Does rotten tomatoes influence how you watch movies?

Tools    





I just want to know how much does rotten tomatoes determine whether or not you will go see a film in theaters. Ex. Amsterdam: I really wanted to see this film because it is david o russell who makes good films new film. It has great actors/actresses in it an all star cast and an interesting premise it has murder, mayhem, and even some comic flair in it. But it currently has a 31% on rotten tomatoes very disappointing for a film that looked to be not only a great film but a best picture contender also so i may not go see it now because of that should i still go see it? And will you go see it or will you skip it? I don't know what films like halloween and black adam will get on rotten tomatoes, but given how choosy i have to be at the movies now how should i approach rotten tomatoes how much value does it have?



I rarely check aggregators anymore. If other things make the film interesting, I would trust my taste. Someone reccommended I check out letterboxd for reviewers whose taste I trust. Maybe that is worth a look.



No I don't. But if I was to check ratings to decide if I should see a new film, I'd read reviews at IMDB both 1 star and 10 star reviews. By doing that you get an idea what some people loved about the film and what others hated about it. Then you can have more insight into if the film will be to your liking.



Victim of The Night
Not at all.
RT scores are astonishingly high for most films, some of that being because it's just a 1s and 0s formula, if a review wasn't negative then it goes in the positive pile and vice versa, so if a movie is really a 6/10 but basically ALL critics rate it at least a 6/10, then it can have an RT score in 90s. The other reason, which is also tied to this, is quality drift, both in films and probably more so in criticism. Almost no one levels harsh criticism at large films anymore, even when fully deserving, and the internet has allowed SO many people to become "critics" and even "official critics" when they should really be genre critics at most or in many cases probably shouldn't be critics at all. Yet RT counts them, so again you get absurd inflation. As an example, 8 of the 9 television shows rated on RTs front page are rated 85% or above with 5 of those in the 90s and 3 of them 100%. Nothing like that ever used to happen and shows are not better. Terrifier 2, which, hey, maybe it is good, but it's the supposedly even nastier sequel to one of the ugliest, most misogynist, and often nonsensical or just dumb Horror movies I've seen in years, is at 1000% with 13 critics. So, it's literally as good as Citizen Kane.
And who vets these "critics"?
So I actually come here and fish for the opinions of people whose knowledge and depth of experience with films I have already vetted myself and then I go see what they're letting me know is good. And it works almost all of the time.



Almost no one levels harsh criticism at large films anymore, even when fully deserving, and the internet has allowed SO many people to become "critics" and even "official critics" when they should really be genre critics at most or in many cases probably shouldn't be critics at all. .
This right here. I used to check Fandango in the early oughts. If both the critics and the crowd liked it I would check it out. But over time I could tell that lots of crap was being given a pass by the critics. That is when I gave up on aggregators and critics.



Not at all. I hardly ever even look at it.

I decide on what to watch based mainly on subject and cast. If I do read reviews/look at ratings, it's usually after I've seen the movie.



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
I can't remember the last time I went to the Rotten Tomatoes website, but I sometimes notice their percentage rating on Google when I look up a movie.

I don't go to the movie theater anymore, but as for watching a movie on DVD or streaming, unless the rating is extremely low, it doesn't influence my decision at all.
__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.



Honestly can't remember the last time I looked at RT but it was never really a factor in what I watched anyway (neither was IMDb or any other 'ratings' site - I prefer to just watch whatever takes my fancy and judge it for myself).



The tomato-meter was gamified for studios a long time ago.



All too often, I'm afraid; I'm not in the mood to watch too many movies these days, so I kind of rely on reviews a lot to try to make sure what I do watch well be worth watching.



mattiasflgrtll6's Avatar
The truth is in here
No. I barely check Rotten Tomatoes at all, since the ratings almost never reflect how good it actually is. Something can have a 95% approval rating, but then most reviews will say "Pretty good for a kids movie". Doesn't align with what people actually think compared to imdb, where the same movie would get maybe 6.9/10. That site isn't perfect either, but still the more trustworthy of the two in my opinion.
__________________



I actually do look at Rotten Tomatoes, but it's not the only source that I use when deciding whether to see a movie. I usually use a combination of Rotten tomatoes, metacritic, and IMBD user reviews. I have generally found that if both critical and user reviews are poor, that I usually won't like the movie and therefore usually don't see it, even if I was pretty interested in it beforehand. Example: Woman in the Window. I read and liked the book, am an Amy Adams fan, and have liked some of the directors other films, but it got such a poor reception that I skipped it.

In some cases, I may still see the film, if it is made by an actor or filmmaker that I really enjoy, or I'm really interested in the subject matter. Like many here, I've found that critics often overrate movies, so a high Rotten Tomatoes score is not always an indicator that I'll enjoy the film, but if it has a high Rotten Tomatoes score, and a high user review score, I'll be more interested in seeing it. If critics don't like a movie, but audiences really do, I often will still see it, since I find that to be a more reliable indicator of the entertainment value of the film, unless I'm not interested in seeing the film to begin with. I find that critics often have different criteria for rating films than audiences might, and that my enjoyment of films doesn't always track well with critical reviews. However, there are still a lot of movies with high ratings on IMDB based on user reviews that don't appeal to me, like many comic book films, for example. I do find that I need some type of system to determine what to watch, since otherwise I fear that I'll watch a lot of movies that look appealing on the surface, or that might have an intriguing trailer, but that actually aren't very well made, and that I'll end up not enjoying.



A close to useless website. Especially after they erased all of the good content from it that was on their forums.


I'd like to nuke their shit pile into non existence.



I have a pair of friends who whenever I recommend a movie to them, the first thing they do is check how it's rated on Rotten Tomatoes. Myself, I have never once visited the website.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
Comcast cable movies, yes... If I see anything lower than a 60%, I pass on it, and pick something else. As much as I can't stand movie critics, I tend to learn toward their score much more than Audience Score, but noticed sometimes there's only 4 people voting. Yesterday, I thought about watching a movie, and had it arranged by Critic's Score, because there's a category for Transvestites, just no Classic.