Why I don't take Rotten Tomatoes seriously

[Sloth7d]

Maybe some people define their opinion not by what doesn't happen, but by what does happen in a movie. Maybe some people feel Dragonball Z is childfare and nothing more, but that would still merely be an opinion.t:

Actually they would be completely incorrect and I wouldn't think they watched it all. I can understand them not liking it, but atleast have reasons that indicate they actually gave it a chance. It's like saying someone hated Spider-man because it was too gorey.

 

[odiin]

Immanuel Kant was a real piss ant who was very rarely stable.

 

[Sloth7d]

Why I don't take this thread seriously: http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=13006448&postcount=1

Why lordofthenerds posted in a thread he doesn't take seriously:http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=13007073&postcount=21

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Actually they would be completely incorrect and I wouldn't think they watched it all. I can understand them not liking it, but atleast have reasons that indicate they actually gave it a chance. It's like saying someone hated Spider-man because it was too gorey.

So their opinion would be incorrect? Alrighty....

 

[L0ngsh0t]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blair_witch_project/

Seriously, these critics havehorrible taste if this crap can get 84%.
Do people understand now why Rotten Tomatoes doesn't even cross my mind when determining the quality of a movie.

wow ridiculous.....Rotten Tomatoes is a system that is set up that if they deem a review a 6/10 or better it is considered a fresh review. So that means that 84 percent of critics just had to think this movie was barely passable for it to get a 84 percent

Rotten Tomatoes is by no means perfect, but as of right now is the best source we have for consensus critical opinion

 

[The Dark Defender]

The first BWP is probably the worst film that I've ever been subjected to in a theatre.

I have no problem with subtle suspense, but there's a difference between subtle and just plain non-existent.
They took that "oh well it's better left to the imagination" stuff WWAAYY too far. That only works so much, if I wanted to imagine an entire freaking movie, I'd stay home, I don't need to pay to see a movie to do that.
All they did was shake the damn camera around, yell **** at each other a bunch of times, and show a bunch of trees....it's some of the laziest filmmaking I've ever seen.
Open Water is BWP done right, the sharks are there, not shown very much but still have a tremendous presence and could attack at any time....this film has three branches that can...wave in the wind at any time and a camera that shakes alot.

And I couldn't care less about critics in general, I don't need others to dictate quality to me, let alone people that are blatantly biased toward sappy dramas and tedious Oscar bait trash that usually bash the hell out of films for achieving exactly what they intended to for their target audience and coming up with what they consider to be witty puns to pan a film with.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

Critical Opinion is a little overrated because it all boils down to opinion any ways

Movies that win Oscars fit a mold so blandly it takes the fun out of what is the best movie

like if Scorcesse makes a movie, there is a good biopic made, and some one makes a "daring" subject material, and then a sweeping historical epic (by ridley scott lol) there is your candidates for best picture already lined up

I'm not saying the Departed shouldn't have won, it was hands down the best out of those nominated, but I definatley think there where at least two movies better than it in Little Children and Children of Men

which is why I was glad when Crash won, not because it was the best movie of the year, but because finally a movie that didn't nessecarily fit the cookie cutter oscar image won

Like this year, I am a little excited actually to see what will get the nominations, like its pretty much a shoe in Michael Clayton will get a nomination, just cause it fits the mold, but because this Elizabeth isn't quite the movie apparently it looks like, we may actually get some out of no where movies like Gone Baby Gone or something

 

[Sloth7d]

So their opinion would be incorrect? Alrighty....

It's like having an opinion that 3+3=8. You can dis-like DBZ, but atleast show that you watched it. Childfare? What did the person who said that watch the censor driven televised version?

 

[OobeDoobBenubi]

I dont take any reviewers seriously. If I want to see it then I will see it

 

[Damiean Dark]

RT movie reviewers want every film to be some kind of masterpeice i think the movie Night at the museum is one of the best family films in years but they gave it a horrendously low mark i know the movie isnt Citizen Kane but come on!.

 

[The Lizard]

I've found that I agree with Rottentomatoes ratings more often than not, so I do go by the Tomatometer rating when I'm undecided about whether or not to see a movie that I don't feel strongly about one way or the other.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

RT movie reviewers want every film to be some kind of masterpeice i think the movie Night at the museum is one of the best family films in years but they gave it a horrendously low mark i know the movie isnt Citizen Kane but come on!.

I agree to an extent

there has to be a standard, but at the same time, Night at the museum isn't a 4/citizen kane it is more like an 8/Alaadin or something, but that is how critics would rate it

 

[TheVileOne]

All that really says is that a lot of critics LIKED Blair Witch project at the time.

Blair Witch project was one overrated horror movie. It was a one hit wonder. And at the time the buzz was huge, critical and audience praise was HIGH.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

All that really says is that a lot of critics LIKED Blair Witch project at the time.

Blair Witch project was one overrated horror movie. It was a one hit wonder. And at the time the buzz was huge, critical and audience praise was HIGH.

Excellent marketing and exploitation

 

[The Dark Defender]

Critical Opinion is a little overrated because it all boils down to opinion any ways

Movies that win Oscars fit a mold so blandly it takes the fun out of what is the best movie

like if Scorcesse makes a movie, there is a good biopic made, and some one makes a "daring" subject material, and then a sweeping historical epic (by ridley scott lol) there is your candidates for best picture already lined up

I'm not saying the Departed shouldn't have won, it was hands down the best out of those nominated, but I definatley think there where at least two movies better than it in Little Children and Children of Men

which is why I was glad when Crash won, not because it was the best movie of the year, but because finally a movie that didn't nessecarily fit the cookie cutter oscar image won

Like this year, I am a little excited actually to see what will get the nominations, like its pretty much a shoe in Michael Clayton will get a nomination, just cause it fits the mold, but because this Elizabeth isn't quite the movie apparently it looks like, we may actually get some out of no where movies like Gone Baby Gone or something

Apocalypto and Pan's Labyrinth are by far the two best films from last year...of course Apocalypto didn't have a snowballs chance in hell regardless of the quality because the Oscars aren't about quality, they're about a Hollywoodized political back-patting fest.

 

[Mr. Socko]

RT is usually right.


This reminds me earlier this year in the summer, when the Spider-Man 3 reviews came in. The rating was around 60%, all the fanboys went on to bash all of the critics and said that reviews were wrong and mean nothing. Then when they saw the film, they found out just how right the critics really were.

 

[The Dark Defender]

Spider Man 3 is a hell of alot better than the first film, which was basically a ****ty cartoon, which most critics liked.

They're usually right in the same way that weather men are "usually right."

 

[Warhammer]

My stance with critics is that they are no different from a poster here posting what they thought of a film. You got some clowns on here that are like "OMG, the critics are so dumb because they didn't like Spider-Man 3. They are overrated and stupid." I never understood people's mentality that the critics are some ultimate evil because they (as a whole) felt that a certain film was bad that they loved. We all have those films that we like that nobody else likes, and this may not be the same as others, but my opinion usually agrees with the majority of critics. Now, this doesn't mean that I am some "blindly loyal follower" that I've seen some posters call others who listen to the critics' opinions. The only difference between a movie critic and a friend is that the former is paid to voice their opinion (the former probably could explain their dislike better, too).

The basic point is that the only significant thing is opinion. There is no such thing as "right" or "wrong."

 

[The Dark Defender]

My stance with critics is that they are no different from a poster here posting what they thought of a film.

Indeed, and they can explain their opinion better than just some random memeber of the general public, but plenty of actual film buffs that love cinema with a passion can explain the way that they feel just as well and often better.

 

[TheVileOne]

Also it's not "RT". It's just general critical opinion, and the elite critical opinion, and the user rated opinion. It just kind of gauges that through the tomato meter.

 

[buddha182]

If you don't like the opinions of critics on RT.... then are there any that you like anywhere?? I mean, almost every major critic out there, except maybe Ebert, is on RT. So, if not them... then who? Or are you just saying you don't like reviews from critics at all... because you know, no one said you had to even read what they had to say or take it seriously?

 

[JTStarkiller]

The thing I don't like about RT is the lack of "intensity" of the critics' ratings. Calculating films by collective fresh or rotten ratings only can be a little misleading.

If 95 out of 100 people think a movie is good, but nothing entirely special, that film will get a 95%. But if 85 out of 100 think a film is a masterpiece, while the other 15 think it was simply mediocre, that film will get an 85%.

Theoretically, film #2 will most likely be the better one.

Okay, I just pulled that out of my ass, but it makes sense, eh?

 

[primemover]

People only like RT when it matches their own opinion.

 

[TheVileOne]

I think the analysts at RT put more thought into it than that believe it or not Starkiller.

 

[Warhammer]

Indeed, and they can explain their opinion better than just some random memeber of the general public, but plenty of actual film buffs that love cinema with a passion can explain the way that they feel just as well and often better.

Precisely.