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.
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.
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.
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.
^^^ 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
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
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?
^^^ 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.
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.
Re: Is Rotten Tomatoes overrated?
