I ignore RT.
I hate how people treat it as the ultimate authority.
I swear rotten tomatoes and IMDb fucked up movies and tv more than anyone talks about. You can’t REALLY make an review of a work of art, even if it is corporate produced tripe, with a percentage scale or */10 system, and before anyone comes at me I know it’s been done for decades but it was never a be all and end all thing, critics wrote articles about things and you might disagree with their sensibilities and go see it specifically because a particular critic didn’t like it, the opposite is also true.
At some point though we crossed a line where no one actually reads the criticism and internalizes it, instead they just look at the number and make it either a personal attack or validation. Thats a really bad way to experience art of any kind.
This isn’t a complete thought I feel, but I hate the reality of film and television criticism today, not because critics are worthless, because that’s just silly. If you like something Peter Travers said was dog shit go find a critic that speaks to your taste it’s not difficult and doesn’t mean your favorite movie actually sucks.
I agree they both fucked it up, but my main problem is how there seems to have been a clear shift in how they “weigh” reviews after both IMDB and RT were bought by large corporate entities (Amazon and Fandango, respectively).
I can’t help but feel like a lot of the movies coming out from those companies or their subsidiaries (…and at least some number of politically expedient allies) somehow manage to get higher overall review scores on RT and IMDB than they maybe deserve.
For example, that shitty right-wing nationalist churchslop movie “Young Washington” got relatively high scores on RT…
…and IMDB…
…but not on Letterbox’d…
…which is one of the main reasons I shifted to checking Letterbox’d for reviews… but unfortunately, another day to shift to a different platform be coming soon again.
I want to be clear I don’t disagree at all you’re correct. Corporate control of art means they will go to any lengths to ensure profit.
But also, I really kinda glossed over the overarching problem, which is that the film industry is now driven by reviews and vibes reviewed by c-suite folks that answer to shareholders and don’t give a fuck about the actual film or show or whatever
This has always been true with the plastic arts but we’ve reached a zenith.
I will die on the hill that art cannot be considered a financial investment. It by definition has to take risks and investment people cannot handle that
This Patrick Willems piece does a really good job of digging in to why so many streaming “blockbusters” are so shitty these days.
Tl;dw: The streaming companies have the metrics, and are now essentially making movies that hit certain beats to satisfy what they perceive as customer requirements, rather than movies that exist for their own sake.
Art by corporate committee, a fucking travesty
In Darknet Diaries Ep 27: Chartbreakers, Jack Rhysider describes how cheap and easy it is to buy your way to the top of the Apple Podcasts rating chart or onto the New York Times bestseller list.
After listening to this, it’s pretty easy to extend the logic to every other rating platform. Paying for review manipulation is basically part of the marketing budget.
At some point though we crossed a line where no one actually reads the criticism and internalizes it, instead they just look at the number and make it either a personal attack or validation.
There’s too much media now. Used to be, a few good movies came out every couple months. Now between all the studios and streaming services and other formats, we exist within the cone of a firehose of content. No one has time to read and internalize reviews, they’re just looking to filter the firehose to a binary watch/don’t watch
Toy Story is 100%
What does that mean? Does it mean it’s the best movie ever made? Nope, it just means everyone at least kinda likes it. It’s Toy Story, it’s a good movie. Though I wouldn’t say it’s the greatest movie of all time. Just a decent movie.
The way the scoring works means that if everyone thinks a movie is better than average, the movie gets a perfect score.
If 75% of the critics think something was the greatest movie ever, while 25% didn’t like it, it’s a 75% score. It might be a movie you’ll think is the greatest movie ever too, but you might give it a miss to watch movie that 90% of the critics thought was just ok instead.
So if a studio is making a movie to try to get a good score, they will make it so it doesn’t offend anyone, and have it universally be considered ok. The way these sites measure movies encourages mediocrity and playing it safe.
Yeah these ratings are worse than useless. Oh The Abyss 14% better than Amelie?? Fuck off, Poindexter.
They’re completely disconnected from my own opinions and when I see then before watching a movie they just distract me by wondering what tf other were watching.
You can’t map.reduce this shit, it’s totally subjective
Kinda why Siskel and Ebert was popular back in the day. Siskel approached criticism as being about trying to encourage film makers to make better movies. Ebert was about indicating whether he thought the audience would like the movie. So they would debate. One of them or both would often be wrong. But from the discussion you could get an idea about whether it’s a movie you might enjoy.
There just isn’t anything like that now. You’re going either hear someone tell you it’s the best thing ever, or it’s the worst thing ever. Someone will review it as if it’s supposed to be art while someone else will tell you if it’s got good action scenes in it. These will all be ones or zeros that are added up to produce a rotten tomato number. We don’t even really know what perspective someone is reviewing something from.
You’re right, it’s all subjective so there’s no way to know whether you’ll like a movie until you’ve watched it yourself.
I was specifically thinking about Siskel and Ebert while reading this post yeah. I actually loved their reviews.
Funnily enough I very frequently disagreed with their opinions, but between the two of them they explained so well what made the movie appealing or not, that I was able to make up my own mind based on the text of the review even if the “rating” was not one I agreed with.
And then of course the more you read a reviewer and get to know where your opinions line up and where they differ, the more useful their reviews become. Same thing with IRL friends ofc.
Actually reminded me of Ebert’s review of The One. He roasted it while accurately predicting that a basic person like me would love it.
If you just saw 1.5/5 you’d think wow what a stinker and miss out on this incredible brainless vibe piece sitting at the border of 90-00 dripping in pre-cringe cool, just before everything would get way too gritty and serious.
Yeah it depends on what you want from a movie. My favourite Siskel and Ebert review was for the third Inidana Jones movie. Siskel didn’t like it because there wasn’t enough depth to the father and son relationship. Ebert recommended it because, well you got to an Indiana Jones movie for the action, and the action scenes were good.
So I’m Ebert’s side on that one, because yeah I’m going there to see Indy on horseback go up against a tank. Sure maybe the father and son relationship didn’t have a lot of depth, but that was because their conversations kept getting interrupted by action scenes. Which is what I’m there to see.
So it’s not that Siskel was wrong, I just don’t care about what he was criticizing on that one. If it were more of an arthouse drama kind of thing, then I would care about his criticism. But the discussion indicates the father-son parts of the movie weren’t bad, just there wasn’t a lot. Too me there was enough of that for an action movie, so it’s a good movie.
Hearing the different perspectives meant you could decide which one you care about most and gave a better indication of whether you will like the move.
90% on rotten tomatoes? I don’t know what that means.
How can you be wrong about an opinion?
It’s not that Siskel’s opinion or critique of the film was wrong, but his contention that his average audience member would dislike the movie for the same reasons he disliked it were at least for this poster incorrect.
Based on the info from the comment in question, I’m guessing you meant Ebert? But yeah, that tracks! Though they did say they were sometimes both wrong. I can see how one’s opinion of whether or not other people will like something could be proven wrong, but not an opinion of what makes a good movie, that’s entirely subjective.
Yeah I got mixed up but you got what I meant, and they both could easily be wrong! Art is always an ongoing subjective conversation between artist and audience and then subsequently audience to audience
it’s totally subjective
Yet we agree that there is such a thing as one movie being better than another, broadly speaking. It’s not something to boil down to a percentage, but you might as well show more detail when you have the data.
Personally, I use ratings to estimate whether a movie that I’m interested in is worth my time. Especially Rotten Tomatoes is super useful for this because the critics score is basically a distilled thumbs up or down.
it’s totally subjective
Yet we agree that there is such a thing as one movie being better than another
I mean I wouldn’t say that, it’s kind of the opposite of what I was saying actually. But if reviews form a kind of aggregate metric you find useful then that’s good for you.
Elsewhere I even talked about how frequently I disagreed with Siskel and Ebert’s thumbs ups/downs, but the text of their reviews at least showed me I would love a movie they thought was bad.
My partner and I walked out of The Odyssey after ten minutes and got a refund.
WAY too loud. Excruciatingly, painfully, unnecessarily loud. And yet I still had trouble hearing some of the dialogue. We were in an AMC Dolby theater, and I don’t think I’ll ever go to a Dolby branded theater like that again.
I’m not sure how to split the blame here between AMC, Dolby, or Christopher Nolan, but I’m mad at all three for the ringing in my ear that’s still there several hours after we walked out.
Can’t comment on the movie itself as we barely saw any of it. Might see it at a different theater but I’ll be bringing earplugs just in case, though I may want a refund there too if it’s still so loud as to require earplugs.
Nolan really not helping his reputation at being an outright sadist when it comes to sound.
Hey, I go to a lot of AMC theaters, I feel very strongly that it was the “Dolby” theater. I’ve had similar experiences there (but haven’t walked out). It might be a perfect storm of scenarios making it uniquely worse, but I can definitely say everyone in our group has all had the same experience at Dolby theaters.
Movies you haven’t seen:
91% 89%
“this might be good, idk… nah, probably not.”
I have. I enjoyed the heck out of it, it’s a retelling definitely intended for modern audiences with some things removed and additional historical context added.
It’s an excellent telling of an old story that reminds you that the Iliad was not truly glorious, and those that go to war will not come back the same.
I watched it, did not care for it. To dark, there were so many points i could not see what was happening, WAY to loud, actually hurt my ears, and, i just did not enjoy it as an experience. Actors are all fine, but there were times where the writing felt clunky or out of place ngl.
My partner and I actually walked out after 10 or 15 minutes because it was so painfully loud. Asked for (and received) a refund.
Infuriating that I can’t trust movie theaters to maintain reasonable volumes. I shouldn’t have to bring earplugs to a movie.
Is anyone else getting a little uncomfortable having their confirmation bias put in the spotlight like this?
Nope, I’m still pissed off at Ridley Scott’s Napoleon for changing things historically. It was a fun movie and really entertaining but it pissed me off so I couldn’t fully enjoy it.
I’m assuming this movie will be the same, so I’ll pass until I learn to let things go
You are aware that the Odyssey is a work of fiction, right?
But it is in and of itself a piece of history.
Changing a story that is thousands of years old is wrong.
Go ahead and make the movie, but be faithful to the original work.
I never trust the critics over normal viewers, lol. I am NEVER the second guy down
Oh brother, where art thou or nothing
Historically I never had the patience but I’ve watched a ton of movies over the past couple years (easily 300+) and initially I agreed with audience rating. Although I’m far from an insufferable cinephile and really don’t care about underlying theory and whatnot, I definitely find myself agreeing more with critic rating now. Of course there’s plenty of exceptions where I disagreed with both. Movies can be fun or awful for you regardless of what anyone else thinks.
That being said, I think Roger Ebert’s reviews usually nail it. That man was a connoisseur of weird enjoyable movies and quick to call out corporate crap.
As much as certain people like to proclaim reviewers are paid shills or sycophants, especially whenever a movie with diversity cast does well… The audience metric is nigh on useless half of the time.
Look at that Melania movies critic and audience score. Then see a genuinely great movie with some non white person cast in a main role get review bombed to hell and back by the same people
If you can manage subtitles I would suggest Survive Style 5+, don’t look it up, just watch.
Survive Style mentioned!
Does he manage to get back to earth in this one?
What’s more important than the score is the written reviews.
So many films with bad scores because people didn’t “get it”, or watched a film that wasn’t “for them”.
For example, I’ve seen critics write reviews for the third movie in a franchise, saying they didn’t understand what was happening, because they didn’t watch the first two.
The critic reviews are also partially made up. The site will interpolate >= 50% in whatever review system the reviewer uses as a good review.
It feels very odd to me to view someone rating a movie as 51/100 as them giving it a positive rating.
Disney movies like zootopia 2 are 100% but v for fucking vendetta is like 70? Wtf RT
Read the “professional reviews” and are like “my daughter liked it so 10/10”
I love me some V for Vendetta, but Zootopia is also really good at what it is. It’s meant to entertain children while also having some laughs for the parents, and Disney is really good at that shit.
That sounds about right, you need to think about who is going to see those movies. Zootopia will be parents and children, who are a lot easier to impress than the kind of snob that would watch V for Vendetta.
V for vendetta is for snobs?
I have a very simple system. If the movie was made for legitimate artistic reasons, then I think it was worth the effort to make it. If the movie was made to sell tickets, I don’t bother.
I decide which artistry is legitimate.
Simpler than that. The movie was made because Nolan saw the Titans movies and thought, “someone should make a not ‘ass’ version”.
understandable but like, aren’t 99% of movies made to make a profit?
Yes that’s true but I have a pretty simple algorithm for movies that were “made to sell tickets”
- franchise movies, especially if the story ended already
- comic book movies
- remakes
- movies based on a property that doesn’t translate well into movies(video games, certain kinds of books)
Hm…I can see your angle but some of those can stilll be fun to watch.
Movies can’t always be about deep thought 100% philosophical question of life. That’s tiring for me.I do want to point out that “legitimate artistry” doesn’t equal “deep thought 100% philosophical” all the time or even most of the time.
Like I think Indiana Jones is legitimate artistry. Same with The Terminator. Or Alien. Or Mad Max. Even Sinners is legitimate artistry. Get Out.
I haven’t seen it yet, but I get the impression that “The Odyssey” was made because Nolan thought the subject matter was interesting.
People have made cool movies for the love of the game forever. I think the big difference is “did an executive come up with this idea in a boardroom?” Or “did a real creative person come up with this idea?”
