Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2017 3:22:11 GMT
A film or not? Seriously though, their review system is bull in my opinion. It's bull.
|
|
barkingbaphomet
Junior Member
all backlit and creepysmoking
@barkingbaphomet
Posts: 2,252
Likes: 1,006
|
Post by barkingbaphomet on Jul 15, 2017 4:07:26 GMT
what is their review system?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2017 4:11:01 GMT
I like RT. Hate Metacritic.
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Jul 15, 2017 4:20:15 GMT
what is their review system? If every reviewer rated a certain movie as barely watchable it would get a 100% on RT.
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Jul 15, 2017 4:24:33 GMT
Not in the least.
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Jul 15, 2017 4:26:47 GMT
not for movies I'm already interested in, bad reviews won't matter
for movies not on my radar getting raves i definitely be more likely to check it out
|
|
barkingbaphomet
Junior Member
all backlit and creepysmoking
@barkingbaphomet
Posts: 2,252
Likes: 1,006
|
Post by barkingbaphomet on Jul 15, 2017 4:28:28 GMT
what is their review system? If every reviewer rated a certain movie as barely watchable it would get a 100% on RT. i want to know what Joe thinks it is.
|
|
|
Post by Roberto on Jul 15, 2017 5:02:27 GMT
Of course not, as I have a mind of my own and make my own choices.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jul 15, 2017 5:19:10 GMT
Not really...unless its to one extreme or another versus my assumptions on the film. If I expect it to be crap but its in the 90% range...i become more curious.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 15, 2017 5:39:14 GMT
Depends.
If it is something I am hugely anticipating then I will see it regardless of critic ratings (unless it gets under a 20%) but if it is something I am on the fence about seeing then the tomato score does affect whether I see it or not.
Ironically I was waiting for the reviews of Spider-Man: Homecoming to decide whether to see it or not and I ended up hatng it.
In the case of Suicide Squad I should have listened to the critics.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 15, 2017 5:44:31 GMT
Of course not, as I have a mind of my own and make my own choices. Let me ask you this then. If it was a movie you only were kind of interested in seeing at the cinema and it got a 10% on RT would you see it or not? RT is just a useful guide. I have been saved from seeing some bad movies at the cinema I would have otherwise seen had it not been for the critics and on the flip side I have seen many good movies I would have not seen at the cinema had it not been for RT.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 15, 2017 5:49:08 GMT
what is their review system? If every reviewer rated a certain movie as barely watchable it would get a 100% on RT. That is the most ridiculous exaggeration I have ever seen. Barely watchable means a movie is almost terrible. Maybe you worded it wrong. I do get what you mean though. Haywire has a 79% or something but yet it only has like a 6.3/10 average rating. Anyway, they have the average critic rating part which is actually accurate
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jul 15, 2017 5:51:26 GMT
No. If I want to see a movie, I'll see it. I wasn't always that way, though, and I missed out on some good movies for it.
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Jul 15, 2017 6:00:56 GMT
If every reviewer rated a certain movie as barely watchable it would get a 100% on RT. That is the most ridiculous exaggeration I have ever seen. Barely watchable means a movie is almost terrible. Maybe you worded it wrong. I do get what you mean though. Haywire has a 79% or something but yet it only has like a 6.3/10 average rating. Anyway, they have the average critic rating part which is actually accurate A movie has to get a 60 or better on a scale of 100 to be fresh. On a A-F scale that would be a D. On a 4 star system that would be 2 & a 1/2 stars at best. So if 100% of critics rated a movie a D it would still get 100%.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Jul 15, 2017 6:18:28 GMT
Generally speaking... No.
although there are times where i can be swayed for or against seeing a movie but that's only when i am debating on whether to watch a movie or not is when IMDb's average ratings (or word of mouth etc) might sway me for or against seeing a movie. but this only happens once in a while as it's not a common thing.
but in general... if i want to see a movie, i am going to see it as after you have seen plenty of movies you can generally tell what's worth giving a shot or not (and what has potential to stand out etc) and don't really need other peoples opinions to tell you if it's worth seeing.
also, off the top of my head... i can think of a couple times where my initial opinion of a movie got me to skip seeing it for a while but eventually gave them a chance, which are... Kick-Ass (2010) and Spring Breakers (2012-2013), and it paid off (well mostly(read below)).
with Kick-Ass i remember seeing the commercial and it looked like some stupid generic super hero variation and that was it as i did not think about it much after that. then as some time passed i stumbled into it's high rating on IMDb and i was surprised to see it that high and ended up giving it a chance and at that time that movie was a solid surprise in a good way (prior to seeing it i assumed i was going to come back to the IMDb forums saying it was quite overrated etc but that did not happen) as it was a 8/10 for me (i figured a 5/10(Thumbs Down/average) at best prior to seeing it) at one point but has since fell off as it's not a movie ill re-watch now. I have likely have seen Kick-Ass (2010) a total of three times (given i got it listed twice on file (from Dec 27th 2011 to date) and it's probably unlikely i have seen it more than once prior to keeping a log) as it was on my 3rd viewing (May 31st 2015) when it fell back to average status(i.e. no longer worth re-watching) as back on my previous viewing on Oct 14th 2012, which i suspect is my 2nd viewing of it, it was still a 8/10. so it held strong on the initial two viewings but took a solid hit on the 3rd movie.
as for Spring Breakers... when i seen commercials on that it just looked pretty weak (like some crappy party type of movie etc) so i did not think much of it but then noticed a fair amount of people talking about it on IMDb a while ago and decided to roll the dice on it and that one also paid off as it was a solid surprise in a good way. that movie seems to be one of those more polarizing movies from what i have noticed as it seems some think it's fairly strong like myself and others think it's crap. but i gave Spring Breakers a 7/10 (which makes it within my Top 196 movies) as it grew a little stronger for me on my second viewing (like from the 1st to 2nd viewing my overall enjoyment of the movie became more stable as on initial viewing early in the movie was so-so to say the least but stabled out on my second viewing as it was not a issue) even though it's basic 7 out of 10 score remained. i have seen that movie exactly three times so far (i.e. July 11th 2013/March 9th 2014/Nov 5th 2016) and it held steady.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Jul 15, 2017 6:45:21 GMT
poelzig That whole A-F scale (and the like) is flawed if you ask me as it does not make broad use of the rating scale as i tend to look at a 1 through 10 scale (which is exactly the same as a 5 star scale that uses half ratings(i.e. for example 3.5/5 star)) with 5/10 being middle-of-the-road/average and then scales up and down fairly evenly from there as this is the best setup if you ask me(which i suspect is very similar to people who use that 1-10 scale properly). i don't like the 4 star scale as it's too limited as the 5 star scale with halves is the best since it's exactly like IMDb's 1 through 10 scale. with the 4 star there are going to be too many movies bunched together even though some are clearly higher than others as it just does not convert over well to IMDb's 1-10 (or the 5 star system with halves) as you can see below (first numbers are the 4 star scale(with half ratings), after the "=" sign is the IMDb equivalent)... 4/4 = 10/10 3.5/4 = 8.75/10 3/4 = 7.5/10 2.5/4 = 6.25/10 2/4 = 5/10 1.5/4 = 3.75/10 1/4 = 2.5/10 so as you can see it's just too limited and does not convey what i feel about movies nearly as well as a 1-10 scale or a 5 star scale with halves. so i feel the 1 through 4 star scale is only for people who don't really get into the details of rating movies in relation to one another as i feel only the most enjoyable movies should have a 10/10 and the further it gets away from that the lower the rating as i don't bother to rate movies based on genres or anything of that sort as it's always about overall enjoyment as this way when someone see's your ratings they can tell what you truly think of a movie vs if you did something outside of that basic enjoyment based rating system. also, that "60 or better on a scale of 100 to be fresh" sounds about right if you ask me as assuming people have a properly made 1 through 10 rating scale that means 6/10 or higher is positive and anything lower (basically a 5/10) is a negative score. I consider a 6 or higher positive and a 5 or lower as a negative score (although 5/10 is not bad, just average and average is ultimately a Thumbs Down) and have for years now as i used to have a 7 or higher as positive and a 6 or lower as negative but after using it for a while i found that was just too restricted and forced me to load a bunch of movies onto a 7/10 area even though some where clearly better than others which is why once i shifted back to a 6 as a positive everything worked much better and conveys things to people better on what my overall feeling is of a movie. but i guess if i had to really simply things with the 1 through 4 star rating scale with NO half ratings i would probably word it like this... 4/4 = top notch 3/4 = quality 2/4 = average 1/4 = crap moviemouth while not specifically talking about that movie... i tend to give a bit more weight to IMDb averages over other sites simply because IMDb is used by a wider range of people. so hopefully that can give a better general idea of what a lot of people think of it. p.s. for the record... i gave Haywire a 6/10 (a mild Thumbs Up). personally i liked Suicide Squad as i feel it's mostly carried by Will Smith/Margot Robbie. but i have only seen it once so far but plan on re-watching it to make sure it holds up. but assuming it holds up that makes it above most super hero movies pretty easily for me simply because there are not many super hero movies that have any re-watch value as, like i always say, a movies real worth is whether it's a movie you want to re-watch from time-to-time as the years pass or not. Spider-Man on the other hand... looks fairly weak as it almost seems like they got Robert Downey Jr in there just to help ensure more people to see the movie. but in all honesty... i never cared for the Spider-Man character as he's just not all that interesting as i know this because i have seen all three Tobey Maguire movies along with the 2012 movie and in the end they are all forgettable.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 15, 2017 6:57:42 GMT
Ironically I was waiting for the reviews of Spider-Man: Homecoming to decide whether to see it or not and I ended up hatng it. You can't trust the reviews when it comes to MCU movies because the critics give positive reviews to every MCU movie no matter how crappy the movie is. They see that "Marvel Studios" logo screen at the beginning and they automatically give it a positive review without even watching the rest of the movie. If Suicide Squad had a "Marvel Studios" logo screen at the beginning, the critics would've said that Suicide Squad is the greatest comic-book movie ever made.
Spider-Man: Homecoming was just another over-rated and crappy MCU movie. Did the SMH writers actually think that pushing together the 2 split halves of the ferry boat would stop the boat from sinking?
And why did Iron Man just fly away after pushing the 2 split halves of the ferry boat together, without even checking if any of the passengers might be injured and need to be air-lifted to a hospital?
And why were there cars on the Staten Island Ferry? Don't the SMH writers know that cars haven't been allowed on the Staten Island Ferry after 9/11?
Also, the absurdity of the Washington Monument scene. The elevator of the Washington Monument gets blown up by a bomb that the fat kid had. DHS would've interrogated the fat kid about where he got the bomb and the fat kid would've been held in custody until he gave up Peter as the guy who gave him the bomb.
Then DHS would've investigated Peter and would've been suspicious as to why Peter at the last minute decided to re-join the Academic Decathlon after quitting the team earlier and travel with the team to Washington, D.C. only to skip out on the Decathlon competition and the skip out on the team's trip to the Washington Monument on the same day that his best friend blows up an elevator in the Washington Monument using a bomb that Peter gave him. And DHS would've gotten a warrant to search Aunt May's apartment.
Just more bad writing, as is usually the case in MCU movies.
|
|
misstique
Sophomore
@misstique
Posts: 589
Likes: 367
|
Post by misstique on Jul 15, 2017 8:40:36 GMT
A film or not? Seriously though, their review system is bull in my opinion. It's bull. Nope, because as you said, it is bull. As poelzig pointed out, their way of assigning "fresh" and "rotten" is just ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by darkknightofgotham on Jul 15, 2017 12:55:00 GMT
Sometimes, but not all the time. I generally listen to the audience scores rather than the critics.
I mean Pirates of the Carribean 5 got a 27% on RT, but has a 70% user rating.
I also personally thought it was a better film than 3 and 4, which got higher RT scores.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 15, 2017 13:12:57 GMT
The only time I look up a film is if I never heard of it before or any of the actors, etc.
I'll bring it up on IMDb, take a quick glance at the rating, and then skim the reviews, focusing solely on comments about how low budget or amateurish it might be. I'm not actually trying to gain info about whether other people liked it. I typically don't like really low-budget/amateurish stuff. So I'm just trying to avoid that.
|
|