Aquaman's Critical Reception Thread (Rotten Tomato and Metacritic)

[Viciousjay]

It was ok, but Man of Steel was way better, sorry to nit pick.

This felt way to Marvel. I prefer the darker DC universe. It just very rushed but great action.

 

[hawkflame]

103 fresh. 49 rotten, 68%.

I think at this point it would be surprising if it swung more than 5 points either way.

 

[hawkflame]

Also just wanted to highlight one of the stranger criticisms I have seen in one of the negative reviews:

Reeling Reviews Aquaman

“... features far too little humor and far too much origin story...”

“Too over the top”, “Too ridiculous”, I get. I disagree completely, but I can see where they are coming from.

“Too serious”, however, is a bizarre one.

 

[Karelia]

When I walked out of the theater, I expected this to be in the high 70's to mid 80's on RT. I'm honestly a little surprised where it's at now. What is more surprising is Bumblebee is in the high 90's. I think the audience score is going to be a lot better.

 

[kguillou]

I'm sorry I cannot take the "over the top" or "ridiculous" spectacle complaints seriously when Mad Max Fury Road is sitting at 98% RT. And that movie barely had any character development at all but critics found that movie to be a masterpiece for some reason.

 

[HammerDown]

I'm sorry I cannot take the "over the top" or "ridiculous" spectacle complaints seriously when Mad Max Fury Road is sitting at 98% RT. And that movie barely had any character development at all but critics found that movie to be a masterpiece for some reason.

Mad Max: Fury Road is a masterpiece.

 

[paulogonza]

Wb needs to debut all dc movies before us because the people can watch and enjoy this movies before the "critics" with bs like too much water influence the weak minds

 

[geosphere]

Mad Max: Fury Road is a masterpiece.

I think that's his point

 

[Black Narcissus]

But ppl are fickle. They will let go of many plotholes, bad cgi in other movies and it ain't easier to digest in others. Eh, don't give these critics that much power. Venom box office is a recent example that they don't really manner on a global scale. Hell, even Fury Road with all that critic love didn't set the box office world on fire. I personally think trailers play more important part than any RT review to the new generation and GA in general. I can't think of any of the younger ppl in my life who can name a critic by name or that even checks RT, they just go by whatever is playing when they get there. lol

 

[TheScarecrow]

I'm going to be a negative nancy and say that I could see this going very close to 60% at this point.

 

[kguillou]

Your right, @Black Narcissus but at the same time, I know alot of regular joe's who refer to RT as a guidebook for what not to see. They'll be like "oh so-and-so movie got bad reviews on RT so its probably garbage." Obviously there will always be exceptions like Venom that come along but I think a lot regular people use RT as a go to.

 

[TheScarecrow]

In a lot of ways RT is destroying the film industry. It's being used as an objective measure for whether a film is good or bad - something which had never existed before.

What qualifies a film critic? What qualifies the people at RT who decide which critics to go on their website. It's very much subjective opinions from people who really don't know anything more than average viewers.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Your right, @Black Narcissus but at the same time, I know alot of regular joe's who refer to RT as a guidebook for what not to see. They'll be like "oh so-and-so movie got bad reviews on RT so its probably garbage." Obviously there will always be exceptions like Venom that come along but I think a lot regular people use RT as a go to.

Yeah, my response was mostly to your fury road example. These critics will let go of a lot of stuff in some movies and then hate the same faults in other movies. Tis' human nature. lol

I will see it tonight and let you know. Also, FR is a masterpiece.

 

[paulogonza]

In a lot of ways RT is destroying the film industry. It's being used as an objective measure for whether a film is good or bad - something which had never existed before.

What qualifies a film critic? What qualifies the people at RT who decide which critics to go on their website. It's very much subjective opinions from people who really don't know anything more than average viewers.

Perfect

 

[Black Narcissus]

Nah, I don't think RT is destroying the film industry. I do think they let A LOT of ppl in tho. I know there is a separate top critic rating tab or something, but over 200 ''critics'' just seem a bit too much. You sorta lose quality when it comes to opinion, but then again, it simply is that, an opinion. lawd.

 

[Marz69]

I'm sorry I cannot take the "over the top" or "ridiculous" spectacle complaints seriously when Mad Max Fury Road is sitting at 98% RT. And that movie barely had any character development at all but critics found that movie to be a masterpiece for some reason.

Mad Max: Fury Road is a masterpiece.

Agreed. It's a masterpiece.

 

[kguillou]

Yeah, my response was mostly to your fury road example. These critics will let go of a lot of stuff in some movies and then hate the same faults in other movies. Tis' human nature. lol

I will see it tonight and let you know. Also, FR is a masterpiece.

Eh, I'd be curious to have a debate about FR with you one day. I have opinions about it.

I dont think RT is destroying the film industry but I think the misconception about how it works is hurting some movies. 9/10 people think the tomato score is grade for the movie's quality and not a consenus of percentage of critics that recommend the movie. So joe public sees Get Out! has a 99% and thinks its a flawless A++ mindblowing movie and then looks at Man of Steel's 58% (which in the American school system is an 'F') with the rotten "splat" symbol next to it and automatically thinks its garbage.

 

[Iceman]

Nah, I don't think RT is destroying the film industry. I do think they let A LOT of ppl in tho. I know there is a separate top critic rating tab or something, but over 200 ''critics'' just seem a bit too much. You sorta lose quality when it comes to opinion, but then again, it simply is that, an opinion. lawd.

This has been something I have been annoyed with from the beginning. I actually really like the idea of a film critic aggregator average, but everyone on there needs to be a professional critic with a minimum standard. Not someone who just made their own website. I would prefer if critics had to take some kind of film technical knowledge exam.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

Nah, I don't think RT is destroying the film industry. I do think they let A LOT of ppl in tho. I know there is a separate top critic rating tab or something, but over 200 ''critics'' just seem a bit too much. You sorta lose quality when it comes to opinion, but then again, it simply is that, an opinion. lawd.

They used to be a lot more restrictive, then The Phantom Menace happened and everything went straight to Hades.

 

[Silver Surfer]

Your right, @Black Narcissus but at the same time, I know alot of regular joe's who refer to RT as a guidebook for what not to see. They'll be like "oh so-and-so movie got bad reviews on RT so its probably garbage." Obviously there will always be exceptions like Venom that come along but I think a lot regular people use RT as a go to.

The thing to remember about Venom is, it made the money it did because of the overseas box office. In North America, it made less than what Solo made. So don't underestimate the impact a lowered score can have domestically.

 

[TheScarecrow]

I disagree with everyone - the more critics on RT the more likely it is to express general consensus.

The "Top Critics" on RT are - largely - out of touch with audiences, in the same way the Academy etc. are out of touch.

 

[Silver Surfer]

I'm going to be a negative nancy and say that I could see this going very close to 60% at this point.

I don't see it getting that low, the lowest I think this goes is 65-66%, but if it does then Sneider was definitely right, the deck was stacked early on with cherry picked critics.

 

[Iceman]

I disagree with everyone - the more critics on RT the more likely it is to express general consensus.

The "Top Critics" on RT are - largely - out of touch with audiences, in the same way the Academy etc. are out of touch.

The critics aren't supposed to represent a general consensus of anything but critics though. So when you add voices that aren't legit professional critics and just there to pad out the numbers you are getting a less pure stat.

 

[Iceman]

The thing to remember about Venom is, it made the money it did because of the overseas box office. In North America, it made less than what Solo made. So don't underestimate the impact a lowered score can have domestically.

Yeah, Venom did amazingly at the worldwide box office but it still managed to leave a fair amount of money on the table. It wouldn't have been far off a billion if it had been received as well in the U.S. and some other Western countries as it was in many other countries.

 

[kguillou]

Yeah, Venom did amazingly at the worldwide box office but it still managed to leave a fair amount of money on the table. It wouldn't have been far off a billion if it had been received as well in the U.S. and some other Western countries as it was in many other countries.

A real true exception to the rule is Suicide Squad. $325M in North America despite toxic reviews. People either genuinely loved the movie or they loved hearing the soundtrack on the big screen.

And man, IMAGINE, what more that movie could've done if it had a fresh tomato and a China release. It would've been a phenomenon and we'd be discussing SS2's Box office right now. Lol