|
|
Post by mortsahlfan on Mar 13, 2021 21:35:27 GMT
I think IMDB is the best, because of the strong sample size.
RT is hit or miss. Sometimes they only have 6 idiots rating a movie, which shows up automatically on Comcast, and has an effect. I couldn't believe they gave the very good movie "Something Wild" (1961) a 40-50%.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Mar 13, 2021 21:52:34 GMT
My own rating system is the most accurate one.
But i am going to assume you mean websites where they rate movies, than i would also say IMDB
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason143 on Mar 13, 2021 22:46:50 GMT
Imdb is most accurate for its popularity, sample size and longevity. Its not even close.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 13, 2021 23:10:29 GMT
IMDB is ok, though their rating system is a bit skewed upward, "average" seems to be about a 6 or so and 5 is generally bad
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Mar 13, 2021 23:50:25 GMT
You can't go wrong with the four star system. Worked well for Ebert and Maltin.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Mar 14, 2021 4:16:13 GMT
I'd take it over the RT audience score, but it's still open to people gaming the system. Just look at the 3.1 rating for Cuties. The movie has 70.8% 1star votes, most of them likely by people who've never seen the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by mortsahlfan on Mar 14, 2021 14:36:29 GMT
That's another thing I love about IMDB - you can break it down by age, gender
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Mar 14, 2021 16:26:14 GMT
Rotten Tomatoes' critic scores > Rotten Tomatoes' and any other website's audience scores
|
|
|
|
Post by mortsahlfan on Mar 16, 2021 12:51:25 GMT
I like looking at the disparity between RT critics and RT viewers. I can almost tell which movie will be in the lead. I usually agree with the critics, but they overlook some great movies, and vice-versa
|
|
