First Avenger The Official Captain America Critic's Review Thread - Part 1

[DarthSkywalker]

I don't like that. I also don't like how on Rotten Tomatoes, a movie has to be 60% to be fresh. If it's over 51% or above that means most people liked it, so it should be fresh. That's just common sense.

Not really. That would be like getting an F in terms of percents.

2.5 out of 4 is actually positive at 63% going by RT's standard.

Anything 5.9 or below is rotten.

6.0 or above is fresh.

It isn't a percent thing, at least when you look at how Ebert does it.

 

[JB-the-Hunter]

It has never been a percent game. Seriously, is this the first time anyone here has heard of the Ebert's star system? It has been around forever.

4- Great, possible all timer

3 1/2- Very good film

3- Good film

2 1/2- Mediocre, flawed film

2- Seriously flawed, bad film

Everything else under that is just made fun of.

How is mediocre negative? RT should have a middle thing like Meta Critic does.

 

[ElMariachi]

They do this for all reviews. I am pretty sure they use the Roger Ebert 4 star scale for such ratings. Anything under 3 stars is considered negative.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/

That is completely stupid. Especially when looking at the review itself, which leans more positive than negative. 2.5/4 is more than half, it should be a positive or at least average. How can you rate something negative on something that is split in half, let alone a half a star higher?

 

[Spider-Fan]

There are no coincidences, only conspiracy.

It all makes sense now!!!

 

[Jennn]

interestingly if you look at Nick Shager's reviews (Slant Magazine) here : http://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/nick-schager/

His Captain America review is a 2.5/4 and his review of Love Inc. is 2.5/4 and both are Rotten but his Horrible Bosses review is a 2.5/4 and a Fresh.

Also, not that it means anything, but slant gave Thor 2/4.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

How is mediocre negative? RT should have a middle thing like Meta Critic does.

A mediocre, flawed film is watchable. It just isn't a good movie. Which means it is negative.

What you are basically arguing over is level of badness. If a film is mediocre it isn't good, which is the threshold we are talking about here.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That is completely stupid. Especially when looking at the review itself, which leans more positive than negative. 2.5/4 is more than half, it should be a positive or at least average. How can you rate something negative on something that is split in half, let alone a half a star higher?

I am not sure what you mean?

 

[ElMariachi]

A mediocre, flawed film is watchable. It just isn't a good movie. Which means it is negative.

What you are basically arguing over is level of badness. If a film is mediocre it isn't good, which is the threshold we are talking about here.

No, it doesn't mean that it is a negative. The word 'mediocre' means middle. How can something be considered negative or positive if it's in the middle? This movie got a half a star higher than the median, therefore it's above average.

 

[Bubonic]

I thought once this embargo was lifted we'd have at least 50 reviews, what is this crap?

 

[JB-the-Hunter]

No, it doesn't mean that it is a negative. The word 'mediocre' means middle. How can something be considered negative or positive if it's in the middle? This movie got a half a star higher than the median, therefore it's above average.

Exactly

 

[ElMariachi]

I am not sure what you mean?

You put 2 objects weighing the exact same on each side of balancing scale. What happens? They balance each other out. Neither set of objects has an advantage over the other. But that's not what this was. One side of the scale would have an advantage if there was 2.5 objects compared to 2. In Captain America's case, it tips towards the higher star and should be considered a positive.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

No, it doesn't mean that it is a negative. The word 'mediocre' means middle. How can something be considered negative or positive if it's in the middle? This movie got a half a star higher than the median, therefore it's above average.

Middle is not good. I know now here in the US we love to give trophies for the 10th runner up, but that isn't how it really goes.

Also you are completely missing the point of the 4 star scale. There is no middle of the scale, no arbitrary percent to take from the score. Read some of Ebert's reviews. The general tone for each score is almost always the same. A score of 2 1/2 isn't a terrible film, but there is something holding it back from being a good film. 3 stars is the tipping point.

 

[JB-the-Hunter]

Middle is not good. I know now here in the US we love to give trophies for the 10th runner up, but that isn't how it really goes.

Also you are completely missing the point of the 4 star scale. There is no middle of the scale, no arbitrary percent to take from the score. Read some of Ebert's reviews. The general tone for each score is almost always the same. A score of 2 1/2 isn't a terrible film, but there is something holding it back from being a good film. 3 stars is the tipping point.

Middle is not bad either, and on Rotten Tomatoes a film is either rotten or fresh. If there is no middle, the RT score should be determined by the actual review. I read the review, it wasn't too negative at all. It was more positive than anything.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I have 31 links vs RT's 22...that is sad, LOL!

 

[Liam_H]

I have 31 links vs RT's 22...that is sad, LOL!

I noticed you have one up by Spill, which is a dead link. I didn't know you were posting up fan/blog reviews.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You put 2 objects weighing the exact same on each side of balancing scale. What happens? They balance each other out. Neither set of objects has an advantage over the other. But that's not what this was. One side of the scale would have an advantage if there was 2.5 objects compared to 2. In Captain America's case, it tips towards the higher star and should be considered a positive.

We are talking about the act of reviewing, not how much objects weigh.

Middle is not bad either, and on Rotten Tomatoes a film is either rotten or fresh. If there is no middle, the RT score should be determined by the actual review. I read the review, it wasn't too negative at all. It was more positive than anything.

Ok, again I am not sure if they use the Ebert scale, but if they do, it makes sense. Here is some examples of recent releases.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110427/REVIEWS/110429980

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110511/REVIEWS/110519989

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110511/REVIEWS/110519993

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110602/REVIEWS/110609997

 

[MahvelBaby!]

and of the 31 only 9 are "negative" big difference

 

[ElMariachi]

Middle is not good. I know now here in the US we love to give trophies for the 10th runner up, but that isn't how it really goes.

Also you are completely missing the point of the 4 star scale. There is no middle of the scale, no arbitrary percent to take from the score. Read some of Ebert's reviews. The general tone for each score is almost always the same. A score of 2 1/2 isn't a terrible film, but there is something holding it back from being a good film. 3 stars is the tipping point.

Middle isn't good or bad. It's average. Being Middle Class in the United States certainly isn't a bad thing is it?

And I'm not missing the point on anything. There is a middle of the scale, it's two! 2.5 is above average. It's not great but it's above average and thus a fresh movie. If you were the 110th ranked student in class of 200 students, you would be considered in the upper half of the class, not the lower half!

If 3 stars is the tipping point, then what the heck is the point of having 4 stars if anything less than 3 is bad? That is completely stupid and makes no sense. And don't look to Ebert for validity because he is a goof too. If we are going on the scale of his thumbs, it would be a positive. A chopped off half of a thumb up is better than a thumb down.

 

[JB-the-Hunter]

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker
Not really. That would be like getting an F in terms of percents.

And somehow 60% is an A? according to rotten tomatoes it is.

 

[marcvader]

I have 31 links vs RT's 22...that is sad, LOL!

SF, do you know if any of those are RT reviewers?

 

[Spider-Fan]

SF, do you know if any of those are RT reviewers?

I think someof them are, but I couldn't tell you who.

I noticed you have one up by Spill, which is a dead link. I didn't know you were posting up fan/blog reviews.

I post whatever people post here, LOL!

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Middle isn't good or bad. It's average. Being Middle Class in the United States certainly isn't a bad thing is it?

And I'm not missing the point on anything. There is a middle of the scale, it's two! 2.5 is above average. It's not great but it's above average and thus a fresh movie. If you were the 110th ranked student in class of 200 students, you would be considered in the upper half of the class, not the lower half!

If 3 stars is the tipping point, then what the heck is the point of having 4 stars if anything less than 3 is bad? That is completely stupid and makes no sense. And don't look to Ebert for validity because he is a goof too. If we are going on the scale of his thumbs, it would be a positive. A chopped off half of a thumb up is better than a thumb down.

You want an example? Fine.

Take the US academic system, where A, B, C, D, F exist as percentages.

A- 90s and up

B- 80s

C- 70s

D- 60s

F-59 and below

Notice the irrelevance of anything under 60 percent? Surely 50 percent should be the middle of the road, the average? Except it isn't. It is straight up failure.

 

[ElMariachi]

We are talking about the act of reviewing, not how much objects weigh.



Ok, again I am not sure if they use the Ebert scale, but if they do, it makes sense. Here is some examples of recent releases.

This isn't a Roger Ebert review though. It's a review from Nick Schager from Slant. A 2.5 from him for Horrible Bosses was given a fresh rating. This was not. That is conflicting and proof that Rotten Tomatoes rating system is flawed.

 

[Surfer]

and of the 31 only 9 are "negative" big difference

Well by that figure they are above 75% positive, of course not all of those will necessarilly be used by RT, but that is where I estimate the movie should be, by the reviews we have been getting.

Surfer

 

[Liam_H]

And somehow 60% is an A? according to rotten tomatoes it is.

The way RT works is inherently flawed, any 65% movie fresh could be vastly different in terms of quality from another movie with the same rating. You have to look at the numerical score out of 10 that is on the side. I mean even when Thor was around 90% its numerical score was always hovering around 6.5, meaning its % is not indicative of its overall quality.

RT just treats that if at least 6 out of 10 critics recommend a movie than its good enough to be deemed fresh.