable and another thats a masterpiece?
Yeah it is a bit ridiculous

I think among a lot of the critics, there is a mainstream consensus more or less that creates a bias. I try to look at the best of the best critics that I can trust, not the no namers that make up the faceless numbers on RT, that follow a trend.

Roger Ebert was my guy. Shame he died.

[Doomsday Dallas]

Is Batman v Superman getting a 30% enough for you RT snubs to stop taking it seriously?

Was Mad Max Fury Road really a near perfect film to warrant a 97% ?



Yea... I went to see Mad Max based on the reviews... and left the theater
with the feeling "It was good... but not as good as the reviews made it out to be"


Batman vs Superman >>>>>> Mad Max.... Easily.



I just randomly looked up one of my favorite movies: Body of Lies

54%


Body of Lies is an absolute masterpiece. But usually RT is more right than
they are wrong.


It has gotten me curious about the new Fantastic 4 movie... maybe it's
not a bad film?

[T_L_P]

Pointing out subjective examples does nothing.

Mad Max was the best film of 2015 after Chi-Raq for me. And I thought Batman vs Superman was overlong and spent far too much time showing us stuff we've already seen (falling in the well, the parents' death - really?).

I guess Rotten Tomatoes must be the GOAT site, right?

It's an aggregate site that tells you the general consensus for a film. It does its job. :confusedshrug:

[Duderonomy]

Pointing out subjective examples does nothing.

Mad Max was the best film of 2015 after Chi-Raq for me. And I thought Batman vs Superman was overlong and spent far too much time showing us stuff we've already seen (falling in the well, the parents' death - really?).

I guess Rotten Tomatoes must be the GOAT site, right?

It's an aggregate site that tells you the general consensus for a film. It does its job. :confusedshrug:
B v S could have been better, but are you going to tell me it's not as good as Mad max or MI rogue nation ? :roll: :roll:

[Smook B]

Pointing out subjective examples does nothing.

Mad Max was the best film of 2015 after Chi-Raq for me. And I thought Batman vs Superman was overlong and spent far too much time showing us stuff we've already seen (falling in the well, the parents' death - really?).

I guess Rotten Tomatoes must be the GOAT site, right?

It's an aggregate site that tells you the general consensus for a film. It does its job. :confusedshrug:

Not really it shitted on BVS yet it almost has half a billion already.

[Cangri]

People should also look for the average rating in rotten tomatoes, Batman VS Superman currently has a 5.0/10 average rating.
The rotten score just means that the movie has a consistent rating of less than 6/10 among most critics.

I personally would give it a 6/10.

[T_L_P]

B v S could have been better, but are you going to tell me it's not as good as Mad max or MI rogue nation ? :roll: :roll:

It's literally not close to Mad Max. Like I said, I thought it was the best or second best film of last year - B v S was a mediocre at best film.

[T_L_P]

Not really it shitted on BVS yet it almost has half a billion already.

Which is why I think people put too much stock into RT to begin with.

The casual moviegoer isn't checking out the website before they go see a film. They see it. And as soon as they see it they've handed money over to the studios, regardless of whether they walk out of the theatre liking it or not.

But if someone does want to see what the general critical consensus for a film is, RT is the place to go - because it collects critical reviews of films. :confusedshrug:

To that point though: Transformers gets shitted on yet it still made over a billion. The average moviegoer likes shitty, repetitive movies that have no soul or originality - it is what it is.

[Labissiere]

It was accurate about BVS.

[SpecialQue]

Translation: "I have shit taste in movies and need to justify my love of garbage by saying that paid professionals are wrong and I'm right."

[ArbitraryWater]

They're not really rating a movie, all the %'s say is how many 'liked' it..

[Labissiere]

They're not really rating a movie, all the %'s say is how many 'liked' it..
Agreed which is why it is accurate. The average score is accurate.

[bdreason]

I have terrible taste in movies so I don't bother with reviews. If I'm looking forward to a movie I try to avoid all reviews, because having an opinion on a movie before you watch it can completely taint the experience.

[T_L_P]

They're not really rating a movie, all the %'s say is how many 'liked' it..

How's kicks, AW?

[warriorfan]

It's kinda ridiculous how it's the end all be all for if a movie is good or not, when it's really just kids who spent 7 hours a day on the web. Of course everyone is a movie expert now. :rolleyes: Do I really need to read 20 reviews before I see if I should watch Nick of Time ?

true

to be honest most of the time those fakkits get it ass backwards in their attempt to be pretentious hipsters

they will dis cool movies and act like they like shitty ones :lol

[SexSymbol]

Is Batman v Superman getting a 30% enough for you RT snubs to stop taking it seriously?

Was Mad Max Fury Road really a near perfect film to warrant a 97% ?

Doc Savage holds a 61% while Danger Diabolik has a 67%, is 6% the difference between something unwatchable and another thats a masterpiece?
yes.
Should've been 100%. Perfect action movie.

the batman v superman rating is a joke, I'm glad that the vast majority of audiences are coming to this conclusion.

They also gave boondock saints 20% lol.

[SexSymbol]

Pointing out subjective examples does nothing.

Mad Max was the best film of 2015 after Chi-Raq for me. And I thought Batman vs Superman was overlong and spent far too much time showing us stuff we've already seen (falling in the well, the parents' death - really?).

I guess Rotten Tomatoes must be the GOAT site, right?

It's an aggregate site that tells you the general consensus for a film. It does its job. :confusedshrug:
The 5-7 minute scene in the beginning is to set up this batman, to show the NEW audiences what batman is all about, it's not for a guy who has seen his origin story multiple times, sure, but let's not act like this universe's batman is so well established.
BTW, any movie buff regardless of knowing or not knowing batman's origin story would appreciate the great visuals in that scene.

[~primetime~]

I haven't seen BvS yet but it is 7.5/10 on IMDB and 73% on RT Audience score.

The critic rating of 29% isn't really in line with those



I wouldn't doubt that preconceived notions about this film did play a part in the critics rating. After the previews came out pretty much everyone declared that it would suck, so it might be hard for a critic who wants to be taken seriously to give it high marks.

[Labissiere]

yes.
Should've been 100%. Perfect action movie.

the batman v superman rating is a joke, I'm glad that the vast majority of audiences are coming to this conclusion.

They also gave boondock saints 20% lol.
Every post you make about movies is pure entertainment.

[DeuceWallaces]

It's only overrated if you don't understand how it actually works.

[~primetime~]

It's only overrated if you don't understand how it actually works.
It's overrated if the majority of movie goers put too much stock into it.

[DeuceWallaces]

It's overrated if the majority of movie goers put too much stock into it.

Because they don't understand it, they're stupid, or both.

[ArbitraryWater]

Because they don't understand it, they're stupid, or both.

It has nothing to do with that... seriously. Look up the meaning of overrated, anybody can feel anything is overrated, and I dont even think its overrated, just stop being an unecessary pain in the ass.

[~primetime~]

Yeah it's more than possible to have a grasp on how RT works and still overrated it.

RT is main stream, these days most people go into movies (or stay home) knowing what the RT score is.

[NBAplayoffs2001]

I prefer imdb > Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes sometimes aligns with friends' of mine reviews of movies.

All subjective.

[DeuceWallaces]

It has nothing to do with that... seriously. Look up the meaning of overrated, anybody can feel anything is overrated, and I dont even think its overrated, just stop being an unecessary pain in the ass.

I understand the meaning of the word dipshit. It's more misunderstood than overrated. And even then I rarely see a problem. I've never gone to a 80+ RT movie and walked away going, "well, that sucked" or heard others do the same. RT works quite well; <40, it probably sucks, 40-60, you might like it, 60-80, good but probably genre dependent, 80+ you should probably see it.

[Labissiere]

I think it is poorly used more so than not understood. People mostly use the % of fresh scores to determine if it is something they should see, rather than looking at the info as a whole, including the critic quotes, and evaluating based on what you know about yourself if you will be on the side that views it as fresh or rotten.

[DeuceWallaces]

I think it is poorly used more so than not understood. People mostly use the % of fresh scores to determine if it is something they should see, rather than looking at the info as a whole, including the critic quotes, and evaluating based on what you know about yourself if you will be on the side that views it as fresh or rotten.

Well yeah, and the same thing can be said for every single review service and national critic star/thumbs up rating.

[Labissiere]

Well yeah, and the same thing can be said for every single review service and national critic star/thumbs up rating.
Agreed.

[Im Still Ballin]

If only Roger Ebert was still alive. The GOAT.

[Labissiere]

If only Roger Ebert was still alive. The GOAT.
Agreed. He was so good at breaking down a movie.