How much do you trust Rotten Tomatoes?

Magic light from the Ark melting faces is silly. Pulling a still beating heart from a man's chest is silly. Every damn thing that happens in Last Crusade is silly. The real difference is those films play the silliness with the exact amount of seriousness to make the films work. I think Crystal Skull took it a tad too far, but not out of the realm of the original trilogy. I just think the actors were hamming it up a bit too much and there was too much mugging and winking at the camera in Crystal Skull which wasn't present in the original trilogy.


I never said action films were silly. 13 Assassins isn't silly. Blue Ruin isn't silly. No Country for Old Men isn't silly.

For the record, I love action films, but only the good ones.

Death Race was trash because (and I'm really grasping here, I was drinking when I watched it and it was years ago), Paul Anderson doesn't know how to balance things like satire and action. The film had a completely over-the-top premise and exactly zero fun. Watch the original film which was perfect with the satire and, given the state of celebrity worship and reality programming in our current culture, kind of ahead of its time. Death Race is forgettable trash.

What?! I don't even get what you're saying. Nothing about Death Race made me squeamish except the fact that it's a remake of a terrific film that falls so short of the original it's not even worth talking about.


So what you're actually saying is that you don't like critics? I've found Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to be lots of things (and I've found a lot of critics can be self-important windbags which makes them like me!), but I've never thought of critical consensus as inconsistent.

__________________

Crystal Skull really felt like "all flash, no substance" compared to Last Crusade.

Fair enough - I've never seen the original, and I enjoyed the remake with the main exception of the lead actress (who couldn't act at all).

Just as another example - The Hangover 1 received positive reviews on RT, while The Hangover 2 received rotten reviews.

To me the 2nd film was basically the same film as the first film, just in a different setting, but other than that it was nearly identical plot-wise. Yet somehow it gets a vastly different consensus.

Not to mention the negative consensus talks about it being "raunchy" - which is exactly what the first film was... I don't get it.

Father/son issues? Check. Ridiculous magical quest? Check. Indiana Jones? Check.


I can't facepalm hard enough for this. Watch the original now. It's on Netflix streaming.

Did you think maybe the second one got negative reviews because it's the same movie as the first one?!?!?

I'll factor the viewer ratings on a film on RT into the pot, same as I do for ratings on other sites such as Metacritic but I give far more weighting to the views of certain reviewers, professional or otherwise, that I've found in the past generally have similar tastes to myself than I do to generic ratings given by the masses.

I made Rotten Tomatoes the godfather to my first born son, and Rotten Tomatoes has both my bank account and Social Security numbers.

I'd say I trust Rotten Tomatoes quite a bit.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

That's a poor reason to give a film negative reviews - assuming someone had never seen the first one, they'd have enjoyed it just as much as the first one (and it didn't require seeing the first one to understand it). I think films should be rated on their own merit. There was way too big a fresh rating difference for that gripe alone.

The original was years before my time. Most likely you're thinking of the remake in contrast to the original.

To be honest that's pretty much what the deal with the new Indiana Jones is for me. I'd never seen an Indiana Jones film all the way though until after I watched KS. On it's own I thought it was "meh" - then after I went back and watched a few of the older films I hated it all that much more.

The criteria on Rotten Tomatoes is dodgy. Critics only send in a fresh or rotten label with their reviews, meaning their actual score has no impact on the average compiled on RT. I've seen plenty of mediocre reviews that label a film as fresh on RT and more positive ones that label it as rotten.

This also skews averages. A film could be 100% fresh, with every single review thinking it was 'just okay'. It could also be quite easy for critics to be bribed into sending in fresh ratings for big films they didn't particularly love, but I don't know if that's just me being cynical.

The idea that each and every film on the planet can be divided up into two columns is ridiculous. Metacritic is a much more solid and definitive view of the general opinion of a film amongst critics. That being said, I don't really look at either. I look at my favourite critics, who's directing/starring, the trailers, even letterboxd consensus to influence my viewing decision.

Not really, mostly because of the fact that a lot of reviewers who post there aren't professionals and know very little about the inside message or themes of certain films. So as you do, I take them with a grain of a salt. A very small grain indeed.

I use RottenTomatoes for ratings when I'm not sure if a movie's worth watching. I find IMDB useless in that area because for most movies the ratings range from 5 for 7. It's really hard to get an idea on whether a movie is good or not if most of the people putting out those ratings over there go: "meh, it was ok, I guess..." every time.

On RT you get critic and viewers' ratings separately so if a movie is cerebral, it will usually have a good critic rating, but a poor viewers' rating, and if a movie is just a load of special effects, the viewers often give it a good rating, while the critics burn it.

So, not only can you get an idea whether the movie is worth watching or not, but you can often also deduce why or why not.


...but yeah, I remember a few cases when I didn't agree with the ratings at all.

__________________
Check out my blog: Yasashii's Retro Game Playground

I trust them a lot.


8 out of 10 times, they accurately rate movies.

I have noticed the same thing OP. Definite biases.

I don't much trust the ratings. Some films will score highly because they tick certain filmy boxes, but ultimately you won't enjoy at all. If you try to for example find films using their highest rated films, you will find a mass of (to me unwatchable) stuff, that is 'technically good' or some such.

It is good for determining if something is really **** though.

IMDB though is arguably worse for ratings though. You can't trust the public to have good opinions on anything ever.

It's always nice to see the general rating for a film but usually I first watch it and then check out Wikipedia and with it the ratings.

But I do not trust it at all. And it seems to be a contest of popularity more than if the movie is good or not tbh so I don't tend to pay attention to it.

__________________

If i am not sure of what movies should i watch in the evening, and I have a few to choose from, i look at IMDB. 6.8 is the limit for me, lower than than i normally prefer not to watch. The only exception was a movie rated at 5.7 or something, but i liked it! Cant remember the name, if i find it, i'll post it.

__________________
My Favorite Films

Its Jade (1995) - Currently rated at 5.1. I would give it a 6!

There is a very high correlation between the RT rating and the actual quality of the movie. So, I'd say it's quite trustworthy

I trust it to a certain extent... and I think it's more reliable than other sources. Usually movies with 80% or higher are worth a shot and those below 30 generally deserve their rating. However sometimes movies with really high ratings can be terrible and boring for example Drive or 2001.
I usually factor in the actual score, the viewer ratings, the little summaries of the top critics' reviews at the bottom at the page, director, cast, imdb rating and plot description.

I always check it, but I don't really trust it. It has The Dark Knight Rises at 88%, and it also has Superman Returns higher than Man Of Steel.

__________________

I don't disagree with either of those ratings.

I don't ever look at RT.

But I don't "trust" the ratings on any site like that. The only ratings I pay any attention to are those from other MoFos.

__________________

I don't trust Rotten Tomatoes. I simply see it as a useful and informative site to know where the trends among professional reviewers are, which can influence my decisions but they are not even close to being the main source.