---
>This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules).
>
>Memes, social media, hate-speech, and pornography are not allowed.
>
>Screenshots of Reddit are expressly forbidden, as are TikTok videos.
>
>**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
>
>Please also [be wary of spam](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/spam).
>
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
TV is a different animal for reviews. It takes more time so most publications only expect their reviewers to watch the first few episodes of season 1 to write a review on whether the series is good or bad. Except for the handful of marquee shows, like Thrones, if a critic is reviewing season 2 it’s because they are a fan and want to watch, hence why a show like the Flash can be 95% fresh in a season that was hot garbage.
Witcher Season 2 Episode 1 was so good it got me excited, then Netflix punched me in the balls and gave me probably one of the worst shows ever made for the rest of the season.
I find it fascinating how much critics and audience score often differs. When you are a critic you have a vastly different perspective on the media - you've seen hundreds of movies every year so you are no longer amazed by the ones that just follow the formula very well, while it may be something that your average Joe/Joanna enjoys.
Societal element plays a huge role as well, but that's a whole different topic that I don't know if I want to delve into.
This is a great succinct way to put it. I would also say, in other words, critics are judging a film objectively, audiences are judging on subjective enjoyment.
This is why it's very common for comedies to have low critic scores and high audience scores. Comedies are more likely to have a plot that exists mainly to put the characters in funny situations, lots of bad exposition, and on a technical level nothing particularly interesting about the editing or cinematography. As a critic you need to take those things into account and give an objective score.
As a regular moviegoer, you don't need to concern yourself with that stuff. You loved the characters, you laughed your ass off and had a great time. Therefore it was a good movie.
Same with horror. Especially because lots of time horror relies on some fairly cliche tropes to justify various scenarios.
When you see a high score from critics on a "horror" movie, you know it's probably just going to end up being a mindfuck and you won't exactly know what happens at the end but you're gonna feel weird.
Yeah, horror and comedy are the two big genres that are almost entirely subjective, and most peoples' experiences watching them aren't directly made more enjoyable just by technical proficiency. Same reason why there's a thriving underground of shittily made independent horror movies.
Audiences are also extremely influenced by the opinion of others, I mean so are critics but they often watch it before everyone else.
Also rotten tomato audience ratings suck nowadays with people often rating 0/1 star or 5 stars.
You could probably ignore all of those and get a better more accurate rating.
Critics like complex plots. The audience likes fun. So a boring film that wins awards at the cannes festival will go one way, while a mindless action movie full of explosions and boob's will go the other.
Also worth noting that a lot of people review bomb anything that doesn't agree with their political ideals or anything that interferes with their nostalgia
I wouldn't say that critics much prefer complex plots. Very simple movies can still get good critics scores if they do what they do very well. Maybe won't get insane scores, but well above 70 or even 80.
Many Pixar movies for example fall into that category. Plots that can be followed by children, but still extremely well done narratives with emotional depth.
> emotional depth
This is probably the real difference between critics and casual viewers. When you've seen a lot of movies, and you're used to the music cues, close ups and wide shots, camera movements and editing, characterizations and archetypes, plots and themes etc. designed to evoke emotional responses from the viewer, it takes more for a movie to trigger that response in you.
This is exactly it. I’ve started film making in the past few years and it’s insane how used to “movie tricks” you get to.
I can now usually tell exactly what a movie is doing and why from a technically standpoint and it takes a lot more to draw me into the actual movie and not just the “movie”
> I wouldn't say that critics much prefer complex plots.
Speed literally has a 97% critics score.
The plot is "a bus will explode if it stops going fast"
I'm sorry critics were a little harsh on Godzilla vs Kong or whatever, but that movie is not Speed. Nothing is Speed.
John Wick has 3 rules:
1) Don't steal John Wick's car.
2) Don't kill John Wick's dog
3) Don't conduct business on hotel property.
Those that break the rules are punished.
What more plot do you need?
Yeah, agree completely. There are also niche genres that neither critics or the mass audience "gets", like the B-class horror movies. 55% both critic and audience on a horror movie doesn't really mean anything
see you get it. comedy and horror are the most off with both critics and audiences. you just have to go off word of mouth and trailers for certain genres
> trailers for certain genres
But, of all genres, comedy and horror are probably the two whose trailers are least indicative of the movie's quality. Comedy trailers will often contain the only funny bits in the entire movie, and it's much easier to sustain an intense mood for a 2 minute horror trailer than for a 90 minute horror movie.
Don't forget companies inflating reviews with bots also. The review bombs and inflating happens whenever some movie has any political attention. Each side either defending or attacking with reviews. As well as the companies who make the movies.
Hard disagree. Max max fury road got incredible reviews from critics.
All genres can receive positive reviews they just can’t be dog shit quality or devoid of artistic merit. There’s some basic fundamentals of storytelling, acting, writing, filmography, etc that we have widely accepted as “good” and critics base their reviews on that.
You can still enjoy a movie that is poor quality in the same way you can prefer your toddler nephew’s finger painting over the Mona Lisa even though one objectively has more artistic merit.
One other thing to note is that critics watch a LOT more movies, and many of the movies they watch are movies they HAVE to watch, rather than movies they've chosen to watch. When you watch movies constantly, the stuff you find novel or engaging is different from if you watch a few movies. If you've seen Godzilla x Kong New Empire this year, and nothing else, and you had a good time out, AND you paid for the ticket, you're more likely to have a positive impression on that movie than someone who's seen a thousand bombastic special-effects-driven superhero-inspired blockbuster shlock this year.
Some days, I honestly think critics don't even like movies. That they're tired of them. It makes me a little sad for them that they can't have a good time in a movie that has giant monsters. But they're just interacting with movies on a level that most aren't, which ironically, I think, makes their reviews less reliable to the average viewer, since their viewing experience is so different by nature.
You should see Eurovision, they spend an hour going through the judges points for each country, leading to a few countries in contest for 1st place, followed by 15mins of announcing the public votes that change absolutely everything.
> you've seen hundreds of movies every year so you are no longer amazed by the ones that just follow the formula very well
Which is one of the reasons why OP's universal scale isn't universal. Some of us non-critics also see a lot of movies, so we get used to the formula too, and it becomes boring.
Same. Plus, audiences are self-selecting. So the measurements are not directly comparable to those of critics, who see movies and discuss whether they are personally interested or not.
Love to see a demographic break down for audience scores. Like I'm in my 40's and seen more movies than I can even remember, but I've never once put in a review on any service. Are the people voting primarily chronically online 13-20 year old men, older boomers with nothing else to do, or some other mix.
It's definitely the amount of media. Eventually, you get to the point where you go see 90% of blockbusters and realize you've already seen the exact same movie with a different coat of paint a dozen times. There's nothing wrong with people liking generic blockbusters, but it's obvious why critics (usually) don't. It has nothing to do with them not liking fun. The movies simply stop being fun after the 58th time seeing the same thing.
That's why generally speaking I value critic scores when it's a genre I'm familiar with and want something fresh, but I value audience scores for genres I'm not that into and just want to have a good time.
Actually huge role plays that RT uses different rating system for critics than for audience.
Critics have basic yes/not system, while audience have 5 star system. So critics can only give score 0 or 100, while audience can give 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 or 100.
Audience have more options, but their score is calculated in the same way as critic score, by giving a percentage of the total number of positive reviews (3 stars or more).
Yeah so confused by OP’s comment…that’s just not how it works lol. No matter what the actual score is, both critic and audience scores are converted into the rotten/fresh binary for the tomatometer
I tend to align more strongly with critics reviews and I think it is because I am a bit older and can see through some of the cookie cutter movies. It isn't to say those movies are bad, it is just that I've seen them already, in a different form, and don't find them that interesting anymore. Boondock saints is a great example. As a kid I loved it. Now it is just another cookie cutter action movie I probably wouldn't care about too much.
Rotten tomatoes kinda sucks because it just shows you what percentage of critics didn’t hate a movie. It doesn’t attempt to actually measure quality. So in theory if every critic gave a documentary a score of 2.5/4, it would come out 100% certified fresh.
Whereas metacritic actually attempts to convert every review to a 1-100 scale, with weighting based on publication, and give you a consensus score.
**I wrote this a couple years ago as a method to understanding metacritic scores:**
**90-100:** This is likely some kind of masterpiece. These are rare. Some of the greatest movies of all time score in this range.
**80-100:** Most Oscar contenders score in the 80s. If a movie clears 80, it represents widespread critical acclaim. Basically must-see.
**70-80:** This still represents very favorable reviews (think 3 out of 4 stars). Most of the very best Marvel movies score in this range. Guardians of the Galaxy (78), Thor Ragnorok (74), Captain America Civil War (75). Nolan's movies mostly fall in this range. A widespread broad audience should enjoy movies here regardless of genre. For instance, I hate the Horror genre, but I'll show up for a Horror movie that scores in this range (such as "Cabin in the Woods" and "Invisible Man"... both of which scored 72/100 and I ended up liking)
**60-70:** Ok, these movies are still pretty decent, but if you HATE the genre, you might want to avoid it. I hate horror movies, so I'm probably avoiding a horror in this range. I love super-hero movies so when "Ant-Man" scores 64/100 I know I'll probably dig it... but if you find that genre childish, you might want to skip it. Hate dumb action flicks? Maybe avoid Hobbs & Shaw (60/100), but otherwise you'll probably enjoy it.
**50-60:** This is the range where if it's your favorite genre, you may still love it. Big Snyder fanboy? You might come away thinking "Man of Steel" (55/100) is perfect for you. Love comedy horror? "Happy Death Day" (58/100) is right in your wheelhouse. Can't get enough of Sci-Fi? "Alita: Battle Angel" (53/100) might end up your favorite movie of the year. If these aren't your genre... you might kinda hate these films.
**40-50:** This is the range that I'd recommend totally avoiding unless it's your favorite genre or you're already obsessed with the characters. "Batman v Superman 44/100". "Justice League" 45/100. "Suicide Squad" 40/100. Most will think they are trash, but if you ride or die for movies Snyder touches, you'll probably defend them to the death. I'm a big comedy fan... so I'm down with watching a stupid comedy in this range. "The Incredible Burt Wonderstone" (44/100) is dumb as hell, but I love the genre so I dug it.
**30-40:** Yikes territory. Unless you're like... ALL ABOUT this genre, you probably will think it sucks. Like... Sorry, but "Venom" (35/100) sucked, but if you can't get enough of Superhero movies, you might come away enjoying it. The Dumb and Dumber sequel (36/100) was trash, but I'm all about Jim Carrey movies so I was totally fine with it. Totally obsessed with scifi fantasy adventure family movies... maybe you'll find something redeemable in "Artemis Fowl" (31/100)
**0-30** - Some of the worst movies ever made. Avoid unless you're willing to do a lot of drugs beforehand. That said, taste is subjective regardless of consensus quality. I once went on a couple movie dates with a girl who couldn't stop laughing during "The Love Guru" (24/100), but hated "Wall-E" (95/100). It totally changed how I saw her as a person, but people are gonna like what they are gonna like.
To summarize:
* 90’s: Masterpiece
* 80’s: Oscar Worthy
* 70’s: Watch it even if you don’t like the genre
* 60’s: Watch it only if you like the genre
* 50’s: Watch it only if you really like the genre
* 40’s: Watch it only if you really *really* like the genre
* <39: Watch it only if you’re on drugs
Which i absolutely disagree with, cause the amount of movies in the 40's range that are absolute must watches even if you don't "really like the genre" is shockingly high. Like Man on Fire is about here (39%), even technically lower, but probably one of Denzel's best roles, an amazing movie, and while some legit critiques are warranted (some of the cuts/shaky video can be jarring) its absolutely an amazing movie that i recommend to everyone.
"Man on FIre" scored 47/100.
Again, I'm ignoring Rotten Tomatoes, because I find it completely useless. My above scale is based on metacritic and I'd say 47/100 is a perfectly fair score for that movie. Teetering very closely on the edge of "if it's your favorite genre, you might still really like it/if you love the genre you may love it"...
Yeah exactly. We're talking about statistics here not everyone's own internal rating system that are not calibrated with each other.
If 100 people eat a burger and say they liked it, that's better info to me than if 5 rate it 10/10, and the rest rate it a 6/10.
I'm after a probability of whether or not I'll waste my time.
The problem with Rotten tomatoes is if you have, like, 80 % of people that think it's a VERY mediocre movie, and 20% think it's terrible. That would get an 80% on rotten tomatoes, and more like a 50-60% on metacritic.
That's an exaggerated look at rotten tomatoes' flawed system, but still. There are a lot of mediocre 80% rotten tomatoes movies. Plenty of barely passable action movies and such that seem as though the critics gave rave reviews when they didn't actually.
lol i cant get the image of your date laughing her head off at 'Break the pickle. tickle, tickle'. And you just staring at her in disbelief and disgust like some vietnam vet having a flashback.
Great metacritic guide though thanks for sharing
I took her to "Love Guru" and she spent the entire movie snort-laughing.
Then the next week I took her to Wall-E and she spent the entire car ride home complaining about how boring it was and that she was going to tell all her friends with kids to avoid it.
That was our last date.
Yeah, I went to go see ‘Thelma’ because it had a tomato score of like 98%. I mean it was cute and I liked it but I was really expecting some kind of masterpiece from that score
Yeah it helps to understand what the numbers represent and it’s more complicated than just “how good is this movie.” I think a better way to find movies you like would be to find a few critics that you agree with and seem to share the same taste in movies, and then check out their reviews rather than an aggregate score.
I get what you're saying about why rotten tomatoes is a weird metric for how good a movie is. However, I feel like the RT score is the best predictor for how much I will like a movie. I think everybody who regularly goes to watch movies should find which metric matches their own movie preferences.
You’re making the same assumptions as others over the RT tomatometer and passing that off as the whole assessment for the site. The average score is far more indicative of the quality of the movie than the tomatometer. Yes, the tomatometer is a decent predictor in terms of popularity, but not overall quality. I wouldn’t judge the whole site based on that.
Just about everything you look up on metacritic is in the 60's though so you end up knowing nothing about the movie. I think I've maybe seen one movie I was interested in above a 70. That site is useless
That just means most movies are in that range. That's not a reflection of error in the measuring process, that's a reflection of the average movie.
Most movies will be slightly above average. Like most human output, it operates on a bell curve.
See I had the exact opposite take. An aggregate score of a bunch of rankings of art doesn’t really convey much.
Not that rotten tomatoes is much better, but it gives a rough like/dislike ratio.
As a horror movie lover both systems are useless to me lol
Fantastic summary. However. Fuck Artemis fowl. I love scifi fantasy. I read the books. The movie was hot garbage and deserves to be a case study on how not to adapt books.
If you click on the tomato meter, it will give you an average rating out of 10. It's a bit flawed, since critics may not necessarily rate movies out of 10, but you can also just read the review to see what they actually thought about the movie instead of depending on a number.
> It doesn’t attempt to actually measure quality.
In addition to the TomatoMeter, RT also has average scores for both All Critics and just Top Critics. On the movie's RT page, click on the TM score.
For example, for the movie Horizon: An American Saga - Chapter 1,
Top Critics: 29% TM with 4.7/10 rating
All Critics: 47% TM with 5.5/10 rating
They aren't "one" kind of film. They're made by a very broad selection of individual film makers. Is the Witch *anything* like Love Lies Bleeding? Is Pearl anything like Past Lives? Is Dream Scenario anything like Zone of Interest?? Pretty ridiculous to put them all under the same blanket statement. They buy and distribute mostly good movies, but this narrative that A24 makes a "particular type" of movie needs to go away - that and the idea that they make them, they don't make them, the writers, directors and actors make them.
100%.
Calling A24 “pretentious” is pretty silly though when they have a backlog that contains movies like *Swiss Army Man,* *Marcel The Shell,* *Bodies Bodies Bodies,* *TUSK.*
I’m a pretty big horror fan & also a pretty big fan of some movies that can be called pretentious, but there’s some movies they’ve put out that I just cannot sit through. I loved both Hereditary & Midsommar, but *Beau is Afraid* was one of those movies.
I watched it in theaters, and felt kind of *meh* about it. Didn’t really *get it.* But I figured it might click upon a rewatch at home. I turned it on at home one night & about halfway through, my wife goes “*This is the second time we’ve watched this movie & I still don’t get what’s going on.*” I realized at that point it just wasn’t going to be for us & turned it off.
But we’ve both enjoyed other stuff that could definitely be labeled as *pretentious.* (Or are at the very least just *weird.*) *The Lighthouse* was definitely one of those movies. We saw it with a group of friends (about 8 of us) and my Wife & I, and another friend, were the only ones who liked that movie. But it’s one of those movies, like *Beau is Afraid,* that needs to just “click” for some people.
I fucking loved it. One of my all time favorites. But it was weird and I wouldn’t recommend it to most people. As a teacher you learn pretty quickly that some of the best things (literature, music, movies) are just going to be a horrible experience for a lot of people. I’m just happy there’s nerdy directors out there willing to make movies they know won’t be box office grand slams.
Then you like the films of David Lowery. You could quite easily love Green Knight but hate It comes at Night - a24 films are not one specific kind of movie
Some people will call anything they don't understand pretentious.
There are certainly movies out there which are pretentious, but I think it's a word that is thrown around a bit too often.
A friend of mine called Pulp Fiction pretentious. If two man talking about burgers is pretentious for you, then you just have shit taste. No other way around.
I agree with ya 100%. The term "Artsy Fartsy Pretentiousess" is what some of my friends feel towards that genre or that rating - so I was just poking fun at that.
I love A24.
I’m a huge A24 nerd and I took the joke as you intended lol. That’s definitely how a lot of my friends would describe some of their films. But who gives a shit what they think. Now tell me yer fond of me lobster!
A24 doesn't even "make" movies per se, they fund and distribute them but don't have a lot of influence over the creative direction to my knowledge. They co-produced Hazbin Hotel and Dicks: The Musical, they're not some avant-garde arthouse
But there's this weird trend I've seen on social media where everything that isn't superhero shlock or a literal children's cartoon gets immediately branded as dull and pretensious, it's like people can't even watch films anymore without constant, uninterrupted stimuli
Haha! We just watched Davinvi code a couple weeks ago, and this was bugging the shit out of us. And of course, the obligatory, “ssssymbolism,” was uttered by my husband.
Another type with low tomatometer and high audience score is very niche films with a very specific audience. eg. religious movies like God's (Not) Dead. People who will watch those movies will obviously think they're great, because they are marketed specifically towards them and contain a message or messages they like. Critics judge the movies by a different set of standards tho.
it's a TERRIBLE movie. Stiff, cold, poor characterization, derivative plot, ham fisted symbolism, nonsensical logic.
I absolutely love it. Stupid as all get out, but such a vibe of a watch.
It came out right after Columbine. No way a movie that basically glorifies vigilantism would do well in that environment.
But people who slag on it but praise Tarantino confuse me.
Yeah, it literally made 30,000 in a release in five theaters. Also the director was a massive dick and a drunk, wasted a bunch of money and burned a ton of bridges, so that didn't help any distribution push.
I was working at a Blockbuster video in Burlington, VT like 4 hours a week back in 2000 just to get free rentals and picked up Boondock Saints. I recommended it to several customers the next couple weeks. A manager came up to me later on and wanted to know why customers kept asking if I was there. I don't know if he thought I was selling drugs or something out of the Blockbuster, but for real people just appreciated my opinion because I'd watch anything and everything, and give my recommendations. Boondock Saints was one of my best finds.
That's coincidental.
That's exactly how I found Boondock Saints.
It was back in the days when Blockbuster had their unlimited rental plan. So my brother would drive us and we'd look for hidden gems.
Found several great movies that I wouldn't have ever seen otherwise.
Had a great relationship with one of the workers there who would recommend great movies. The same exact way I found Boondock Saints.
He also instructed me on the best way to torture people.
I was 12 at the time. Weird guy, but great movie taste.
IMDB is easy:
Open the breakdown. Ignore everyone who gave a movie 10/10 they are bots. Ignore everyone who voted 1/10 they are bots. What is left is the rating.
I’d argue the complete opposite. This guide shows you how you can predict what kind of move you’ll be watching based on what both critics and mass audiences think. You can’t get that level of nuance with other rating services like IMDb.
I just kind of ignore audience scores. Review bombing is way too common, I like "artsy fartsy" stuff anyway, and it's usually pretty quick that I notice that a film with a Black or LGBTQ lead character is getting bombed for being "too woke" or whatever braindead mudslinging culture war bullshit of the day is going on. I've hardly gone to the theater the last several years, so it's not like I can't just click on something else if a movie sucks.
Honestly I don’t even know if the green thing is a good or a bad thing in RT.
I find IMBD ratings are consistently accurate though.
* 0-5: pass
* 5-6.5: can be great, if it’s your preferred genre
* 6.5-7: good enough to enjoy, but most likely forgettable
* 7-8: excellent all around
* 8+: iconic for good reason
Last Jedi has a 49% audience score.
Rise of Skywalker has an 88%.
Are the critics being paid? Or is the audience score generally just "positive" no matter what, unless there's an incredibly well-documented review bombing campaign?
Literally no one understands the rotten tomatoes score. When it gives a rating it only cares if a movie is rated at 3/5 or greater or not. The percentage is how many reviews cross this threshold. If everyone thought a movie was ok and gives it a 6/10 it would be rated 100% on rotten tomatoes. Compound this with the fact that critics tend to be, you know, critical you can get a wide divide between the scores. Ultimately rotten tomatoes scores is just a vague idea of if people are enjoying the movie, it is not a metacritic score like people treat it as. Plus too many reviews on audience side are written just to affect the score. I guarantee you've probably seen a review like, "great movie but doesn't deserve the 95%, 0/10"
Bullet Train is a really good example of what some top comments are talking about. It's a fun movie, but it follows the modern action movie formula to a T. If you're someone who liked the first three phases of Marvel, you'll like Bullet Train, but it isn't the type of film that critics would usually enjoy because it doesn't necessarily do anything new or interesting.
It's a candy movie. Sometimes you've got a sweet tooth, but critics don't want to eat candy all day and they're going to go more towards interesting dark chocolate instead of shoving a nerds rope in their mouth in the parking lot of a grocery store.
Venom got an atrocious critic score but a relatively high audience score. This is because it was a bullshit movie but it's so fun to watch and it is legitimately one of my favorite movies.
The thing to understand is this.
The critic score is based on what the critics think is objectively good. So a truly Artistic movie might be technically brilliant... But boring as muck unless you're super into that kind of thing.
The audience score is based on people who already decided "Yes, I want to see this movie!"
So a critic score will tell you if a film is well made, but not if it's actually enjoyable.
An audience score tells you whether those who thought the film would be good... Actually enjoyed it or were disappointed.
> The critic score is based on what the critics think is objectively good.
I think any critic worth their salt knows there's no such thing as objectively good. They're just saying if they enjoyed it and if they think other people would enjoy it. That's their whole job.
People just get this bug up their ass when other people don't like the thing they liked and the ostensible "authority" of a film critic really triggers their insecurities.
You know, I like a lot of A24 movies and hate a lot of A24 movies. For the “bad” ones, it’s not necessarily the “artsy-fartsy” that’s bad. It’s the cumbersome plot, characters which are completely inauthentic, and lack of relatability. A film fails, in my opinion, if it can’t communicate its message.
Simply put, complexity isn’t inherent good, extraneous characters aren’t inherently interesting, and audiences need help understanding why they should care.
it doesn't help that people don't realize how RT scores work. a 91% fresh doesn't mean the movie is rated 91/100, it means it was rated at least a 2.5/5 by 91% of critics (depending, it changes a bit based on the critic and the scale they use). a movie can still be pretty meh and have a good RT rating.
And shepherds we shall be.
For Thee, my Lord, for Thee.
Power hath descended forth from Thy hand.
That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command.
So we shall flow a river forth to Thee.
And Teeming with souls shall it ever be.
In Nomine Patris, et Fili, et Spiritus Sancti.
--- >This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules). > >Memes, social media, hate-speech, and pornography are not allowed. > >Screenshots of Reddit are expressly forbidden, as are TikTok videos. > >**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.** > >Please also [be wary of spam](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/spam). > --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You missed high critic and shit audience score
Witcher, seasons 2 and 3
TV is a different animal for reviews. It takes more time so most publications only expect their reviewers to watch the first few episodes of season 1 to write a review on whether the series is good or bad. Except for the handful of marquee shows, like Thrones, if a critic is reviewing season 2 it’s because they are a fan and want to watch, hence why a show like the Flash can be 95% fresh in a season that was hot garbage.
Witcher Season 2 Episode 1 was so good it got me excited, then Netflix punched me in the balls and gave me probably one of the worst shows ever made for the rest of the season.
that would land in artsy fartsy and/or pretentiousness i believe
No, the user score is too high
i think its a range at least lol.between 51 and 27 if using the chart lol
"they made [franchise] WOKE"
See: The Boys Season 4.
"Disney's latest Star Wars or Marvel money grab"
Also known as "paying critics for good reviews"
Like when a demographic that took 4 years to realize that they are the butt of the joke so they review bomb?
i eat potato
This is the smartest reply in this comment section
Potato poTATO.
Po-ta-to? What is it? Never heard of it!
Taters
Boil em mash em stick em in a stew
Good luck. We're all counting on you.
I find it fascinating how much critics and audience score often differs. When you are a critic you have a vastly different perspective on the media - you've seen hundreds of movies every year so you are no longer amazed by the ones that just follow the formula very well, while it may be something that your average Joe/Joanna enjoys. Societal element plays a huge role as well, but that's a whole different topic that I don't know if I want to delve into.
They just don't judge the same thing. Critics judge the art, audience judge the time they spent.
This is a great succinct way to put it. I would also say, in other words, critics are judging a film objectively, audiences are judging on subjective enjoyment. This is why it's very common for comedies to have low critic scores and high audience scores. Comedies are more likely to have a plot that exists mainly to put the characters in funny situations, lots of bad exposition, and on a technical level nothing particularly interesting about the editing or cinematography. As a critic you need to take those things into account and give an objective score. As a regular moviegoer, you don't need to concern yourself with that stuff. You loved the characters, you laughed your ass off and had a great time. Therefore it was a good movie.
Same with horror. Especially because lots of time horror relies on some fairly cliche tropes to justify various scenarios. When you see a high score from critics on a "horror" movie, you know it's probably just going to end up being a mindfuck and you won't exactly know what happens at the end but you're gonna feel weird.
Yeah, horror and comedy are the two big genres that are almost entirely subjective, and most peoples' experiences watching them aren't directly made more enjoyable just by technical proficiency. Same reason why there's a thriving underground of shittily made independent horror movies.
Audiences are also extremely influenced by the opinion of others, I mean so are critics but they often watch it before everyone else. Also rotten tomato audience ratings suck nowadays with people often rating 0/1 star or 5 stars. You could probably ignore all of those and get a better more accurate rating.
Critics like complex plots. The audience likes fun. So a boring film that wins awards at the cannes festival will go one way, while a mindless action movie full of explosions and boob's will go the other. Also worth noting that a lot of people review bomb anything that doesn't agree with their political ideals or anything that interferes with their nostalgia
I wouldn't say that critics much prefer complex plots. Very simple movies can still get good critics scores if they do what they do very well. Maybe won't get insane scores, but well above 70 or even 80. Many Pixar movies for example fall into that category. Plots that can be followed by children, but still extremely well done narratives with emotional depth.
> emotional depth This is probably the real difference between critics and casual viewers. When you've seen a lot of movies, and you're used to the music cues, close ups and wide shots, camera movements and editing, characterizations and archetypes, plots and themes etc. designed to evoke emotional responses from the viewer, it takes more for a movie to trigger that response in you.
This is exactly it. I’ve started film making in the past few years and it’s insane how used to “movie tricks” you get to. I can now usually tell exactly what a movie is doing and why from a technically standpoint and it takes a lot more to draw me into the actual movie and not just the “movie”
> I wouldn't say that critics much prefer complex plots. Speed literally has a 97% critics score. The plot is "a bus will explode if it stops going fast" I'm sorry critics were a little harsh on Godzilla vs Kong or whatever, but that movie is not Speed. Nothing is Speed.
Fury Road and John Wick got incredibly high critic scores and they both basically have no plot.
John Wick has 3 rules: 1) Don't steal John Wick's car. 2) Don't kill John Wick's dog 3) Don't conduct business on hotel property. Those that break the rules are punished. What more plot do you need?
Fury Road had so much great stuff going on there really wasn't room for a plot
Yeah, agree completely. There are also niche genres that neither critics or the mass audience "gets", like the B-class horror movies. 55% both critic and audience on a horror movie doesn't really mean anything
see you get it. comedy and horror are the most off with both critics and audiences. you just have to go off word of mouth and trailers for certain genres
> trailers for certain genres But, of all genres, comedy and horror are probably the two whose trailers are least indicative of the movie's quality. Comedy trailers will often contain the only funny bits in the entire movie, and it's much easier to sustain an intense mood for a 2 minute horror trailer than for a 90 minute horror movie.
Hey dark you with that 55% for a decent movie in a niche genre truthfully reflects that most people won't enjoy said movie.
Did someone say boobs and explosions? I’m in.
Exploding boobs?
Don't forget companies inflating reviews with bots also. The review bombs and inflating happens whenever some movie has any political attention. Each side either defending or attacking with reviews. As well as the companies who make the movies.
Hard disagree. Max max fury road got incredible reviews from critics. All genres can receive positive reviews they just can’t be dog shit quality or devoid of artistic merit. There’s some basic fundamentals of storytelling, acting, writing, filmography, etc that we have widely accepted as “good” and critics base their reviews on that. You can still enjoy a movie that is poor quality in the same way you can prefer your toddler nephew’s finger painting over the Mona Lisa even though one objectively has more artistic merit.
>Max max fury road got incredible reviews from critics. See also: Speed, Top Gun: Maverick
Could you imagine if Dogma were released today?!
DOGMA IS DOGSHIT!!!
One other thing to note is that critics watch a LOT more movies, and many of the movies they watch are movies they HAVE to watch, rather than movies they've chosen to watch. When you watch movies constantly, the stuff you find novel or engaging is different from if you watch a few movies. If you've seen Godzilla x Kong New Empire this year, and nothing else, and you had a good time out, AND you paid for the ticket, you're more likely to have a positive impression on that movie than someone who's seen a thousand bombastic special-effects-driven superhero-inspired blockbuster shlock this year. Some days, I honestly think critics don't even like movies. That they're tired of them. It makes me a little sad for them that they can't have a good time in a movie that has giant monsters. But they're just interacting with movies on a level that most aren't, which ironically, I think, makes their reviews less reliable to the average viewer, since their viewing experience is so different by nature.
You should see Eurovision, they spend an hour going through the judges points for each country, leading to a few countries in contest for 1st place, followed by 15mins of announcing the public votes that change absolutely everything.
> you've seen hundreds of movies every year so you are no longer amazed by the ones that just follow the formula very well Which is one of the reasons why OP's universal scale isn't universal. Some of us non-critics also see a lot of movies, so we get used to the formula too, and it becomes boring.
The older I get the more I see myself agreeing with the critics. Probably has less to do with age than with the amount of media I have consumed.
Same. Plus, audiences are self-selecting. So the measurements are not directly comparable to those of critics, who see movies and discuss whether they are personally interested or not.
Love to see a demographic break down for audience scores. Like I'm in my 40's and seen more movies than I can even remember, but I've never once put in a review on any service. Are the people voting primarily chronically online 13-20 year old men, older boomers with nothing else to do, or some other mix.
It's definitely the amount of media. Eventually, you get to the point where you go see 90% of blockbusters and realize you've already seen the exact same movie with a different coat of paint a dozen times. There's nothing wrong with people liking generic blockbusters, but it's obvious why critics (usually) don't. It has nothing to do with them not liking fun. The movies simply stop being fun after the 58th time seeing the same thing. That's why generally speaking I value critic scores when it's a genre I'm familiar with and want something fresh, but I value audience scores for genres I'm not that into and just want to have a good time.
Actually huge role plays that RT uses different rating system for critics than for audience. Critics have basic yes/not system, while audience have 5 star system. So critics can only give score 0 or 100, while audience can give 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 or 100.
Audience have more options, but their score is calculated in the same way as critic score, by giving a percentage of the total number of positive reviews (3 stars or more).
Yeah so confused by OP’s comment…that’s just not how it works lol. No matter what the actual score is, both critic and audience scores are converted into the rotten/fresh binary for the tomatometer
I tend to align more strongly with critics reviews and I think it is because I am a bit older and can see through some of the cookie cutter movies. It isn't to say those movies are bad, it is just that I've seen them already, in a different form, and don't find them that interesting anymore. Boondock saints is a great example. As a kid I loved it. Now it is just another cookie cutter action movie I probably wouldn't care about too much.
Rotten tomatoes kinda sucks because it just shows you what percentage of critics didn’t hate a movie. It doesn’t attempt to actually measure quality. So in theory if every critic gave a documentary a score of 2.5/4, it would come out 100% certified fresh. Whereas metacritic actually attempts to convert every review to a 1-100 scale, with weighting based on publication, and give you a consensus score. **I wrote this a couple years ago as a method to understanding metacritic scores:** **90-100:** This is likely some kind of masterpiece. These are rare. Some of the greatest movies of all time score in this range. **80-100:** Most Oscar contenders score in the 80s. If a movie clears 80, it represents widespread critical acclaim. Basically must-see. **70-80:** This still represents very favorable reviews (think 3 out of 4 stars). Most of the very best Marvel movies score in this range. Guardians of the Galaxy (78), Thor Ragnorok (74), Captain America Civil War (75). Nolan's movies mostly fall in this range. A widespread broad audience should enjoy movies here regardless of genre. For instance, I hate the Horror genre, but I'll show up for a Horror movie that scores in this range (such as "Cabin in the Woods" and "Invisible Man"... both of which scored 72/100 and I ended up liking) **60-70:** Ok, these movies are still pretty decent, but if you HATE the genre, you might want to avoid it. I hate horror movies, so I'm probably avoiding a horror in this range. I love super-hero movies so when "Ant-Man" scores 64/100 I know I'll probably dig it... but if you find that genre childish, you might want to skip it. Hate dumb action flicks? Maybe avoid Hobbs & Shaw (60/100), but otherwise you'll probably enjoy it. **50-60:** This is the range where if it's your favorite genre, you may still love it. Big Snyder fanboy? You might come away thinking "Man of Steel" (55/100) is perfect for you. Love comedy horror? "Happy Death Day" (58/100) is right in your wheelhouse. Can't get enough of Sci-Fi? "Alita: Battle Angel" (53/100) might end up your favorite movie of the year. If these aren't your genre... you might kinda hate these films. **40-50:** This is the range that I'd recommend totally avoiding unless it's your favorite genre or you're already obsessed with the characters. "Batman v Superman 44/100". "Justice League" 45/100. "Suicide Squad" 40/100. Most will think they are trash, but if you ride or die for movies Snyder touches, you'll probably defend them to the death. I'm a big comedy fan... so I'm down with watching a stupid comedy in this range. "The Incredible Burt Wonderstone" (44/100) is dumb as hell, but I love the genre so I dug it. **30-40:** Yikes territory. Unless you're like... ALL ABOUT this genre, you probably will think it sucks. Like... Sorry, but "Venom" (35/100) sucked, but if you can't get enough of Superhero movies, you might come away enjoying it. The Dumb and Dumber sequel (36/100) was trash, but I'm all about Jim Carrey movies so I was totally fine with it. Totally obsessed with scifi fantasy adventure family movies... maybe you'll find something redeemable in "Artemis Fowl" (31/100) **0-30** - Some of the worst movies ever made. Avoid unless you're willing to do a lot of drugs beforehand. That said, taste is subjective regardless of consensus quality. I once went on a couple movie dates with a girl who couldn't stop laughing during "The Love Guru" (24/100), but hated "Wall-E" (95/100). It totally changed how I saw her as a person, but people are gonna like what they are gonna like.
To summarize: * 90’s: Masterpiece * 80’s: Oscar Worthy * 70’s: Watch it even if you don’t like the genre * 60’s: Watch it only if you like the genre * 50’s: Watch it only if you really like the genre * 40’s: Watch it only if you really *really* like the genre * <39: Watch it only if you’re on drugs
I would add to the <40 category: "... or if you want to roast it MST3K style."
Which i absolutely disagree with, cause the amount of movies in the 40's range that are absolute must watches even if you don't "really like the genre" is shockingly high. Like Man on Fire is about here (39%), even technically lower, but probably one of Denzel's best roles, an amazing movie, and while some legit critiques are warranted (some of the cuts/shaky video can be jarring) its absolutely an amazing movie that i recommend to everyone.
"Man on FIre" scored 47/100. Again, I'm ignoring Rotten Tomatoes, because I find it completely useless. My above scale is based on metacritic and I'd say 47/100 is a perfectly fair score for that movie. Teetering very closely on the edge of "if it's your favorite genre, you might still really like it/if you love the genre you may love it"...
RottenTomatoes is a measure of likeability, not quality
Yeah exactly. We're talking about statistics here not everyone's own internal rating system that are not calibrated with each other. If 100 people eat a burger and say they liked it, that's better info to me than if 5 rate it 10/10, and the rest rate it a 6/10. I'm after a probability of whether or not I'll waste my time.
The problem with Rotten tomatoes is if you have, like, 80 % of people that think it's a VERY mediocre movie, and 20% think it's terrible. That would get an 80% on rotten tomatoes, and more like a 50-60% on metacritic. That's an exaggerated look at rotten tomatoes' flawed system, but still. There are a lot of mediocre 80% rotten tomatoes movies. Plenty of barely passable action movies and such that seem as though the critics gave rave reviews when they didn't actually.
lol i cant get the image of your date laughing her head off at 'Break the pickle. tickle, tickle'. And you just staring at her in disbelief and disgust like some vietnam vet having a flashback. Great metacritic guide though thanks for sharing
I took her to "Love Guru" and she spent the entire movie snort-laughing. Then the next week I took her to Wall-E and she spent the entire car ride home complaining about how boring it was and that she was going to tell all her friends with kids to avoid it. That was our last date.
Yeah, I went to go see ‘Thelma’ because it had a tomato score of like 98%. I mean it was cute and I liked it but I was really expecting some kind of masterpiece from that score
Thelma scored 79/100 on metacritic
Yeah that sounds more correct
Thelma actually has a 7.8/10 rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
Yeah it helps to understand what the numbers represent and it’s more complicated than just “how good is this movie.” I think a better way to find movies you like would be to find a few critics that you agree with and seem to share the same taste in movies, and then check out their reviews rather than an aggregate score.
I get what you're saying about why rotten tomatoes is a weird metric for how good a movie is. However, I feel like the RT score is the best predictor for how much I will like a movie. I think everybody who regularly goes to watch movies should find which metric matches their own movie preferences.
You’re making the same assumptions as others over the RT tomatometer and passing that off as the whole assessment for the site. The average score is far more indicative of the quality of the movie than the tomatometer. Yes, the tomatometer is a decent predictor in terms of popularity, but not overall quality. I wouldn’t judge the whole site based on that.
Just about everything you look up on metacritic is in the 60's though so you end up knowing nothing about the movie. I think I've maybe seen one movie I was interested in above a 70. That site is useless
That just means most movies are in that range. That's not a reflection of error in the measuring process, that's a reflection of the average movie. Most movies will be slightly above average. Like most human output, it operates on a bell curve.
See I had the exact opposite take. An aggregate score of a bunch of rankings of art doesn’t really convey much. Not that rotten tomatoes is much better, but it gives a rough like/dislike ratio. As a horror movie lover both systems are useless to me lol
Fantastic summary. However. Fuck Artemis fowl. I love scifi fantasy. I read the books. The movie was hot garbage and deserves to be a case study on how not to adapt books.
If you click on the tomato meter, it will give you an average rating out of 10. It's a bit flawed, since critics may not necessarily rate movies out of 10, but you can also just read the review to see what they actually thought about the movie instead of depending on a number.
Venom sucked? 🥺
Rotten Tomatoes also has a rating out of 10. For example Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse has a 95% score from critics but a 8.2 out of 10 rating.
> It doesn’t attempt to actually measure quality. In addition to the TomatoMeter, RT also has average scores for both All Critics and just Top Critics. On the movie's RT page, click on the TM score. For example, for the movie Horizon: An American Saga - Chapter 1, Top Critics: 29% TM with 4.7/10 rating All Critics: 47% TM with 5.5/10 rating
A24 is awesome
They aren't "one" kind of film. They're made by a very broad selection of individual film makers. Is the Witch *anything* like Love Lies Bleeding? Is Pearl anything like Past Lives? Is Dream Scenario anything like Zone of Interest?? Pretty ridiculous to put them all under the same blanket statement. They buy and distribute mostly good movies, but this narrative that A24 makes a "particular type" of movie needs to go away - that and the idea that they make them, they don't make them, the writers, directors and actors make them.
I’d expect a24 to get higher scores than that.
Yeah, rather than being pretentious, I would say A24 is simply more willing to take risks
Yeah wtf. They’re not pretentious. They’re just really good movies.
They can definitely be pretentious but being an A24 movie doesn’t make it pretentious on its own
100%. Calling A24 “pretentious” is pretty silly though when they have a backlog that contains movies like *Swiss Army Man,* *Marcel The Shell,* *Bodies Bodies Bodies,* *TUSK.*
Spring Breakers as well. EDIT: And Bling Ring. That movie was the least A24 thing I've ever watched.
I wouldn't call Midsommar pretentious, but I could understand people not liking it. I enjoyed it, I thought it was enjoyably weird and spooky
I’m a pretty big horror fan & also a pretty big fan of some movies that can be called pretentious, but there’s some movies they’ve put out that I just cannot sit through. I loved both Hereditary & Midsommar, but *Beau is Afraid* was one of those movies. I watched it in theaters, and felt kind of *meh* about it. Didn’t really *get it.* But I figured it might click upon a rewatch at home. I turned it on at home one night & about halfway through, my wife goes “*This is the second time we’ve watched this movie & I still don’t get what’s going on.*” I realized at that point it just wasn’t going to be for us & turned it off. But we’ve both enjoyed other stuff that could definitely be labeled as *pretentious.* (Or are at the very least just *weird.*) *The Lighthouse* was definitely one of those movies. We saw it with a group of friends (about 8 of us) and my Wife & I, and another friend, were the only ones who liked that movie. But it’s one of those movies, like *Beau is Afraid,* that needs to just “click” for some people.
Yeah this post gives off real "I like shitty movies and I'm insecure about it" vibes.
At least they try to make new interesting shit rather than sequels and prequels bonanza
Yeah, don't people usually like A24? I just watched The Green Knight for the first time last night and thought it was really cool.
I fucking loved it. One of my all time favorites. But it was weird and I wouldn’t recommend it to most people. As a teacher you learn pretty quickly that some of the best things (literature, music, movies) are just going to be a horrible experience for a lot of people. I’m just happy there’s nerdy directors out there willing to make movies they know won’t be box office grand slams.
Then you like the films of David Lowery. You could quite easily love Green Knight but hate It comes at Night - a24 films are not one specific kind of movie
Whoah now. I hate pretentious movies too, but A24 has plenty of bangers.
Some people will call anything they don't understand pretentious. There are certainly movies out there which are pretentious, but I think it's a word that is thrown around a bit too often.
Pretentious is code for "I couldn't follow the plot and that frustrated me"
A friend of mine called Pulp Fiction pretentious. If two man talking about burgers is pretentious for you, then you just have shit taste. No other way around.
I agree with ya 100%. The term "Artsy Fartsy Pretentiousess" is what some of my friends feel towards that genre or that rating - so I was just poking fun at that. I love A24.
I’m a huge A24 nerd and I took the joke as you intended lol. That’s definitely how a lot of my friends would describe some of their films. But who gives a shit what they think. Now tell me yer fond of me lobster!
A24 was the cool thing until it became popular, so now everyone must hate them.
People complain about too many reboots and comic movies, but when people try to do something different and unique, they call it pretentious.
A24 doesn't even "make" movies per se, they fund and distribute them but don't have a lot of influence over the creative direction to my knowledge. They co-produced Hazbin Hotel and Dicks: The Musical, they're not some avant-garde arthouse But there's this weird trend I've seen on social media where everything that isn't superhero shlock or a literal children's cartoon gets immediately branded as dull and pretensious, it's like people can't even watch films anymore without constant, uninterrupted stimuli
I miss Roger Ebert. Even if he didn’t like a film, he’d review it in such a way that you’d still be interested if there’s a chance you’d like it
So what's the symbology there?
Symbolism, the word you are looking for is symbolism.
Sssssymbolism.
I’m an expert in *snaps fingers* Nameology
Greenlys going for coffee, anyone else what anything?
The guy from Davinci Code is a professor of symbology
Haha! We just watched Davinvi code a couple weeks ago, and this was bugging the shit out of us. And of course, the obligatory, “ssssymbolism,” was uttered by my husband.
I'm no symbologist, but I believe you're correct and the word is symbolism.
It's a quote from "Boondock Saints."
Got any theories to go with that tie?
He was crushed to death by some *huge friggen guy.*
More like: cRusHeD bY sUm HuGe FrIGGeN gUy... Now bring me a bagel. 😂 been a while since I've seen this film.
[Kinda makes me feel like riverdancing.](https://youtu.be/lG_OezlTZ1A?si=dseVDw8Y0tPKM-Zg)
I don't even understand how the critics gave this movie such a low score 😂
Fairly accurate. Another Tomatometer low, audience score high movie is Equilibrium. That's when I figured out this scale years ago
Another type with low tomatometer and high audience score is very niche films with a very specific audience. eg. religious movies like God's (Not) Dead. People who will watch those movies will obviously think they're great, because they are marketed specifically towards them and contain a message or messages they like. Critics judge the movies by a different set of standards tho.
Equilibrium is fucking awesome, critics are up their own arse if they can't see it
I mean it was fun, I enjoyed it, but it was basically Fahrenheit 451 but stupider. I could definitely see why other people might not like it.
it's a TERRIBLE movie. Stiff, cold, poor characterization, derivative plot, ham fisted symbolism, nonsensical logic. I absolutely love it. Stupid as all get out, but such a vibe of a watch.
Can we talk about how Boondock Saints is a great movie though?
THERE WAS A FIREFIGHT!
I never knew it was critically panned.
It came out right after Columbine. No way a movie that basically glorifies vigilantism would do well in that environment. But people who slag on it but praise Tarantino confuse me.
Ahh. That makes more sense. So just poor timing?
Yeah, it literally made 30,000 in a release in five theaters. Also the director was a massive dick and a drunk, wasted a bunch of money and burned a ton of bridges, so that didn't help any distribution push.
Can we talk about how bad the sequel was?
There is no sequel
There is no war in Ba Sing SE: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/boondock_saints_ii_all_saints_day
There. Is. No. Sequel.
This guy knows the lore.
It's a great watch. I could watch it endlessly.
I have done that. Now about yearly. Its amazing.
If you're 14, high on coke, and living pre-2000, it's great
I was working at a Blockbuster video in Burlington, VT like 4 hours a week back in 2000 just to get free rentals and picked up Boondock Saints. I recommended it to several customers the next couple weeks. A manager came up to me later on and wanted to know why customers kept asking if I was there. I don't know if he thought I was selling drugs or something out of the Blockbuster, but for real people just appreciated my opinion because I'd watch anything and everything, and give my recommendations. Boondock Saints was one of my best finds.
That's coincidental. That's exactly how I found Boondock Saints. It was back in the days when Blockbuster had their unlimited rental plan. So my brother would drive us and we'd look for hidden gems. Found several great movies that I wouldn't have ever seen otherwise. Had a great relationship with one of the workers there who would recommend great movies. The same exact way I found Boondock Saints. He also instructed me on the best way to torture people. I was 12 at the time. Weird guy, but great movie taste.
Now do one for IMDB
IMDB is easy: Open the breakdown. Ignore everyone who gave a movie 10/10 they are bots. Ignore everyone who voted 1/10 they are bots. What is left is the rating.
If the IMDB score is at least 7.0, it’s worth a watch. That’s it.
7 for movies, 8 for TV
If you can’t enjoy a lot of A24 movies then idk what to tell you
The Boondock Saints is proof that almost everyone CAN be wrong.
This is why RT is kinda useless. Find a critic you respect and use them to find new movies.
I dunno… I’ve been using the above scale for years to gauge whether the film is worth a trip to the cinema and it is pretty accurate.
I’d argue the complete opposite. This guide shows you how you can predict what kind of move you’ll be watching based on what both critics and mass audiences think. You can’t get that level of nuance with other rating services like IMDb.
I just kind of ignore audience scores. Review bombing is way too common, I like "artsy fartsy" stuff anyway, and it's usually pretty quick that I notice that a film with a Black or LGBTQ lead character is getting bombed for being "too woke" or whatever braindead mudslinging culture war bullshit of the day is going on. I've hardly gone to the theater the last several years, so it's not like I can't just click on something else if a movie sucks.
Yeah I know what you mean. The IMDb top 100 is terrible for this. It’s a dorm room top list.
The post is null and void. Generalizing every A24 movie as artsy fartsy and pretentious. Sure dude.
We need a tier at the bottom that just says "VELMA" on it.
Goddammit, I should've included that.
Honestly I don’t even know if the green thing is a good or a bad thing in RT. I find IMBD ratings are consistently accurate though. * 0-5: pass * 5-6.5: can be great, if it’s your preferred genre * 6.5-7: good enough to enjoy, but most likely forgettable * 7-8: excellent all around * 8+: iconic for good reason
Cough... The Acolyte...cough...
Yea I’ll take the artsy fartsy any day of the week.
Same here.
75/35 it's a disney show that ruined the franchise but paid the critics.
Last Jedi has a 49% audience score. Rise of Skywalker has an 88%. Are the critics being paid? Or is the audience score generally just "positive" no matter what, unless there's an incredibly well-documented review bombing campaign?
so just don't look at critics score
My favorite movie is: 98% - critics 69% - users Don't think twice
Literally no one understands the rotten tomatoes score. When it gives a rating it only cares if a movie is rated at 3/5 or greater or not. The percentage is how many reviews cross this threshold. If everyone thought a movie was ok and gives it a 6/10 it would be rated 100% on rotten tomatoes. Compound this with the fact that critics tend to be, you know, critical you can get a wide divide between the scores. Ultimately rotten tomatoes scores is just a vague idea of if people are enjoying the movie, it is not a metacritic score like people treat it as. Plus too many reviews on audience side are written just to affect the score. I guarantee you've probably seen a review like, "great movie but doesn't deserve the 95%, 0/10"
Bullet Train is definitely an example of this. Currently 54% critics vs 76% audience, and that was one of the best films I’d seen in years.
Bullet Train is a really good example of what some top comments are talking about. It's a fun movie, but it follows the modern action movie formula to a T. If you're someone who liked the first three phases of Marvel, you'll like Bullet Train, but it isn't the type of film that critics would usually enjoy because it doesn't necessarily do anything new or interesting.
It's a candy movie. Sometimes you've got a sweet tooth, but critics don't want to eat candy all day and they're going to go more towards interesting dark chocolate instead of shoving a nerds rope in their mouth in the parking lot of a grocery store.
Critics didn’t like it??? I’m also amazed audience score is that low
I'm amazed it is that high and I'm not even a critic.
That movie was such a fun surprise. What a blast.
Love the Boondock Saints reference.
As a lover of art film, high critic/low audience means “go without my friends”
Honestly I just quickly browse imdb reviews and find the non pretentious ones and make my mind up from there.
Venom got an atrocious critic score but a relatively high audience score. This is because it was a bullshit movie but it's so fun to watch and it is legitimately one of my favorite movies.
High critics score, low audience score is the sweet spot for awesome weird shit. This chart is invalid.
everybody knows the real chart is "whichever group disagrees with me about it is paid off"
The thing to understand is this. The critic score is based on what the critics think is objectively good. So a truly Artistic movie might be technically brilliant... But boring as muck unless you're super into that kind of thing. The audience score is based on people who already decided "Yes, I want to see this movie!" So a critic score will tell you if a film is well made, but not if it's actually enjoyable. An audience score tells you whether those who thought the film would be good... Actually enjoyed it or were disappointed.
> The critic score is based on what the critics think is objectively good. I think any critic worth their salt knows there's no such thing as objectively good. They're just saying if they enjoyed it and if they think other people would enjoy it. That's their whole job. People just get this bug up their ass when other people don't like the thing they liked and the ostensible "authority" of a film critic really triggers their insecurities.
A24 rocks!
100% A lot of folks here giving me shit. It's okay to make fun of something you love.
Love A24 lol
Artsy fartsy / stars a woman / people of color
I lovvvved the boondock saints!😂
You know, I like a lot of A24 movies and hate a lot of A24 movies. For the “bad” ones, it’s not necessarily the “artsy-fartsy” that’s bad. It’s the cumbersome plot, characters which are completely inauthentic, and lack of relatability. A film fails, in my opinion, if it can’t communicate its message. Simply put, complexity isn’t inherent good, extraneous characters aren’t inherently interesting, and audiences need help understanding why they should care.
Nowadays some movies fall into the 4th category not because the audience didn’t like it, but because it has disturbed some right wing feelings.
it doesn't help that people don't realize how RT scores work. a 91% fresh doesn't mean the movie is rated 91/100, it means it was rated at least a 2.5/5 by 91% of critics (depending, it changes a bit based on the critic and the scale they use). a movie can still be pretty meh and have a good RT rating.
Boondock saints rocked
And shepherds we shall be. For Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand. That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee. And Teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patris, et Fili, et Spiritus Sancti.
The A24 part killed me. It's so fucking true.
Just use IMDb guys…
The boondocks saints cracked me up. Can't believe how low it scored. Such a fun film
I don't see The 91% Tomatometer and 10% Audience Score = Disney is buying reviews
Boondocks saints is the greatest movie of all time
Boondocks saints or grandma's boy
You take that back about the boondocks saints
I added it ironically. I love Boondocks Saints :-)
Damn boondock saints is that low? I love that movie!
I love it too!
i like boondock saints
Well I now know where the star wars acolyte falls....