The Avengers The Avengers Critics Reviews Thread - Part 3

[bonzob2000]

I was super shocked by the Dana Stevens thing. She sounded so negative on the podcast. It isn't exactly a rave review. But I'll take another fresh rating!

Though the Metacritic score dropping into the 60s sucks.

 

[spider-neil]

68 now.

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-avengers-2012/critic-reviews

Bah, that sucks. Come on, at least finish over 70!!!

meta critic collects review, right? so how can the meta critic score be so low when the rotten tomato score is so high?

 

[Liam_H]

meta critic collects review, right? so how can the meta critic score be so low when the rotten tomato score is so high?

Because it collects far fewer reviews and from more select sources.

 

[bonzob2000]

meta critic collects review, right? so how can the meta critic score be so low when the rotten tomato score is so high?

Also, the tomato rating is just the percentage of positive reviews, not the degree of positivity. You'd have to look at the average rating (the small print below the tomatos score), and do so for the top critics only rather than all critics (which are closer to the critics Metacritic surveys). I believe this score is at a 7.8 currently on RT. Still higher than the 6.8 (or 68) score over at Metacritic, but the difference between 68 and 78 is obviously far less than the difference between 68 and 92.

Another factor is that Metacritic weighs the grades of more important/influential critics (though they won't reveal which ones weigh the most... but you can bet that A.O. Scott review was quite damaging), and that Metacritic assigns a numerical score to a review even if it's unscored/graded, something RottenTomatoes doesn't do. Which leads to some subjectivity as they are essentially guessing the score they think the critic would have gave it. It's why I think they underrated the Variety and Hollywood Reporter reviews, both of which read closer to a 90 than an 80 to me.

 

[Xeno]

Also, the tomato rating is just the percentage of positive reviews, not the degree of positivity. You'd have to look at the average rating (the small print below the tomatos score), and do so for the top critics only rather than all critics (which are closer to the critics Metacritic surveys). I believe this score is at a 7.8 currently on RT. Still higher than the 6.8 (or 68) score over at Metacritic, but the difference between 68 and 78 is obviously far less than the difference between 68 and 92.

Another factor is that Metacritic weighs the grades of more important/influential critics (though they won't reveal which ones weigh the most... but you can bet that A.O. Scott review was quite damaging), and that Metacritic assigns a numerical score to a review even if it's unscored/graded, something RottenTomatoes doesn't do. Which leads to some subjectivity as they are essentially guessing the score they think the critic would have gave it. It's why I think they underrated the Variety and Hollywood Reporter reviews, both of which read closer to a 90 than an 80 to me.

The part in bold is why I find Metacritic unreliable and biased. As many quibbles as I've had with RT's system, it is far fairer and more logical than the one Metacritic uses.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Not to mention IM 3

derp!

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Also, the tomato rating is just the percentage of positive reviews, not the degree of positivity. You'd have to look at the average rating (the small print below the tomatos score), and do so for the top critics only rather than all critics (which are closer to the critics Metacritic surveys). I believe this score is at a 7.8 currently on RT. Still higher than the 6.8 (or 68) score over at Metacritic, but the difference between 68 and 78 is obviously far less than the difference between 68 and 92.

Another factor is that Metacritic weighs the grades of more important/influential critics (though they won't reveal which ones weigh the most... but you can bet that A.O. Scott review was quite damaging), and that Metacritic assigns a numerical score to a review even if it's unscored/graded, something RottenTomatoes doesn't do. Which leads to some subjectivity as they are essentially guessing the score they think the critic would have gave it. It's why I think they underrated the Variety and Hollywood Reporter reviews, both of which read closer to a 90 than an 80 to me.

Well I think RT's 93% for Avengers reflects it's true quality better then some 68 rating.

 

[Secret Fawful]

This is worrying me that the movie will be...only okay. Sigh.


Not.

 

[Iceman]

Also, the tomato rating is just the percentage of positive reviews, not the degree of positivity. You'd have to look at the average rating (the small print below the tomatos score), and do so for the top critics only rather than all critics (which are closer to the critics Metacritic surveys). I believe this score is at a 7.8 currently on RT. Still higher than the 6.8 (or 68) score over at Metacritic, but the difference between 68 and 78 is obviously far less than the difference between 68 and 92.

Another factor is that Metacritic weighs the grades of more important/influential critics (though they won't reveal which ones weigh the most... but you can bet that A.O. Scott review was quite damaging), and that Metacritic assigns a numerical score to a review even if it's unscored/graded, something RottenTomatoes doesn't do. Which leads to some subjectivity as they are essentially guessing the score they think the critic would have gave it. It's why I think they underrated the Variety and Hollywood Reporter reviews, both of which read closer to a 90 than an 80 to me.

Did the RT average go down to 7.8? It's back at 8 now anyway.

 

[Iceman]

This is worrying me that the movie will be...only okay. Sigh.


Not.

t: I think most people have a number like 92.5% and if it finishes below that they're not allowed to go. So it's all about timing. Just wait for a few more reviews, clock the score, shut down your internet
and run!

 

[bonzob2000]

Did the RT average go down to 7.8? It's back at 8 now anyway.

Last time I checked it was at 8 among all critics, but 7.8 among top critics (you can switch over by clicking on the small print that says "top critics" next to the rottentomatoes score).

I think the 68 on metacritic will go up a point or two. And that's far from a bad score for a blockbuster on that site.

X2 -- one of the greatest superhero films of all time, has a 68. X-Men has a 64. X-Men First Class has a 65. And it's not a superhero film or a blockbuster, but Scott Pilgrim is also somewhere in the 60s. Whedon's other stuff is in the mid to low 70s -- Cabin at 72 and Serenity at 74. Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol had a 73 I think. So Avengers is in some solid company.

 

[Iceman]

Last time I checked it was at 8 among all critics, but 7.8 among top critics (you can switch over by clicking on the small print that says "top critics" next to the rottentomatoes score).

I think the 68 on metacritic will go up a point or two. And that's far from a bad score for a blockbuster on that site.

X2 -- one of the greatest superhero films of all time, has a 68. X-Men has a 64. X-Men First Class has a 65. And it's not a superhero film or a blockbuster, but Scott Pilgrim is also somewhere in the 60s. Whedon's other stuff is in the mid to low 70s -- Cabin at 72 and Serenity at 74. Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol had a 73 I think. So Avengers is in some solid company.

Ah you were talking top critics, cool.

I don't have much metacritic experience on films so that's good to know. The best games they review get ridiculous scores in comparison. Like 95/96. A game getting a 68 review would usually be quite average.

 

[iJackSparrow]

RT is still stationed at 92%, but top critics incresead with the addition of more 4 fres Top Critics reviews, standing right now at 85%, 40 reviews, 34 fresh and 6 rotten.

The odds aren't in my favor for what I'll say, but since I haven't tried to guess what will be the final score, I'll say that it ends with 94%+.

 

[Liam_H]

Its hard but luckily RT rounds up.

 

[thalidomide]

It is a game changer. It just doesn't change the game in a way they like.

- a shared universe
- the coming together of multiple franchises
- spectacular action sequences that have the characters in all their iconic glory
- a real comicbook universe that embraces and uplifts the genre rather than scorning it

There will come a time when they will realise how much the game has changed.

And I bet DC execs are now brainstorming on how they can do a JL movie.

 

[Musty002]

Superhero Movies based in terms Metacritic Score##

1. Superman 2 (1981) - 99 (7 reviews)

2. Superman (1978) - 88 (12 reviews)

3. Spider-man 2 (2004) - 83 (41 reviews)

4. The Dark Knight (2008) - 82 (39 reviews)

5. Iron Man (2008) - 79 (38 reviews)

6. Hellboy 2 (2008) - 78 (36 reviews)

7. Spider-man (2002) - 73 (37 reviews)

8. Hellboy/Superman Returns (2004/2006) - 72 (37/40 reviews)

9. Batman Begins (2005) - 70 (41 reviews)

10. Avengers (2012) - 69 (39 reviews)

11. X2 (2003) - 68 (37 reviews)

12. Batman / Captain America (1989/ 2011) - 66 (17/ 36 reviews)

13. X-Men First Class (2011) - 65 (38 reviews)

14. X-Men (2000) - 64 (33 reviews)

15. V for Vendetta (2006) - 62 (39 reviews)

16. Spider-man 3 (2007) - 59 (40 reviews)

17. X-Men 3 (2006) - 58 (38 reviews)

18. Iron Man 2/Thor (2010/2011) -57 (40 reviews)

19. Blade 2 (2002) - 52 (28 reviews)

20. Batman Forever (1995) - 51 (23 reviews)

 

[spider-neil]

I love that SM2 is high on rotten tomato AND metacritic

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Superman Returns has a higher rating than X2 and Avengers on Metacritic?

Goodbye credibility.

 

[spider-neil]

Superman Returns has a higher rating than X2 and Avengers on Metacritic?

Goodbye credibility.

ha ha true.
I stopped buying empire magazine because they gave IM and SM2 4 stars but gave superman returns 5 stars. I thought to myself a magazine so clueless doesn't deserve my money.

 

[Raiden]

ha ha true.
I stopped buying empire magazine because they gave IM and SM2 4 stars but gave superman returns 5 stars. I thought to myself a magazine so clueless doesn't deserve my money.

Yeah, Superman Returns was so good that WB can't wait to reboot the franchise with Man Of Steel.

 

[bonzob2000]

Two things that spring to mind based on that list:

1) Superhero fatigue is a factor. I honestly think if The Avengers had come out four years ago, the reviews would be better. SO many of the negatives are basically just annoyed at the sheer quantity of superhero films that have come down the pipe.

2) Most of the films above Avengers on that list are sequels, which as everyone knows are often the best superhero movies. Avengers seems like it's gonna be Whedon's Batman Begins (their metascores are almost identical). I shudder to think of how great Avengers 2 could be (and I know I shouldn't keep making Bat comparisons, but... Whedon's Dark Knight, anyone?)

 

[spider-neil]

um, guys, MSN has the metacritic score at 80 not 69.

 

[spider-neil]

2) Most of the films above Avengers on that list are sequels, which as everyone knows are often the best superhero movies. Avengers seems like it's gonna be Whedon's Batman Begins (their metascores are almost identical). I shudder to think of how great Avengers 2 could be (and I know I shouldn't keep making Bat comparisons, but... Whedon's Dark Knight, anyone?)

SM2>SM

TDK>BB

X2> X-Men

Blade 2> Blade

ESB>SW

ST:WOC: ST:MP

Aliens>Alien (imho)

T2> Termintor

so if we go according plan avengers 2 will be the greatest movie ever.
there are of course exceptions

IM> IM2

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yeah, Superman Returns was so good that WB can't wait to reboot the franchise with Man Of Steel.

I really, really like Superman Returns. It is a nice character study and isn't as obvious as Spider-man 2.

 

[Raiden]

Not a critic, but an endorsement from a famous music producer:

Timbaland ‏ @Timbaland

the #avengers was dope