Do you take Rotten Tomatoes/IMDB rating system seriously?

Right, you see that a lot with animated films, it seems: they're almost all pretty good, so they get a lot of positive reviews, but not a lot of outright glowing ones. But again, this is fine as long as you're not asking the number (and to be clear, I'm talking about the number, not the fresh/rotten dichotomy) to do more than rule out whether or not it's terrible.

I think it's a useful number if you don't ask it to do too much, basically, particularly if you apply a little common sense to the rating of any film with any ambition. It's not good for any one specific film, particularly anything off the beaten path, but for culling the massive number of options into something more manageable for closer inspection, I still find it fairly useful.

I look at IMDB frequently, trying to get a feel for the film. There are mostly bad films being made today, so I try to avoid giving up 2 hours of my time to watch an offensive turkey.

My interest falls on 3 main IMDB features: the overall rating (and why); the MPAA rating; and the Parent Guide. Due diligence is given to the professional critics' opinions, and what their philosophy is that compels them to praise or pan.

There is an increasing reluctance on my part to view R-rated films. There seems to be no upper limit to the gore, gratuitous graphic violence, language, and long-winded graphic sex scenes (no pun intended), both normal and deviant, in R-rated films. Writers and directors seem to believe that the more degrading and rank a picture is, the "heavier" it is, and more brilliant. Perhaps the average movie-goer expects this, or even clamors for it. But I hope that life will not imitate "art".

Wikipedia usually has nice plot summaries. My preferences are happy endings, or at least realistic ones. If a film seems to have a great story, but with an off-the-wall disappointing ending, that film goes to the bottom of the heap. Why watch it all the way through, only to be hit with a mud pie at the end?

And lastly, the reviews and opinions on this excellent site are very helpful. Carry on...

~Doc

I agree with Yoda on this one.

I use IMDB, all the time. Sure I sometimes see films I dislike that has a higher rating than my own rating, like John Wick 2 for example, it gives me a reason to revisit them just to see the other side of the picture. Whether I change my opinion is up to the films, but I find IMDB a good source to get a sense about a movie.

Note: I always wait a bit on new released movies on IMDB as the rating could be inflated.

Like what Yoda said, it's very unusual for bad films to have really high scores, or good films to have really low ones.

I see some people in this thread say Dark Knight and Shawshank shouldn't receive such high rating on IMDB. We can agree to disagree on something like this, however it doesn't change the fact that both Dark Knight and Shawshank are GREAT movies, I think that's pretty much the notion most people have towards them.

I look at IMDB ratings seriously. I will go to theatre to see a movie that scores over 7.5, and most of the time I find the money I spend worthy. It just works for me.

__________________
You talkin' to me?

I never use Rotten Tomatoes, their way of rating movies is stupid.

I rate films on IMDB to keep track of what I've seen, but I'll have to go back to Yoda's argument on this one...
I just use it as a blind guideline on whether it's a good idea to see a certain film or not.

But if the film is loved by critics and hated by audiences, I will see it!

I agree for the most part, but one I really can't comprehend is Get Out. 99% on RT.

I'm sorry, but Get Out just isn't that good. It's a 6/10-ish type film.

99%? lol

divisive movies > user reviews > RT critics > academy awards.

A reviewer giving a 6/10 is still a "fresh" rating by RT standards. If 99% of critics had all given it 6/10 and 1% gave it 5/10, that would still register as a 99% fresh rating on RT.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up. I really wasn't sure how their rating system worked.

Yeah, that's the real problem with RT - it's way too easy to interpret that percentage as an indicator of a film's quality when it's really just an indicator of how many critics liked it even if they're more "it was OK I guess" than "modern masterpiece".

To me RT was just like bundle of critic tho'. It fun sometimes lurking in there seeking confirmation or just oposite point of view