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:
Printable View
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:
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.
[QUOTE=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:[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
I judge movies not off of other's reviews but off of whether or not the trailer/synopsis intrigue me.
[QUOTE=Timmy D for MVP]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.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Timmy D for MVP]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.[/QUOTE]
:applause: :applause: pheeww, its nice to see someone has a grip on things.
[QUOTE=Jackass18]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?[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
tell us which films, maybe we can then discuss the problem
[QUOTE=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 ?[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=-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...
[url]http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/underworld_awakening/[/url]
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.[/QUOTE]
The audience seems to lack respect for gritty genre pieces.
Example:
Look at the audience meter for 48 Hrs.
[url]http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/48_hrs/[/url]
And look at the meter for tired and repetitive Rush Hour 3:
[url]http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rush_hour_3/[/url]
That's why I say the audience can go **** themselves.
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?
[QUOTE=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?[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=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% ?
[/QUOTE]
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?
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:
[QUOTE=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:[/QUOTE]
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:
[QUOTE=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?
[B]It's an aggregate site that tells you the general consensus for a film. It does its job. :confusedshrug[/B]:[/QUOTE]
Not really it shitted on BVS yet it almost has half a billion already.
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.
[QUOTE=Duderonomy]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:[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Smook B]Not really it shitted on BVS yet it almost has half a billion already.[/QUOTE]
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.
It was accurate about BVS.
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."
They're not really rating a movie, all the %'s say is how many 'liked' it..
[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]They're not really rating a movie, all the %'s say is how many 'liked' it..[/QUOTE]
Agreed which is why it is accurate. The average score is accurate.
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.
[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]They're not really rating a movie, all the %'s say is how many 'liked' it..[/QUOTE]
How's kicks, AW?
[QUOTE=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 ?[/QUOTE]
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
[QUOTE=Duderonomy]Is Batman v Superman getting a 30% enough for you RT snubs to stop taking it seriously?
[B]Was Mad Max Fury Road really a near perfect film to warrant a 97% ? [/B]
Doc Savage holds a 61% while Danger Diabolik has a 67%, is 6% the difference between something unwatchable and another thats a masterpiece?[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=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:[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[QUOTE=SexSymbol]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.[/QUOTE]
Every post you make about movies is pure entertainment.
It's only overrated if you don't understand how it actually works.
[QUOTE=DeuceWallaces]It's only overrated if you don't understand how it actually works.[/QUOTE]
It's overrated if the majority of movie goers put too much stock into it.
[QUOTE=~primetime~]It's overrated if the majority of movie goers put too much stock into it.[/QUOTE]
Because they don't understand it, they're stupid, or both.
[QUOTE=DeuceWallaces]Because they don't understand it, they're stupid, or both.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
I prefer imdb > Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes sometimes aligns with friends' of mine reviews of movies.
All subjective.
[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, and the same thing can be said for every single review service and national critic star/thumbs up rating.
[QUOTE=DeuceWallaces]Well yeah, and the same thing can be said for every single review service and national critic star/thumbs up rating.[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
If only Roger Ebert was still alive. The GOAT.
[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin]If only Roger Ebert was still alive. The GOAT.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. He was so good at breaking down a movie.