The Great "Rotten Tomatoes" debate

[Mrs. Sawyer]

This started after a debate in one of the Green Lantern treads about Rotten Tomatoes.

Rotten Tomatoes has become a popular site for seeing critic reviews and their scores from all around the world. The tomatometer has become sort of an indicator for how good or bad a movie is that has happened to create to different extremes. There are the people who refuse to see a movie that's not certified fresh, and others that absolutely refuse to even look at Rotten Tomatoes.

So I ask all of you this; how do you feel about Rotten Tomatoes? Do you like, it or hate it? Do you think the Tomatometer has done a good job at bring audiences to movies they would have not seen otherwise? Do you think Rotten Tomatoes has an impact on the movie industry? How good do you think Rotten Tomatoes is in comparison to Metacritic?

 

[The Morningstar]

The way i look at is; it's a good place to find all the reviews pooled together. That's it. I don't really give a **** about the "tomato-meter" thing.

 

[chaseter]

I use it on movies that I have no hype for prior or movies that I am iffy about. Like Black Swan for example. I would never have watched that movie if it was 20% on RT. It got great scores and great reviews so I watched it. That is an example for a movie that I was not hype for prior. Movies that I am iffy about like Fast Five help me decide whether or not to see it in theaters.

With movie tickets and gas costing as much as they do today, you bet I listen to critics a lot of the time. For movies that I am hyped for like Captain America or Harry Potter...I could care less what critics say because I am going to see it anyways. I don't have many of those movies each year...usually less than 10.

 

[dark_b]

anyone who doesnt watch a movie based on an internet rating is ''confused''. based on a critic that you like? yeah i get it. you agree with hes taste on movies. i get that.

yes its true that i dont watch movies with a low rating. but not because of the rating. i watched the trailer and it looked obvious bad.

 

[DACrowe]

It's good to see what critics have to say. Some are misanthropic egotists or failed filmmakers who want attention (coughArmondWhitecough), however most are insightful cinephiles who have opinions different from yourself, but whose insights are very helpful. When they're gauged together, you can generally get the idea of a consensus about a film

If it's between the high-50s and mid-70s, it I think it is so split, I won't be dissuaded or encouraged. If it is in the high '70s or up, it encourages me to see the movie if I was on the fence or already wanted to see it. If it is in the 40s or lower--though there are exceptions where I disagree with critic consensus, most of the time they're dead-right at those lows--I skip seeing it in theaters if at all.

 

[Stikmann]

I like to head there to check out reviews. I also use it to sway my wife into seeing movies she’s not all that interested in. If I mention that it’s got a high rating on Rottentomatoes, she’ll raise an eyebrow. OR if she wants to see a movie I’m not interested in, I’ll use a low rating (if the movie has one) to suggest we wait for DVD.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

The way i look at is; it's a good place to find all the reviews pooled together. That's it. I don't really give a **** about the "tomato-meter" thing.

That's what I take.

I remember when after Thor came out, and the rating went from a 95% to an 83% (and eventually to 78%), people were actually mad in the Thor threads about it. After I saw and enjoyed the movie, I couldn't give a s**t what the final RT rating is.

I use RT to look the reviews and if it has a good RT score, then I'll pay for it. If not, I'll either won't watch or wait until it hits cable or netflix. I don't want to waste money on a film that may suck. There are exceptions though.

 

[chaseter]

anyone who doesnt watch a movie based on an internet rating is ''confused''. based on a critic that you like? yeah i get it. you agree with hes taste on movies. i get that.

yes its true that i dont watch movies with a low rating. but not because of the rating. i watched the trailer and it looked obvious bad.

Nobody has a critic that agrees with them every single time so if you don't go see a movie because your favorite critic didn't like it but it has a 75% of RT means you are just as "confused" as the person who doesn't watch a movie because it's RT rating. What if he got it wrong? What if he was paid off to like a movie? What if he is being contrarian to get site hits?

RT is a good tool but just like any tool you have to know how to use it. I see people say RT is dumb but Metacritic is better. They are the same thing.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

It's good to see what critics have to say. Some are misanthropic egotists or failed filmmakers who want attention (coughArmondWhitecough), however most are insightful cinephiles who have opinions different from yourself, but whose insights are very helpful. When they're gauged together, you can generally get the idea of a consensus about a film

If it's between the high-50s and mid-70s, it I think it is so split, I won't be dissuaded or encouraged. If it is in the high '70s or up, it encourages me to see the movie if I was on the fence or already wanted to see it. If it is in the 40s or lower--though there are exceptions where I disagree with critic consensus, most of the time they're dead-right at those lows--I skip seeing it in theaters if at all.

To me, I find them to be correct that way too. But people think otherwise, that's okay too. I wouldn't have even watched Hanna if it wasn't for RT, to be honest, and after I watched it, I'm glad I did.

Btw, do any of you use Metacritic?

 

[Man in the Suit]

If all the critics say it's bad, it usually is.

 

[venom892]

I use it on movies that I have no hype for prior or movies that I am iffy about. Like Black Swan for example. I would never have watched that movie if it was 20% on RT. It got great scores and great reviews so I watched it. That is an example for a movie that I was not hype for prior. Movies that I am iffy about like Fast Five help me decide whether or not to see it in theaters.

With movie tickets and gas costing as much as they do today, you bet I listen to critics a lot of the time. For movies that I am hyped for like Captain America or Harry Potter...I could care less what critics say because I am going to see it anyways. I don't have many of those movies each year...usually less than 10.

Same here. For example after the last two disasters I wasn't going to watch First class. But with the outpouring of good reviews I might change my mind.

 

[MadVillainy]

I listen to Rotten Tomatoes. On the whole, I agree with the tomatoemeter
Worst case scenario, I follow the tomatoemeter and don't see a movie that has a low rating in theaters. But then I see it at home and end up liking it and disagreeing with the RT score. All that happened was that I didn't see the movie in theaters. That's it.

I think people take it too seriously

 

[DACrowe]

anyone who doesnt watch a movie based on an internet rating is ''confused''. based on a critic that you like? yeah i get it. you agree with hes taste on movies. i get that.

yes its true that i dont watch movies with a low rating. but not because of the rating. i watched the trailer and it looked obvious bad.

Not necessarily. Sometimes a movie can look good in the trailer and fail to live up to its potential. Usually if critics rip it to shreds, there are some grounds.

Example:

Nine
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/nine_2009/

It may not appeal to some hypsters as it is a musical. However, it was a musical from the director of Chicago starring Bull the Butcher/Daniel Plainview singing in an Italian accent while being assaulted by Penelope Cruz in sexy lingerie. In short, I thought it looked damn good. But then the reviews came out and it finished with only 37% of critics liking it. I quickly lost interest in seeing the movie as it came out during Christmas time and there were a plethora of more interesting looking movies to choose from like Up in the Air and Avatar (albeit that last one still ended up sucking, but that is another discussion). When I finally rented Nine months later, it was indeed very mediocre.

In the reverse effect:

Let the Right One In
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/let_the_right_one_in/

Indie vampire flicks from Sweden aren't exactly something I go seeking out. However, I saw it receive excellent reviews from a few critics I respected, so I checked out its score on RT: 98% I saw that movie the first weekend it played in our market and it was indeed very excellent.

 

[BlackSymbiote]

I go to see a movie first, and based on MY opinion, because that's the only one that counts, I look up reviews that confirm it, since it's all subjective anyway. Rotten Tomatoes just gives me access to more reviews that I'd find otherwise.

 

[Incrediblejeff]

I personally enjoy the site,but I have a feeling it sometimes may sway your opinion on the film before you see it.I don't agree with it all the time.I find myself agreeing with them often though.

On a separate note I miss the Rotten Tomatoes Show.

 

[Marvolo]

I use the meter to get an idea of the reviews it is getting then I look at a couple critics with opinions I enjoy hearing. The meter is a logical thing based on simple math. If there is 100 reviews and 50 are bad the film gets 50%. There's nothing wrong with that. The meter is very effective in telling which way the winds are blowing so to speak.

 

[Doctor Jones]

It's good to see what critics have to say. Some are misanthropic egotists or failed filmmakers who want attention (coughArmondWhitecough), however most are insightful cinephiles who have opinions different from yourself, but whose insights are very helpful. When they're gauged together, you can generally get the idea of a consensus about a film

If it's between the high-50s and mid-70s, it I think it is so split, I won't be dissuaded or encouraged. If it is in the high '70s or up, it encourages me to see the movie if I was on the fence or already wanted to see it. If it is in the 40s or lower--though there are exceptions where I disagree with critic consensus, most of the time they're dead-right at those lows--I skip seeing it in theaters if at all.

Same here.

It pretty much makes me decide if I'm willing to spend my money on a potentially ****** movie. And who the hell wants that? Like chas, I do it on movies I'm iffy about.

 

[louiebling$]

I look at RT just to see how the critics are towards it....I can give 2 ****s about if its 20% or 95%

Sure when I see a Film that's fresh and I was iffy about it then I consider giving it a go...but if there is a Movie if been wanting to watch at its sitting at 25% ill still go see it...for example Hangover 2 is at 33% but I went and seen it and loved it.....its a great resource to have but that's all it is a Resource....some of the "critics" they take as critics are laughable...they really need to revaluate who they consider "top critics"

 

[jmc]

RT is a valuable source of information. I want my money's worth when I go see a film, generally any film south of 60% won't get my money unless I'm really bored and there's nothing else playing.

 

[GhostPoet]

All I need is a trailer. No matter how much they try to make a bad movie look good..I can always tell it's a bad movie.

 

[WolfCypher]

I don't go by it anymore. Movies they hate, I happen to like, and movies they love, I didn't...

 

[SuperT]

I like RT a lot and use it as a reference quite a bit.

Usually when a film is rated 30-40% or lower or 80% or higher, the critics are spot on and I go see it. It's when the tomato-meter gets around the 50-70% range that it gets a bit iffy because that means the critics are split and I'll probably have to see it for myself.

 

[flickchick85]

I only pay attention to RT when the reviews from the blogcritics and such start rolling in, just to see what the early buzz is. But once a movie's released, I prefer to look at Metacritic for the critical consensus, since they just stick to the professional established critics, and actually score HOW positive/negative the reviews are.

 

[TX85]

I used to like that site,But I hate most critics now and in the end.....It's all opinions and so I'll just check out movies on my own,I ain't cheap and so I have no problem spending less than $10 for a ticket(for movies I ain't so sure about,I wait for it at the $1 theaters) ,IF I enjoy a movie then cool&IF not then eh whatever,I rarely find a movie so bad(except most direct to dvd movies)since I always focus on just the positives of each film!!!!

 

[Evil Twin]

The simplistic up/down how "fresh" a movie is the worst part of Rotten Tomatoes. A middle of the road movie that 90% of critics score as 3 stars rates higher than a polarizing film that a 75% of critics find brilliant is the biggest problem with Rotten Tomatoes. It doesn't reward risk taking at all.

And, frankly, what a critic is saying is more important than how many stars a critic gives a film. It's been this way since the star rating first came into effect and the "thumbs up" shorthand of Siskel and Ebert. Context is important.

That said, it's good at giving a good snapshot of a broad section of opinions and has handy links for more in depth reviews. Both are handy to have when used as a tool not a crutch for decision making.