Reviews and Ratings Discussion

I’m not dismissing the tomatometer. I’m saying that you are mischaracterizing what it does. A higher tomatometer simply means more critics at least liked the film than not. It does not imply the degree or reasoning for which they liked it.

You could also find Joker getting tons of prestigious awards and nominations than virtually any of the films that you’re touting as being perceived as “better films” due to RT scores. If that were true, Paddington 2 and Leave No Trace would’ve dominated these ceremonies.

She told me an amazing anecdote about Frankenheimer where she was brought onto the set with some other porn stars as a joke and then Frankenheimer was such a fan, he demanded she actually be in the movie!

Isn't that nice. If only we, the audience, could hear that anecdote as well. Maybe at the end of your movie.

*little did they know, Barry J. Gillis owns a time machine and would be inspired by this moment to go back and place the archival footage at the end of over copy of Things*

While you're at it, do you mind taking your jacket out of the refrigerator?

You know of a better place for it?

No

I don't care much for the tomatometer, but I do value the critical average rating that each film gets on RT by a decent margin. I find it to be more accurate than the tomatometer as, instead of just showing the percentage of the critics who gave the film a positive review, it shows the average rating which each film got, serving as a better reflection of how much the critics liked or disliked the film in question.

But of course, this isn't fully reliable either as all critics have their own distinct rating system, in addition to different interpretations on what their ratings mean in regards to the film, which is why it's better to just stick with a couple critics you like.

Of course there are! But my original point, in the context of which I referenced RT in the first place, is that the reviewers who think promoting progressiveness are clearly ‘winning’ and are represented more widely, seeing as the ratings for Carol and other such films are very high as per aggregators.

It means that most people let their personal viewpoint that ‘promoting homosexuality’ is good turn Carol into what is known as a ‘critically lauded film’, whilst, as with extreme films Mr Minio references, ‘misogynist’ or non-progressive films become ‘critically panned’ because people espousing progressive values downgrade them for not supporting these values. Hence my original point that people should either declare they are being overtly influenced by politics in the way they review films or stick to commenting on the objective metrics of craft as much as possible.

I agree, but again, as I said above, reviewers don’t actually declare personal interests/beliefs. The closest I’ve seen is things like ‘A fresh take on a tired trope’ or ‘A fairytale adapted for modern times’, but no one says, ‘And this is why I’m giving it 5 stars’ - which, to pare it down to basics, I think they should.

If it is acceptable for a reviewer to say Joker shouldn’t have been made because it’s misogynist, the reviewers who like Bridgerton for offering ‘a refreshing take’ on British history must say, ‘Because I think promoting diversity at the expense of historical accuracy is laudable’ and not just assume that everyone thinks that way.

Ha, just kidding, I know from experience that you respect my movie opinions.



...right?

Well, I’m reading a Daily Telegraph article on the BAFTAs this second. It’s entitled ‘Most diverse TV Baftas ever as three out of four top acting categories won by black stars’.

So it seems that even The Daily Telegraph thinks that all these films have in common is their ‘diverse’ focus. Which, indeed, stops short of saying diversity is why they won, but I don’t feel I’m going out on a limb when I argue that.

Quote below:

“Most diverse TV Baftas ever as three out of four top acting categories won by black stars”

“BAFTA produced the most diverse list of winners in its history on Sunday night as it honoured television shows that dealt with race, from the Windrush scandal to Black Lives Matter.

Three of the four acting awards were won by black actors who appeared in BBC dramas exploring the experiences of black Britons.”

Naturally, it stops short of saying the fact these films explored the experiences of black Britons is why they won, but I feel that if you look at the context, it’s blindingly obvious that this is what it’s saying.

Joker winning said prestigious awards was also criticised.

Perhaps the problem is that I am conflating critique and review. Beavis and Butthead critique music videos, while a review is intended for an audience that has already watched the movie, so spoiler alerts aren't really necessary.



Both have their uses. If I want to decide between Godzilla vs Kong 2021 and Coming 2 America, I'm pretty sure the boys will give me sound advice and recommend the godzilla flick.

I very much agree with your sentiment, especially re: music critics - a group of them commissioned a research a few years back that said that people who liked rap had lower IQ. Yes, really. But some critics can appreciate genre music and genre films and still be respectable critics. Horror films have been increasingly appreciated by critics in recent years; I would say that even most snobbish critics grudgingly admit Hereditary is a well-made film.

I respect all critics who include a bunch of commas and semi colons in their reviews, so yes

;rashomon;is,a,great,movie;

Do you respect me now?

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

You’re conflating reporting on Awards shows and criticism of awards with film criticism and evaluation.

Ha ha ha ha! What a story, Stu! Anyways, how’s your love life?

These things are all connected. Reviews themselves, summaries of critical consensus etc. etc. say progressiveness is worthy of a higher rating all the times, implicitly of explicitly. I would have preferred it to be more explicit, but it is there.

Review of Bridgerton in The Independent by Ed Cummings, helpfully entitled ‘Bridgerton, review’:

“*Without the yoke of our native obsessions with the finer points of class and historical accuracy,*Bridgerton*is freed to be watchable fluff, with everyone involved refreshingly aware they are producing a piece of entertainment rather than A History of the English-Speaking Peoples. Key to this is the diverse casting, which attracted pre-release attention. No doubt the sight of black queens and dukes will have a few older viewers foaming at the mouth and writing to Ofcom, but in truth, it is hardly noticeable after a few early scenes.

Along with the racial mix, the separation between sex and marriage is the closest*Bridgerton*comes to having a subversive energy.”

This, to me, explicitly says that the diverse casting is a good thing and is what sets the thing apart from other films/series. And to say it is not noticeable is just ridiculous as that’s the main topic of discussion when it comes to this series.

And yes, just as you say I am conflating things, I could say that you are ignoring blindingly obvious political forces at play, except I would never state something like that in absolute terms the way you do, and instead would say, ‘It appears to me that you are ignoring the obvious way in which political fashion is making reviewers rate these films higher than they deserve to be rated based on objective metrics.’

[edited]

You’re stating absolutes consistently, like “progressiveness is worthy of a higher rating all the times.”

I’m just pointing out the logical fallacies and misrepresentation of metrics that you’re employing to support your stance. I’ve not really made any absolutist statements in regards to your perpetually being wrong. You’re just logically or factually incorrect about these specific things.

I just offered a specific example of a review that says Bridgerton is good because it’s progressive. It has been pointed out to me in the past that it’s not a worthwhile use of my time to keep pulling out quotes for people, but it’s all there if one wants to find it. There are gazillions of such reviews and they are the ones getting the most attention.

Still, I’m bad at listening to such wise people’s advice, so here’s one for Love, Simon from EMPIRE: “ Love, Simon has made history by virtue of simply existing: the first studio-made high-school romcom with a gay character doing the hand-wringing over his heart-aching.

...The high school teen romcom is remade for 2018.” This suggests the ‘updated, contemporary’ LGBT angle deserves to be lauded.