Rotten Tomatoes discussion

[Blzer]

So what do most people think about this website? Personally, it's only one stop I tend to go to out of many (I like to read non-spoiler user reviews from you guys and IMDb as well), and while I rarely do agree with it at least when it's on one far end of the scale it tends to be right.

Now, there are instances where I'm very confused when we see movies like 27 Pounds with 28% and Man on Fire with 39%, but I tend to feel that if a movie is above say 85% then I should probably give it a shot in theaters.

It's very interesting how horror movies never really fare well with "professional" critics, yet Drag Me to Hell is at a whopping 95% right now. Perhaps this is a movie to see? I don't know. My favorite horror movie being Saw III (25%) and my favorite scary movie being The Ring (72%, not bad) being undermined by this staff makes me think there may be more elements to some of these highly rated movies than I really know of. But then again I have watched some craptacular movies like Broken Flowers while they marvel at its 87%.

But here's the real reason I despise RT: the site doesn't seem to look at reviewers that are simply so against the majority with moot points in their reviews and they don't suspend them as "professional critics" on their site. Take this guy for example, Armond White: he only agrees with the Tomatometer 51% of the time, but is a factor in some movies that have very high fresh reviews. I'm one of those people that don't like seeing movies that I like get their RT ratings brought down by some illogical nimrod, and he's one of them. Look at some of his tomato ratings with respect to the rest of the community.


Gave rotten reviews for:

- Up (98%)
- Star Trek (95%)
- Hearts and Minds (97%) [an older movie, but he revived it just to give its only rotten tomato]
- The Wrestler (98%)
- Milk (94%)
- Slumdog Millionaire (94%)
- The Dark Knight (94%)
- Iron Man (93%)
- There Will Be Blood (91%)
- Gone Baby Gone (94%)
- Michael Clayton (90%)
- 3:10 to Yuma (89%) [which would have been 90% without his rotten rating]
- Hairspray (91%)
- Knocked Up (90%)


I mean there is obviously something wrong with this picture when he gives 22 out of 40 movies (55%) rated 90% or higher on the Tomatometer a rotten rating. Maybe he just didn't like them, but then there's a problem when every Wayans Brothers movie and Jason Statham flick (War, Death Race, Transporter 3) is given a fresh tomato. Oh, and then also fresh ratings for I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer.



It's bums like this that make me not trust RT. It would be different if the guy had valid points, but even in skimming some of his reviews he contradicts himself... sometimes within the same review! Then of course I'll go against what they say because it's action for action's sake or gore for gore's sake so that's what I'm going for and not the great plot, but there are a lot of movies that I am at complete disagreement with them when they underrate or overrate some things.

It makes me wonder if they are as reliable as they used to be with this growing number of reviewers that they don't seem to overview enough with their poor taste in cinema. I'm not saying they have to follow the herd as opinions are exactly that, but as a "professional critic," IMO you have to be more substantiating in verifying your arguments, and guys like Armond White just don't fit the bill.



What do other people think about it? I know we reference it when we have a thread about a movie's new release and we sometimes go see that movie or not based on the rating, but is this most people's general go-to site? Do you read impressions here first? Perhaps IMDb (by that I mean the posted reviews, not the forums)? I mean the site is very helpful, but I wish the guys running it would see what kinds of critics they actually have that is spoiling some ratings on the site.

[Misfit]

Re: Rotten Tomatoes discussion

White and Honeycutt are two reviewers I deem worthless. I don't know how they keep a job.

As for the site as a whole, it's nice to get a snapshot of how a film is fairing. If I'm on the fence about something and it's rating is below 50% I won't bother with it. Where as, if I notice a film is getting consistently positive ratings I'll consider seeing it. It's no substitute for actually watching a film or even reading the actual reviews, but it's a helpful resource.

[trobinson97]

Re: Rotten Tomatoes discussion

I make my own decisions about what movies I will or will not see. Sites like IMDB or RT have nothing (or very little) to do with my decision making processes. Also, if someone doesn't love a movie that I do, I can't say I've ever let that bring me down. Can't say that I care.

[ex carrabba fan]

Re: Rotten Tomatoes discussion

I use it as a guide to find movies I've never heard of, if I'm bored I'll browse their fresh ratings and just click on the films that sound interesting.

I can't knock em at all for anything. Most of their highly rated stuff I find to be to my liking.

[GAMEC0CK2002]

Re: Rotten Tomatoes discussion

I go by are Rotten Tomatoes weekly, just to see read about new releases. I rarely go to the movies anyways, so it's a mute point for me. Been to the movies 4 times in the past 2 years....Dark Knight, Iron Man, Star Trek and Quantum of Solace (had a free ticket).

[thaima1shu]

Re: Rotten Tomatoes discussion

They're usually fairly accurate with their reviews. There's a few that I entirely disagree with (recently, Terminator, Wolverine, Angels & Demons), but those are movies I decided to go watch anyways despite the reviews. It's an alright site just to see how others view it, but it hardly has any affect on my decision to see a movie. It does, however, lower my expectations for a movie sometimes, which can be a good thing. Then I end up pleasantly surprised and end up liking a movie even more.

[Defel]

Re: Rotten Tomatoes discussion

- 3:10 to Yuma (89%) [which would have been 90% without his rotten rating]

This should not bother you. If you think it makes a difference, you take Rottentomatoes too seriously...and I love Rottentomatoes.

I don't see why it matters if Armond White has totally opposite tastes. I'm sure there's a few people in the world who have similar views as him and it's good that they are represented in the .5% of the tomato rating that he actually impacts. This is why Rottentomatoes works.

This is what dictates the movies I watch:

10% - My own personal taste (for example, the Star Wars prequels were bad, but I would watch them anyway even if I had known...I'll watch Terminator 4, too)

10% - Female suggestion

80% - Rottentomatoes

There are just way too many great movies that I would have never watched otherwise. I just watched Anvil! The Story of Anvil. I don't listen to heavy metal music and I had never heard of Anvil. If I had, I bet I would have enjoyed it even more.

I'm just playing the odds. I would rather watch a movie that is probably good than a movie that probably isn't. It doesn't always work out, but it's a lot better than if I played the odds the other way.

[Blzer]

Re: Rotten Tomatoes discussion

Oh, no doubt. But as I said in that Star Trek thread, I like watching movies with my family, especially my little sister because we have a lot of fun talking about them. I have a feeling that telling her the name of the title would not be enough and I would need more compelling reasons. One, as I found, will be I can tell her that it's not what she thinks (much like new James Bond). The other is I like to often show her the RT score. But obviously I can't show them for all movies because sometimes they are just way off of what I think the movie should really be (including Transformers, which is only just above 50%).

On the other side, I am sometimes thrown movies with very high ratings that I just find/found zero interest in, and frankly can't see what it is that these professional critics saw in the movie. No, a good movie does not need fast cars and big explosions... but it does need to compel you and draw your emotions toward the convincing character roles and their situation(s). I'll have to go over some RT scores as examples, but I have seen it many times and feel that I can't always rely on them. And yes, I have something to lose: $8 and two hours of my life for giving a movie a shot because they approved of it. That's why I feel I shouldn't have that as an end-all basis... ever. It takes more than RT, and I wanted to know if others felt the same (so far that seems the case).

[Miles_Yuhas]

Re: Rotten Tomatoes discussion

I think it gives a generally good idea of how good a movie is. You also gotta know a bit about how critics feel about different genres of movies. In instance, in general, critics do not give good reviews to comedies and horror movies (I agree with them in horror movies, I haven't seen one that I liked in a long time.) Also thrillers that follow a basic thriller plot and don't bring anything new to the table are usually not rated that well even though I usually think they are pretty decent.

I have also found that its usually better to just read the 'critical consensus' than rely on the tomator number.

[mgoblue]

Re: Rotten Tomatoes discussion

Is this a thread about hating reviewers because they don't agree with you?

I personally find some reviewers to be way different than what I like, but I'm sure that some people actually identify with that. It's that wide variety that makes RT (and other polling type sites) what they are. If you have a similar base of reviewers then you really don't get a feel for what everyone will think.

[Blzer]

Re: Rotten Tomatoes discussion

Is this a thread about hating reviewers because they don't agree with you?

Nope, simply more of an open discussion on how much you base your movie viewing decisions on this site (or how much you don't). I tried to give reasoning as to why it should not be an end-all, go-to reference, but it certainly does have its advantages.

[SuperBowlNachos]

Re: Rotten Tomatoes discussion

I only look when I am iffy about seeing a movie. I am not gonna go spend money to see a movie that has a 20% rating.

[pfunk880]

Re: Rotten Tomatoes discussion

I can't knock em at all for anything. Most of their highly rated stuff I find to be to my liking.

Same here.


It's a great tool for me.

[NYG_Meth]

Re: Rotten Tomatoes discussion

Same here.


It's a great tool for me.

That's what she said.

[pfunk880]

Re: Rotten Tomatoes discussion

That's what she said.