The Great "Rotten Tomatoes" debate

[Homer J. Fong]

I go on Rotten Tomatoes every week, and I use and appreciate it as the aggregate that it is; it's a fine way to examine the critical consensus (or lack of one, if it's a really divisive film, like The Tree of Life), end of story. I'm not swayed to see or not see a film because of its place on the "Tomato-meter," and I think it's silly to equate it with an objective measure, like, "___ is a great film because it has a 98% on RT" or "___ is a terrible movie because it has a 17% on RT." Just as silly is the extreme reaction when, say, Toy Story 3 is bumped down from its 100% by a single negative review by Armond White. We all have movies that we root for, that we want to be great and beloved, but it's really not that big a deal. With reviews in general, I'm by this point rarely convinced not to see a movie, but there are times when endorsement from a critic whose taste I trust will lead me to seek it out.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

The Toy Story 3 outrage was hilarious.


Especially when I saw Armond White.

 

[bullets]

I look at different reviews and see if they point to something that's going to be a deal breaker for me. Not every film I see has to be perfect. Sometimes I just want to be entertained. I think it's worth checking out reviews , trailers , and clips before deciding but to base your decision purely on a RT score isn't the best way to go about it.

 

[Apollo]

I'm rather the guilty one when it comes to OCD behavior with rotten tomatoes...

..for the past week i checked the site like over 10 times a day to see any changes to the X-men first class meter...

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

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.

Pretty much this, although 40s I usually include in the middle category and 30s and below are the skips. There are rare exceptions, but usually that is pretty accurate.

I don't care for Metacritic. They go with a simple average, which I don't find nearly as informative as a simple 'yes or no' recommendation. Also, the number of reviews posted isn't near what you get at Rotten Tomatoes and not enough to get a proper consensus in my opinion. I disagree with Rotten Tomatoes rarely (for films that I was already interested in, if I hate the genre I won't see it no matter what the critics say), but I disagree with Metacritic all the time.

 

[Spider-Fan]

If I am hyped for a film or love a trailer, I will see a film despite reviews. But, for a film I am on the bubble for, I will use RT. If reviews are good, I'll go. But, I don't just use the tomato meter score. Because a film that is mediocrely received by a critic will get a fresh or rotten rating. There is no middle ground, which is a flaw in the system. Not all 90%'s on RT are made equal (or any score for that matter). Also, some people who review films for them are idiots and make dumb positive/negative reviews. You have to look for a guy who is fair and seems to know what he is talking about.

Basically, the RT score is nice, but the site has a lot more to offer if you're iffy on a film. If you're excited for a movie, who cares what RT gave it.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The problem with an average is it doesn't tell you how many people actually liked the film. When I go to the show, I want to enjoy myself, whether it is simply entertaining fluff or an all-time classic. The odds of that happening are going to be better for a film where 90% of critics give it three stars, than a film where 50% of critics give it four stars and the other 50% give it one star. One gives you a 10% chance of getting an absolute dog, where the other gives you 50%.

 

[Spider-Fan]

But enjoyment has levels. I would think critics would be less inclined than fans to give 5 star ratings, so they should be able to give me a rating, whether it be a number or a Great, Solid, Good, Bad, Terrible, Unwatchable type system.

 

[WarBlade]

I like Rotten Tomatoes and use it often. The fact that it collects together a high number of critics' reviews and presents them as an average of passes and failures, makes it quite useful to refer to as a guide for how things are going to play out. I usually find that my own ratings are well reflected against the RT results, with only a few exceptions.

 

[8wid]

I use Rotten Tomatoes frequently, but I think that Disney animated movies and biographical movies based on celebrities and politicians get way to high of a rating every single time. There seems to be some sort of bias towards favoring these ones for some reason. But otherwise I always find it to be fairly reliable too.

 

[marvelman2006]

I like rotten tomatoes, when Big movies come out its fun to watch throughout the week as it drops or goes up.

Like some others have said if its a movie im dying too see then im stumbering enough no matter what they say. Now with academy award movies or smaller unknown ones like taken ill ussually let the rating decide if im going to shell out the cash. I dont care what that site says bad boys 2 was great.

 

[jmc]

I will say this, on many occasions RT has change several preconcived notions I had with certain films. It made me decide to go see films I was certain would suck and prevented me from wasting cash on films that looked really good.

 

[Wolfwood]

When it comes to sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, I usually look at them after I've seen a movie and formed an opinion about it. If I'm hyped for a movie and really want to see it, no amount of bad reviews are going to stop me. However, I do like to read about people's opinions and criticisms and compare them with my own.

 

[PWN3R]

What's the criteria for a review to be eligible on RT? I like the concept of the site, but sometimes "reviews" come across as the unstable ramblings of a bitter fanboy.

Not to mention Arnold White.

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

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?

I used it as a gauge, but that's it. I've certainly seen movies that I liked that RT gave a poor rating, 17%, 34% and so on. I've also seen movies they give great reviews to and I thought was crap.

Regardless I see movies I want to see despite rating, unless it just gets absolutely murdered, then I'll wait to 'rent'.

But another thing to keep in mind, actual 'movie' critics, review movies differently than your average movie goer. So there is always that to consider.

I enjoy thought provoking movies that can make me think and may not be very 'entertaining', where as one of my friends likes almost anything. As long as he is entertained, in any shape or form, chances are he will like it.

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

What's the criteria for a review to be eligible on RT? I like the concept of the site, but sometimes "reviews" come across as the unstable ramblings of a bitter fanboy.

Not to mention Arnold White.

Well they take both movie critic reviews and just members. Which is why they have a decent balance most of the time.

There's also metacritic.com which seems to have more rigid standards.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I think it's a pretty dependable gauge for what is decent entertainment and what is trash.

Scott Pilgrim got an 81% and Kick Ass a 76% on RT but if you just read the non-fanboy reaction on the internet you would've thought they were a waste of time.

 

[redhawk23]

I've become quite skilled at guessing the final tomato score for a movie month ahead of tim.e. I've won quite a few bets with my friends based on it. (yes my friends and I are lame enough to actually place bets on the critical performance of movies)

 

[redhawk23]

Also Rotten Tomatos is fun just to look at the most poorly rated movies of the year.

 

[Sentinel X]

I LOVE rottentomatoes. Its a great site if you don't take it to seriously. It just tells you the percentage of critics who liked the film. Whats there to hate? However, I do have a problem with metacritic since it actually tries to tell you how good a film is. I know RT does this as well (with the average rating) but it doesn't advertise that as its main feature.

Also, sometimes I disagree with the ratings but most of the time if something is certified fresh and its in the 80% or up...I tend to agree it is at least a decent film. As far as being a good/great film?...that is something that is completely up to me and RT has never attempted to give me that answer unlike metacritic

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

I LOVE rottentomatoes. Its a great site if you don't take it to seriously. It just tells you the percentage of critics who liked the film. Whats there to hate? However, I do have a problem with metacritic since it actually tries to tell you how good a film is. I know RT does this as well (with the average rating) but it doesn't advertise that as its main feature.

Also, sometimes I disagree with the ratings but most of the time if something is certified fresh and its in the 80% or up...I tend to agree it is at least a decent film. As far as being a good/great film?...that is something that is completely up to me and RT has never attempted to give me that answer unlike metacritic

Agreed, Metacritic does seem pretentious and holier than thou.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Also Rotten Tomatos is fun just to look at the most poorly rated movies of the year.

hmmm. Here are the top ten worst so far According to Rotten Tomatoes.

91. 31% I Am Number Four 147
92. 28% Take Me Home Tonight 103
93. 29% Sympathy for Delicious 24
94. 27% Arthur 166
95. 26% Your Highness 150
96. 26% Hop 124
97. 22% Sucker Punch 187
98. 22% Peep World 23
99. 21% The Dilemma 145
100. 19% The Rite
I wouldn't say they're that far off, personally. I've seen 6 of them (only one of them fully, Arthur), but from what I saw of the others I have seen, they're pretty horrid.

 

[redhawk23]

One problem I have seen with rotten tomatoes is that a lot of people I've talked to think of the percentages like school grades. A 60% on RT isnt that bad, but by grade standards is a failure.

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

One problem I have seen with rotten tomatoes is that a lot of people I've talked to think of the percentages like school grades. A 60% on RT isnt that bad, but by grade standards is a failure.

It's definitely a different scale. Take free throw % for example. If you're a shooting guard 70% isn't that great, not horrible but the best shoot easily 80% and the head of the class shoot 90%.

But if you're talking regular field goal %, 50% is very good, akin to 90% from the free throw line.

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

hmmm. Here are the top ten worst so far According to Rotten Tomatoes.

91. 31% I Am Number Four 147 92. 28% Take Me Home Tonight 103 93. 29% Sympathy for Delicious 24 94. 27% Arthur 166 95. 26% Your Highness 150 96. 26% Hop 124 97. 22% Sucker Punch 187 98. 22% Peep World 23 99. 21% The Dilemma 145 100. 19% The Rite
I wouldn't say they're that far off, personally. I've seen 6 of them (only one of them fully, Arthur), but from what I saw of the others I have seen, they're pretty horrid.

Have only seen I Am Number Four, had high hopes for Sucker Punch but when I saw the % on RT I thought..."awww I wanted it to be really good. But I'll still see it."

I Am Number Four was....interesting, certainly a poor movie, I wouldn't flat out say it was awful, concept wise it was decent, did have some very bad acting and corny moments, but had potential and I've seen worse.

Although I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Then again I saw the ratings and thought, well this isn't going to be very good and it actually turned out better than I thought. So RT to me can actually help remove any false hope I have and bring down my expectations which might actually help me enjoy the movie more.