Rotten Tomatoes

What do you expect? Film reviewers aren't everyman champions generally, they're reviewing pieces of art. The newest Terrance Malick masturbatory visual fantasy probably gets stunning reviews, but it's not the sort of thing an audience will generally be into. This movie, to me, was on par with Transformers or other blockbuster movies like that. It's not a good movie, but people like action and Will Smith and there are some funny parts so they give it a pass. I'd rather critics had higher standards, personally.

Mr. K said:

Yeah, not surprised by that response.

I guess terrible is the same as mediocre now.

Cool.

Click to expand...

It's a subjective measurement. Again, not sure what you expect. To me, yeah, that movie was terrible. I never would have watched it, or a movie like it, except my wife pressures me into watching bad movies with her. I don't know whether the score on RT is fair or not, dont really care. But I do agree with some of the reviews I have seen. The movie has huge problems. But also, the movie wasn't made for me, I'm not the target audience.

That article used the RT score as a data point but focused on what Netflix knows that we don't that leads it to immediately greenlight sequels to bad movies. Given the information that Netflix allows to be public, it's a more than fair question. The assumption is that this movie is somehow blowing it up in metrics to get that kind of response from Netflix, given that it's not good

What a fucking crybaby. Yes, movie critics are quite similar to the fucking nazis.

The Average Rating is a better indicator then the RT score anyways, as it gives a numeral score to the reviews other then whether it was a good or bad one.

BTW Bright was fucking awful, but if you look at average score it would be 2 stars out of 5 which is probably right.

Mr. K said:

At 35 I think of all the movies I've watched in the late 80s and 90s and think how they would fare in today's age of using Rotten Tomatoes to justify how good a movie is.

I see commercials that basically show that stupid certified fresh logo and it instantly make me throw up in my mouth, because they can't seem to let me decide if a movie is good.

Click to expand...

Remember all of those movie commercials you saw in the 80's and 90's that would include a series of 1-4 word quotes from reviewers saying how good a movie was? Flashing an RT score is the same thing, reduced down to a number. It's the new "Two thumbs up" just with more thumbs.

They're not telling you what to think of a movie before you see it, they're telling you what others think of it. I guess we'll never see the day where there aren't some people who simply can't accept other people thinking something they and others happen to like is garbage and vice versa.

Most major critics nowadays seem to focus more on whether a movie is "socially conscious", which translates to "does this movie send a progressive message that LGBT are awesome and white men suck and women and minorities are the future?" and how the critics think the most active social media people will take their review. Black Panther will get 100% on RT because no critic in the world will want to dare criticize the first black led superhero cast, they will get dog piled on social media and probably even lose their job.

It used to be movies were rated on how the target audience will take it. Action/adventure movies are rated differently than dramas or historical movies, because people go into it with different expectations. No one thinks Pitch Perfect 3 is gonna win any oscars but will people who like movies about chicks who sing like it?

But now too many critics feel like they need to wield their column as a weapon for social change or whatever. The Greatest Showman (Hugh Jackman's new movie) is sitting at 52% because it doesn't go in hard enough against PT Barnum for him oppressing freaks and minorities in his time. Its not supposed to be a historical movie though, its a freaking musical that is joyous and uplifting. Critics had ZERO problem giving Inglorious Basterds (a great movie!) a very positive rating even though it ALSO completely disregarded history, because of course it was about killing Hitler and nazi's. Some people dug through critics who specifically said Showman is majorly flawed for not being historically accurate and those same critics heaped praise on Basterds.

At this point I really only listen to 2 or 3 reviewers: Double Toasted (3 black guys + a white guy), Angry Joe, and a few other podcasts. They tend to share my same opinions on movies and usually if they like a movie I'll like it, if they don't like it I won't. Print critics and many online critics though are dead to me, they are more interested in virtue signalling on twitter than telling me whether a movie is enjoyable or not.

Rotten Tomatoes is just flawed from the outset though, it gives a + if the reviewer scores it 6/10 or better and a - for 5/10 or lower. 6/10 IS FUCKING FAILING STILL. How the fuck is that "fresh". If they changed it to 8/10 or better you'd suddenly see a TON fewer fresh movies, but Fandango owns Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango is owned by Universal and Warner Bros, so its just a whole lot of industry fuckery.

Binary systems don't work. Even Siskel and Ebert had some variability (1 up, 1 down).

Fresh or rotten essentially erases that average middle ground. Something can only be good or bad, there is no okayish or passive rating. On a 1-10 system, 1-3 should be shit, 4-7 should be meh/ok, and 8-10 should be good.

Cybsled said:

Binary systems don't work. Even Siskel and Ebert had some variability (1 up, 1 down).

Fresh or rotten essentially erases that average middle ground. Something can only be good or bad, there is no okayish or passive rating. On a 1-10 system, 1-3 should be shit, 4-7 should be meh/ok, and 8-10 should be good.

Click to expand...

Well they do have a middle ground. It's just very narrow. A simple Fresh rating is for a score of 60-75%. Certified Fresh is over 75% with some other qualifiers for number of reviews thrown in as well.

Royal said:

Well they do have a middle ground. It's just very narrow. A simple Fresh rating is for a score of 60-75%. Certified Fresh is over 75% with some other qualifiers for number of reviews thrown in as well.

Click to expand...

But that doesnt mean middle ground.

a simple "fresh" just means mixed reviews. While certified fresh, means overwhelmingly positive. RT is telling you how many people gave it a + or -, not a average of scores.
there needs to be "great", "its ok", hard pass.
There are TONS of movies that are "just ok, only watch if you like that genre, etc".

Bright which, I knew was going to be the reason for this thread. haha.. I would absolutely tell a general audience skip it. Id rate it maybe a 60-70. below average.
But as stated, if EVERYONE rates it a "B movie, 70%, skip it". then, RT calls it Rotten and gives it 0%.

Like all review sites, they are shit

Reviews are dumb. Watch something and judge for yourself. Or don't. Who cares.

Mr. K said:

Pressured into watching by your wife?

That tells me all I need to know.

At 35 I think of all the movies I've watched in the late 80s and 90s and think how they would fare in today's age of using Rotten Tomatoes to justify how good a movie is.

I see commercials that basically show that stupid certified fresh logo and it instantly make me throw up in my mouth, because they can't seem to let me decide if a movie is good.

It was fine when it was message boards and communities discussing the merit of a movie, but this gestapo critics crap just makes me want to torrent the hell out of Hollywood.

Click to expand...

You sound dumb.