I ignore RT.
I hate how people treat it as the ultimate authority.
I swear rotten tomatoes and IMDb fucked up movies and tv more than anyone talks about. You can’t REALLY make an review of a work of art, even if it is corporate produced tripe, with a percentage scale or */10 system, and before anyone comes at me I know it’s been done for decades but it was never a be all and end all thing, critics wrote articles about things and you might disagree with their sensibilities and go see it specifically because a particular critic didn’t like it, the opposite is also true.
At some point though we crossed a line where no one actually reads the criticism and internalizes it, instead they just look at the number and make it either a personal attack or validation. Thats a really bad way to experience art of any kind.
This isn’t a complete thought I feel, but I hate the reality of film and television criticism today, not because critics are worthless, because that’s just silly. If you like something Peter Travers said was dog shit go find a critic that speaks to your taste it’s not difficult and doesn’t mean your favorite movie actually sucks.
I agree they both fucked it up, but my main problem is how there seems to have been a clear shift in how they “weigh” reviews after both IMDB and RT were bought by large corporate entities (Amazon and Fandango, respectively).
I can’t help but feel like a lot of the movies coming out from those companies or their subsidiaries (…and at least some number of politically expedient allies) somehow manage to get higher overall review scores on RT and IMDB than they maybe deserve.
For example, that shitty right-wing nationalist churchslop movie “Young Washington” got relatively high scores on RT…
…and IMDB…
…but not on Letterbox’d…
…which is one of the main reasons I shifted to checking Letterbox’d for reviews… but unfortunately, another day to shift to a different platform be coming soon again.
I want to be clear I don’t disagree at all you’re correct. Corporate control of art means they will go to any lengths to ensure profit.
But also, I really kinda glossed over the overarching problem, which is that the film industry is now driven by reviews and vibes reviewed by c-suite folks that answer to shareholders and don’t give a fuck about the actual film or show or whatever
This has always been true with the plastic arts but we’ve reached a zenith.
I will die on the hill that art cannot be considered a financial investment. It by definition has to take risks and investment people cannot handle that
Yeah fedi needs a letterboxd. I kind of wonder if bookwyrm would be a good inspo for it.
I think NeoDB is a good start. Just needs a larger community l
I’m on it 🫡
Toy Story is 100%
What does that mean? Does it mean it’s the best movie ever made? Nope, it just means everyone at least kinda likes it. It’s Toy Story, it’s a good movie. Though I wouldn’t say it’s the greatest movie of all time. Just a decent movie.
The way the scoring works means that if everyone thinks a movie is better than average, the movie gets a perfect score.
If 75% of the critics think something was the greatest movie ever, while 25% didn’t like it, it’s a 75% score. It might be a movie you’ll think is the greatest movie ever too, but you might give it a miss to watch movie that 90% of the critics thought was just ok instead.
So if a studio is making a movie to try to get a good score, they will make it so it doesn’t offend anyone, and have it universally be considered ok. The way these sites measure movies encourages mediocrity and playing it safe.
Good to see a fellow ball knower out here
You can’t REALLY make an review of a work of art,
They are not reviewing work of art though, they are reviewing products.
At some point though we crossed a line where no one actually reads the criticism and internalizes it, instead they just look at the number and make it either a personal attack or validation.
There’s too much media now. Used to be, a few good movies came out every couple months. Now between all the studios and streaming services and other formats, we exist within the cone of a firehose of content. No one has time to read and internalize reviews, they’re just looking to filter the firehose to a binary watch/don’t watch
Yeah these ratings are worse than useless. Oh The Abyss 14% better than Amelie?? Fuck off, Poindexter.
They’re completely disconnected from my own opinions and when I see then before watching a movie they just distract me by wondering what tf other were watching.
You can’t map.reduce this shit, it’s totally subjective
Kinda why Siskel and Ebert was popular back in the day. Siskel approached criticism as being about trying to encourage film makers to make better movies. Ebert was about indicating whether he thought the audience would like the movie. So they would debate. One of them or both would often be wrong. But from the discussion you could get an idea about whether it’s a movie you might enjoy.
There just isn’t anything like that now. You’re going either hear someone tell you it’s the best thing ever, or it’s the worst thing ever. Someone will review it as if it’s supposed to be art while someone else will tell you if it’s got good action scenes in it. These will all be ones or zeros that are added up to produce a rotten tomato number. We don’t even really know what perspective someone is reviewing something from.
You’re right, it’s all subjective so there’s no way to know whether you’ll like a movie until you’ve watched it yourself.
Actually reminded me of Ebert’s review of The One. He roasted it while accurately predicting that a basic person like me would love it.
If you just saw 1.5/5 you’d think wow what a stinker and miss out on this incredible brainless vibe piece sitting at the border of 90-00 dripping in pre-cringe cool, just before everything would get way too gritty and serious.
Yeah it depends on what you want from a movie. My favourite Siskel and Ebert review was for the third Inidana Jones movie. Siskel didn’t like it because there wasn’t enough depth to the father and son relationship. Ebert recommended it because, well you got to an Indiana Jones movie for the action, and the action scenes were good.
So I’m Ebert’s side on that one, because yeah I’m going there to see Indy on horseback go up against a tank. Sure maybe the father and son relationship didn’t have a lot of depth, but that was because their conversations kept getting interrupted by action scenes. Which is what I’m there to see.
So it’s not that Siskel was wrong, I just don’t care about what he was criticizing on that one. If it were more of an arthouse drama kind of thing, then I would care about his criticism. But the discussion indicates the father-son parts of the movie weren’t bad, just there wasn’t a lot. Too me there was enough of that for an action movie, so it’s a good movie.
Hearing the different perspectives meant you could decide which one you care about most and gave a better indication of whether you will like the move.
90% on rotten tomatoes? I don’t know what that means.
I was specifically thinking about Siskel and Ebert while reading this post yeah. I actually loved their reviews.
Funnily enough I very frequently disagreed with their opinions, but between the two of them they explained so well what made the movie appealing or not, that I was able to make up my own mind based on the text of the review even if the “rating” was not one I agreed with.
And then of course the more you read a reviewer and get to know where your opinions line up and where they differ, the more useful their reviews become. Same thing with IRL friends ofc.
How can you be wrong about an opinion?
It’s not that Siskel’s opinion or critique of the film was wrong, but his contention that his average audience member would dislike the movie for the same reasons he disliked it were at least for this poster incorrect.
Based on the info from the comment in question, I’m guessing you meant Ebert? But yeah, that tracks! Though they did say they were sometimes both wrong. I can see how one’s opinion of whether or not other people will like something could be proven wrong, but not an opinion of what makes a good movie, that’s entirely subjective.
Yeah I got mixed up but you got what I meant, and they both could easily be wrong! Art is always an ongoing subjective conversation between artist and audience and then subsequently audience to audience
it’s totally subjective
Yet we agree that there is such a thing as one movie being better than another, broadly speaking. It’s not something to boil down to a percentage, but you might as well show more detail when you have the data.
Personally, I use ratings to estimate whether a movie that I’m interested in is worth my time. Especially Rotten Tomatoes is super useful for this because the critics score is basically a distilled thumbs up or down.
it’s totally subjective
Yet we agree that there is such a thing as one movie being better than another
I mean I wouldn’t say that, it’s kind of the opposite of what I was saying actually. But if reviews form a kind of aggregate metric you find useful then that’s good for you.
Elsewhere I even talked about how frequently I disagreed with Siskel and Ebert’s thumbs ups/downs, but the text of their reviews at least showed me I would love a movie they thought was bad.
What’s more important than the score is the written reviews.
So many films with bad scores because people didn’t “get it”, or watched a film that wasn’t “for them”.
For example, I’ve seen critics write reviews for the third movie in a franchise, saying they didn’t understand what was happening, because they didn’t watch the first two.
Is anyone else getting a little uncomfortable having their confirmation bias put in the spotlight like this?
Nah, I know I’m fickle
It’s a three hour movie. If you need a heuristic to justify why you saw it (or skipped it) do what is necessary.
This is gonna have to be a home viewing because there will NEED to be at least one pee break and stretch exercise in the middle.
They should bring back the intermission before people start bringing pee bottles.
I have. I enjoyed the heck out of it, it’s a retelling definitely intended for modern audiences with some things removed and additional historical context added.
It’s an excellent telling of an old story that reminds you that the Iliad was not truly glorious, and those that go to war will not come back the same.
Movies you haven’t seen:
91% 89%
“this might be good, idk… nah, probably not.”
Disney movies like zootopia 2 are 100% but v for fucking vendetta is like 70? Wtf RT
Read the “professional reviews” and are like “my daughter liked it so 10/10”
I love me some V for Vendetta, but Zootopia is also really good at what it is. It’s meant to entertain children while also having some laughs for the parents, and Disney is really good at that shit.
That sounds about right, you need to think about who is going to see those movies. Zootopia will be parents and children, who are a lot easier to impress than the kind of snob that would watch V for Vendetta.
V for vendetta is for snobs?
Definitely people who think of themselves as having more refined tastes.
Also, it’s not actually that good.
Seeing it on Sunday!
I do have an issue with the amount of stars in the movie, especially Zendaya, but I’ll try to keep an open mind.
I don’t care about the historical accuracy or the racial makeup of the cast, all I care about is whether it’s a movie I enjoy watching.
especially Zendaya
She’s a stellar actress and a smokeshow.
I’m more annoyed that they included Matt Damon in the leading role. That guy’s been washed for years.
I don’t care about the historical accuracy or the racial makeup
I do think it’s very funny to be mad about Elliot Page for being transgender when I’d be more upset that he’s got zero tan in a movie about rugged sea faring people just north of Egypt.
Like so much Sword and Sandal that Hollywood produces, it’s way too white. Maybe make more movies that take place in the Baltics if you want to use this many Brits, Franks, and Nords.
Agree to disagree, I’ve never seen anything I’ve enjoyed her in.
Well, I’m a huge fan of Challengers. And she was a great Mary Jane in the Tom Holland Spidermovies.
She’s mid, I don’t give a shit if she’s in it or not tbh
I actually think Damon did a good job in this one
The Odyssey trailers did not appeal to me much, so I’m confused by the praise it’s getting, is it because it’s actually good or normies just giving it 10/10 because it’s a Nolan movie. I watched Oppenheimer in theater and realized I could have saved the cost of the ticket and watched it at home without losing much, how does this movie compare to that, I’ve liked most of Nolans other movies except Tenet
I liked Tenet more than Oppenheimer, at least insofar as I feel like it benefited more from being on a big screen. Oppenheimer was a biopic first and foremost.
I’ll probably just wait for it to stream, I’m getting too old to be hyped up about most movies.
I have so little incentive to go to the movies these days that any negativity, deserved or not, is just enough.
I think the best approach is to find reviewers whose tastes largely align with your own. Their reviews can serve as a good reference when you’re looking for a movie you haven’t seen yet.
There are simply too many criteria you could apply. The “Cinesiasts”, for example—who like films like Citizen Kane or works by Ingmar Bergman, Aki Kaurismäki, and the like—naturally know a great deal about their field. However, that by no means means their reviews would be a good reference point for the general public, who simply want to be entertained and don’t place too much value on artistic merit or the most elaborate technical skills of filmmakers.
RT lost its credibility a long time ago and IMDB just results in the bell curve effect where most things end up at 3.5/5 which is too accurate/condensed for most people.
You need to follow a couple or even just one film critic who makes quality reviews on their own if you want good information.
cars 2 is the best one fight me
fight me
Oh man, I knew I couldn’t be the only one!
Cars 1 is better
You, my friend… need to 🎶 find yourself. Yea, that’s when you find yourself 🎶
Cars 7: Mater’s Mutti’s Revenge was far more romantic than the title indicates
For me it’s more, “I wonder why critics / audience disagree with me?” It’s an interesting thing to think about.
I try not to expose myself to any social media surrounding a movie before I watch it. No reviews, no trailers, nothing. Then I compare my experience with others, and it’s usually wildly different. It makes me wonder how much of a review is “inertia” from the environment surrounding the movie, rather than the movie itself?
As an example, I absolutely loved the film Chappie. I thought it was a great film, but the general population AND critics absolutely blasted it. I actually agreed with some of their points in the reviews, but overall I still like that movie a lot, and I still rate it 9/10.
If I’d seen the 30% rating beforehand, would I have even bothered watching the movie? Maybe not…
Chappie was great!
I know right! One of my favourite movies, actually. I remember it fondly.
I never trust the critics over normal viewers, lol. I am NEVER the second guy down
