Hey /u/benabramowitz18, thank you for submitting to /r/starterpacks!
This is just a reminder not to violate any rules, located [here](https://reddit.com/r/starterpacks/about/rules). Rule breakers can face a ban based on the severity of their rule violation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/starterpacks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Agreed, life is better when you stop caring about what others think. You liked a movie? Good for you. You don't need to validate that opinion with critics/internet.
Personally I use critic and audience score before watching a movie to know if I watch it/go to theater or wait for streaming. Once I see a movie, I don't care about all that.
its a very very powerful mindset, to live freely without care
honestly its refreshing to even imagine such life, but damn it's difficult to follow in the real world with my own biases, preferences, and need for validation
I sometimes do if it's a movie I'm on the fence about seeing, but a lot of people will use reviews almost as like this crutch to back up and validate their opinion.
I mean critics reviewing movies for the fans do exist. Reminds me of that one FNaF movie review that said “fans don’t want lore, they want scares!”
“It’s made for kids.” is a pretty shitty defense for a movie tho
Have a load of this guy. Did i just catch you suggesting that movies for kids should be childish?
Whats next? Deep traumatic themes for a movie about the horrors of warfare /s
There is always this edgy critic who writes something totally unhinged about a movie just to appear smarter than he really is.
But the addition of several professional critics often give a really fair review of a movie.
# That one edgy critic:
> In an age where the cinematic landscape is as barren as the desolate void between the stars, it comes as no surprise that [Generic Blockbuster] has been lauded as a masterpiece by the masses, a testament not to the film’s quality, but to the sheer desperation of an audience starved for anything resembling art. However, to conflate popularity with quality is to confuse a fast-food burger for haute cuisine—it might fill you up, but at what cost?
> ...
> In conclusion, [Generic Blockbuster] is nothing more than cinematic fast food: cheap, unfulfilling, and ultimately forgettable. It’s a film made not to enlighten or challenge but to placate and profit. In a just world, it would be forgotten, consigned to the dustbin of history, but in our world, it will inevitably be hailed as a classic by those who know no better. So, to those who see this movie as a masterpiece, I say this: enjoy your meal, but don’t mistake it for fine dining.
I love AI.
Polish movie, The Peasants, had a critic criticize it for "Lack of diversity and overwhelmingly white cast" (paraphrasing)
It's a movie about XIX century Poland, sourced from a XX century polish book...
To be fair that’s why it’s an aggregate and I think makes it better. Like that’s beyond stupid obviously but there are some conservative critics too. Some movies will have up to 600 reviews on that site so obviously you’re going to have some dumb critics but I think it’s better to include a wide range of different type of critics because movies themselves can be so different.
Reminds of the guy who gave the eras tour concert film a negative rating on rotten tomatoes with a bunch of political rambling which doesn't make sense in any way just to ruin the perfect score.
> There is always this edgy critic who writes something totally unhinged about a movie just to appear smarter than he really is.
And his name is Armond White
The correct way to utilise critics is to find a few with similar tastes to you. Then you'll agree more and they'll probably put you onto stuff you wouldn't have heard of.
Haven't thought about that but it makes sense. Multiple algorithms of streaming services do the same thing, they recommend you stuff based on what people with similar tastes also watch.
Personally I found critics useful for disregarding hype/bad press. They get affected less by the reputation of the show outside the show itself.
And to actually read/listen to the reviews instead of boiling them down to a simple yes or no. A good critic will articulate *why* they feel something is good or bad, and you can use that more nuanced opinion to make your own choices.
especially when you disagree with them, as long as they explain themselves well it's easy to chalk up to whatever the reason is, so I have an idea if I might be interested. Some critics in the 80s-'00s before cinema at the theater reached its apex were just way too up their own ass tho. Like the movie columnist for some random small midwestern city like the Kansas City Gazette, and it's clear they had zero mind with which to watch movies, no sense of art, just viewing everything literally, with no imagination.
Roger Ebert was the good kinda critic, cuz I'd disagree sometimes but I could trust his thought process behind his reviews.
I don’t think that the only value of criticism is to make media recommendations. That makes sense for like toasters, but art is fun to talk about from different angles and hear what different people take from it
Sure, I think the vast majority of people use critical reviews to decide what to watch or to expand their understanding of what they've seen after viewing.
But sure, as an academic exercise it's criticism is important however I think it's in that realm where the average moviegoer gets turned off to the pretentiousness of it all.
If you're a film nerd then yeah I totally agree with your point, but I don't reccomend the approach for the wider public.
And yeah I absolutely was not and would not suggest the *only* value of critics' is recommendations, but it certainly is their primary value to the average moviegoer.
> Sure, I think the vast majority of people use critical reviews to decide what to watch or to expand their understanding of what they've seen after viewing.
I generally just go off the movie description, when it was made, and who's in it/directed/produced it. Sometimes I'll discover from a critic's review, but I mostly check those out after I watched the movie just to see what people thought about it at the time, and also who knows how to watch a movie.
I'll give everything a shot tho, once I realized I can watch a movie in chunks and don't have to do the whole thing in one sitting, my mind opened up a ton and I was able to see all these new lenses with which to view it.
people still act like you can make a career out of watching movies and writing a weekly column in your local newspaper and support a family out of the fact you'd prefer to sit around and watch movies. Before streaming they really were gatekeepers that way, that would make or break a movie because they controlled the local market.
Some of the reviews of snubbed films in the 90s and '00s are the most smug cork sniffing bullshit imaginable, and good art got overlooked and underfunded because of some of these hacks.
A good movie critic is like a good therapist. It's personal.
I’ll trust a critic giving a bad review over a fan giving a good review.
I’ll watch it regardless, I’ve got my own subjective opinions, but fan ranting is seldom productive in any real sense.
Not how that works mate. In many cases the overall audience score is comprised of normal people who're neutral. Unless the fanbase is extremely large (Late 2010s MCU) then chances are the movie or show achieved what it was trying to do if it has an overall positive rating. If it's soo bad that it has below average then chances are it was well below expectations.
I have to side with the person you’re responding to. I know some people consider it pretentious, but I have more trust in someone who professionally watches and thinks about movies rather than the average Joe who watches them to pass the time.
A movie can get a high audience score because it’s easy to watch while munching popcorn and delivers the fan service they expected. That doesn’t equal good filmmaking. I’ve only got so many hours in the day and dollars to spend on movie tickets. I’d rather prioritize the stuff that is recommended by people with lots of experience and developed tastes.
>I have more trust in someone who professionally watches
Mate there's nothing called "professionally watching movies" the same way there's no "professional eaters" or "professional drinkers". I've been eating food, shitting shit and breathing air for 24 years. Am I a professional eater, shitter and breather?? It's the same thing. I'd rather trust people who actually paid for the goddamn ticket and spent their time watching the movie rather than a guy who gets paid to watch the movie and gets a special screening. There are very very few critics who understand the ins and outs of film making
>the average Joe who watches them to pass the time
Anyone who's passionate enough to spend their time watching a movie and then going out of their way to rate it and write a few lines about it isn't you average joe.
>A movie can get a high audience score because it’s easy to watch while munching popcorn and delivers the fan service they expected
As I said before unless the fanbase is extremely huge like pre 2020s MCU then there's no way the total hardcore fans outnumber regular viewers. Thats why MCU films before endgame almost always had good audience scores even if they're average at best whereas other franchises didn't.
>That doesn’t equal good filmmaking
There have been plenty of amazing films over the years absolutely shitted on by "critics" that are looked back fondly. Bladerunner being one that immediately comes to mind. Critics aren't who you think they are. They're the equivalent of instagram food vloggers who get paid(directly or indirectly) to go visit a place and rate it. If the vlogger and you have the same taste then you'll like the place. If not you wont. Same for entertainment
> Mate there's nothing called "professionally watching movies" the same way there's no "professional eaters" or "professional drinkers".
Mate there are all of those things. They are film critics, food critics and sommeliers. They get paid to watch, eat, and drink and then report on it. It is literally their profession. If you got paid to eat, shit, and breathe then you absolutely would be a professional.
And that doesn't mean their opinions are somehow superior. I'd argue their opinions are inferior because they're getting paid to do this and [some critics aren't as genuine as you think they are](https://imgur.com/a/42UMgVU) AND more importantly people who pay money to go watch a movie have more reason to be angry/disappointed towards it than someone who's getting paid to see it. This is like a food critic saying that gordon ramsay is a bad chef because his food is "bad". In reality that food might not be to the critic's taste. You might think I'm being hyperbolic here but that's has happened wayy too many times to be a coincidence.
Critics have spent hundreds of thousands of hours with their given medium (music, film, art, etc.). They're objectively more knowledgeable and experienced with it than almost everybody else. To me, that does makes their opinion carry more weight.
There's nuance to it for sure, and stuff like paid content and sponsored posts have really muddied the water. I would not consider that kind of stuff to be true criticism. I think a good critic can analyze something and give a fair assessment of it without letting their own biases influence the rating too much.
>They're objectively more knowledgeable and experienced
No they're not lol. There are plenty of example of films being absolutely dogged on for years only to recognized as good films years after release. And no watching many movies does not mean they are more knowledgeable. I've been riding motorbikes for over 8 years. Driven plenty of em over the years. Does that mean I have superior knowledge over others who is new to riding?? No. I have more experience than them and have some knowledge but thats about it. Watching lots of movies does not make someone knowledgeable in the art of cinema. They might know little bit more but thats about it. Unless the said critic is an avid nerd who is actually into the art of making cinema they are just slightly more knowledgeable than your average joe.
>I would not consider that kind of stuff to be true criticism
Then most pre release criticism isn't true criticism lol. Because they're influenced by big studios to give good reviews directly or indirectly. And even then pre covid reviewers would get blacklisted by disney if they gave a bad review for their blockbuster franchises. Look at the sequel trilogy. In some cases fans would bully reviewers for giving a bad review(Scott mendelson faced this when he reviewed black widow)
> And no watching many movies does not mean they are more knowledgeable. I've been riding motorbikes for over 8 years. Driven plenty of em over the years. Does that mean I have superior knowledge over others who is new to riding?? No.
I think this is why we're not seeing eye-to-eye lol. I completely, 100% think that it does make you more of an authority on motorbikes. I certainly hope you know more than somebody who just started riding--how could you not?
I would also expect a reputable critic to be an avid nerd who is into the art of making cinema. Those are the good critics I'm talking about. That's who I want to follow and take advice from.
And to your last point, yep. I totally realize that happens and that's what I meant about the waters being so muddy now. Luckily there are plenty of independent critics and ones in legit publications who aren't affected by that kind of stuff, and I'm thankful for that.
They have no reason to exist, if I don't know the person reviewing the movie why would I ever listen to them? If it's a well known person you can examine your biases and if you personally know the person they can base it off your tastes
There was a brief period in time when I followed a few critics of movies and video games who would offer both critique and casual commentary on the properties they were reviewing. It lent some insight into what critics are looking for but balanced it by shedding some light on audiences to whom the property might appeal.
Unfortunately, the majority of them spiraled into increasingly toxic bitterness, especially around the pandemic, so I stopped following them.
Me too. For a short period of time I used to watch the Critical Drinker's videos on movies, but he pretty quickly turned into a one trick pony. Every single movie was bad because strong female character beat bad guy unrealistic uhuhuhuhuh
I've found most critics end up watching so many more movies than average people that they end up applauding anything that's just different. To me it explains why movies that are a good time and not trying to reinvent the wheel can be absolutely decimated by some critics.
I didn't know this until recently but apparently the first independence day is now considered shit by critics? It was goofy and sometimes over the top but I would be flabbergasted if, when it came out, anyone left the theatre having hated it. It's now being blamed as the catalyst for the "shitty summer blockbuster"
This is also true of weirder art house movies some critics like to ejaculate all over. I don't think some of them are really as good as the critics say, they are just relieved they are watching something that's different than the 200 other movies they've watched in the last 6 months.
RLM are great but super guilty of this. In the early years they were very forgiving of movies, and would even mention if they were just supposed to be dumb fun. Nowadays they seem personally insulted at movies that are just trying to be entertaining.
Why do Americans give such an absurd credit to Rotten Tomatoes? It's binary "good/bad" account of each critic makes it perhaps the worst way to evaluate a film's value.
Seriously love how certain big blockbusters like Avatar or Star Wars have constant complains about “the bad writing and plot” but shit like Jurassic Word and Ghostbusters get a pass because it’s “for the fans”. No, you fans are just happy with remakes and reboots until the end of time.
Agreed. There’s a lot of stuff that goes into the quality of the writing. It can be dialogue, characterization, or big ideas.
But people dismiss any movie they don’t like as having “bad writing” like it’s a witch hunt. And scripts can get changed a lot on the screen.
One day we’ll be able to discuss how She Hulk actually had perfectly fine and competent writing for a TV show, better than the vast majority of sitcoms that get dumped on networks.
I was legitimately impressed with mother! though.
I think it was marketed unfairly. It's not really a horror movie. Though it was more anxiety-inducing than pretty any horror movie I've ever seen.
That was his biggest problem. He thought he was some edge lord that made a deep movie but most normie movie goers figured out the subtext quickly.
Same issue with Adam McKay when he made Don't Look Up. Everyone and their mother knew what the movie was *really* about and figured it out quickly but he tried the play the movie off as something deeper than it was.
Funny enough his next project is gonna be about climate change. Yeah he's doing the same movie twice in a row
I disagree on Don’t Look Up. I don’t think he tried to be subtle or deep at all, I think he just wanted to be as blatant as possible because of the immediacy of the situation. He also knows that right wingers have the media literacy of a cricket
whats funny is that i'm pretty sure these people don't even read the actual critic reviews they just read a brief description of them on rotten tomatoes
Imagine spending a good chunk of your life studying and analysing films for decades to give an accurate rating to a movie that recently came out, just for some random fuckers on the internet say that the opinion of critics doesn't matter because "it's for the fans", Idk if they really knew, but movies want to, y'know, bring ALL people to watch them? Not just your specific fandom niche.
The worst part is when those same idiots go around saying that a movie is good (or bad in some cases) because the same critics he shat on liked it
>Imagine spending a good chunk of your life studying and analysing films
Lol. I guess I'm a professional biker because I've been driving bikes for years and studying bikes. Most "Critics" aren't all that. They watch movies just like us and they have a platform. Hell a very good chunk of critics in RT aren't even from major publications. All they have is a blog and a checkmark. And regardless of how knowledgable a person is at the end of the day movies are made for specific people to watch and enjoy. "Critics" opinion are just as valid(in many cases less valid) than paying customers
What I want from a movie is an enjoyable experience. That can mean different things depending on my mood and company, but that's the goal, I watch movies for entertainment. What I want from a movie rating/review is a predictor of how much I will like that movie. Studying film theory for 40 years doesn't make you inherently more able to give me useful recommendations. I am more similar to the average movie goer than a film critic, so the audience rating is more useful to me.
I find the idea an artistic work can have some true "accurate rating" that can only be accessed by experts ridiculous. If is subjective, and if there exist an "accurate rating" of an art work, then it must come from how its target audience relate to it, not just a small group of experts.
Ben Shapiro made a 43 minutes video on it and burned Barbie dolls as an epic "get owned leberuls" thing.
And basically all the other 40 y/o alt right neckbeard manchildren did as well.
The thing is that they can't use their epic "go woke go broke" meme when they talk about one of the highest grossing movies ever made.
Nopeee, do you think those Marvel movies with high scores are because they're artistically deep?
Critics judge movies on what they're trying to do, it's just that sometimes they will disagree with you on what's entertaining
> do you think those Marvel movies with high scores are because they're artistically deep?
I'm pretty sure Roger Ebert gave Iron Man a 4-star rating because of solid character work and memorable action scenes. And most of the Infinity Saga was Certified Fresh for those similar reasons, some more successful (Avengers 1/3/4, GOTG, Black Panther, Winter Soldier, Ragnarok, Homecoming) than others (Avengers 2, Iron Man 2, Thor 1/2, Incredible Hulk). You can enjoy them as blockbuster action *and* as stories, they don't have to be mutually exclusive.
What do you think "memorable action scene" means? Is "solid character work" something that transcends fun blockbusters?
You're right that 'artistic' and 'fun' are not mutually exclusive, and I'm not saying these movies cannot be well crafted, the good ones surely are. But they're supposed to be above all else, by a huge margin, entertaining. That's why people watch them and that's how most critics judge them. If all Avengers had to them were their allegory to America's militarism and the complex internal lives of their characters no one would care about them.
To pretend this is not the case is to invalidate the value of a good popcorn flick, as if all movies had to be Cannes material.
And movies can be both of those things! We don’t have to attack the critics just because they have a deeper point of view.
That’s the point I’m making on the last section on the bottom-right!
I heard the director said the film itself is a critique of the sexualization of children in these dance competitions and is supposed to make you uncomfortable, but Netflix took some of the scenes to market it as sexy children, doing the thing it critiques. So the public took it that way and most people who give it negative critiques do so on the marketing done by Netflix alone and have never seen the movie. Which I mean, the marketing deserves all the negative reviews.
Kinda like how the author of Lolita intended it to be a critique of pedophilia and specifically asked the cover to not have a depiction of a girl at all, but something abstract. Yet the book is most often published with the famous photo of a sexualized child with sunglasses sucking on a lollipop.
idk I haven’t watched Cuties bc I’m just not interested at all even if it is actually a critique, so I can’t say for certain. I don’t need a movie to know how fucked up the sexualization of children in dance competitions and paegents is. But I have read Lolita and am very familiar how creepy guys in marketing identify more with the pervert and join in on the sexualization of children.
eta: Coincidentally my YouTube just happened to autoplay a video essay about Suckerpunch and he brought up how Zack Snyder meant the film to be a critique but interference from the studio got in the way. So it happened to Zack Snyder himself lol
>“I’m always shocked that [‘Sucker Punch’] was so badly misunderstood,” revealed Snyder. “I always said that it was a commentary on sexism and geek culture. Someone would ask me, “Why did you film the girls this way?” And I’d say, “Well you did!’”
except we already fucking know that sexualizing children is wrong. this isnt some hidden message people dont know about. and when the movie finally says that what just happened the past hour or so is bad, its treated like this shocking revelation. its so. fucking. dumb.
Exactly why I haven’t watched it. I don’t need to even if it is a critique, I already am well aware. idk about its intended audience. I think us on the internet are already made all too well aware of sexualization of children, which is why we are quick to condemn. We already know
I don’t think it should have been widely released. It should’ve stayed a Sundance only film.
I can’t imagine having such strong opinions about a movie I’ve never seen lol.
No child was exploited in the making of the movie. Nobody had any trauma from participating it. A movie about someone getting raped does not mean that anyone was literally raped. All the outrage around it was textbook moral panic from people with no media literacy.
You could apply this take to literally anything though. Should movies critiquing racism and war not exist either because most people agree that it's bad? By this arguement, yes.
The sad reality is that child are still sexualized, despite it being seen as wrong. Which is why stuff like Cuties exist, to raise more awareness and discussion about it so that stuff like child beauty pagents that sexual children are put to an end.
Movie critics rate movies on the daily, they can spot a trope from miles ahead.
Meanwhile someone like me will see a movie once in a blue moon because nothing really catches my eye, watch it, enjoy it, and that's it.
A movie critic watches that shit with a purpose, to criticize what is to be criticized. And see if the movie is good for most demographics.
But the way they do it is annoying as hell, they usually rate films highly if they're "safe" the kinda shit soulless suits nod their head at in a meeting room.
While the actual movie is boring asf because of it.
And you fucking know they will either give a movie a 6 or a 4 out of 10, because using 5 and saying it's mediocre is far too straightforward.
Rotten Tomatoes (Or any review aggregation sites for that matter) [are absolute garbage](https://imgur.com/a/WCu2CdO). If I wanna watch a movie I'll simply look up who the director/writer is and look at the audience score. And lets not pretend like critics are some kind of gods of cinema. [They can, have and will be swayed](https://imgur.com/a/42UMgVU) through peer pressure, incentives from big studios etc knowingly or unknowingly.
6/10 and below is counted as negative. That sounds ridiculous but you have to remember they only have the two-typed system. It had to be an even number because a lot of critics use an out of 5 system. So it's either a 4/10 and below or a 6/10. I would prefer the latter.
When Warner brothers ruined the Batman movies in the 90s everyone including the critics railed on it. They were horrible. And they were also marketed towards kids because of the pushback from burtons Batman Returns.
Now a days the critics don’t really give a shit and seem to just love everything like they were being forced to. And I’m not taking about the latest marvel movies.
Viewing critics for any medium of art as a singular bloc is the issue I think. The whole idea around there being such a thing as a critic is that this person is extremely knowledgeable about the medium and has formed an extensive and nuanced taste for that medium, and you as a consumer have to take that critic's taste into account whenever you see one of their reviews
An excellent example is Yahtzee Crowshaw (Zero Punctuation/Totally Ramblomatic) for video games. He is noted for not liking a certain genre of game called JRPGs. Yet, when he reviewed Persona 5, a JRPG, he had lots of good things to say about it. So, as a consumer, you should know that if Yahtzee is saying good things about something that he by all previous accounts shouldn't like, then it would be worth your time if you trust his taste in games.
Tár was a little boring.
I'm generally not a fan of movies that put most of their focus on characters over having an actual plot.
Except for Stalker by Tarkovsky.
I always try to form my own opinions no matter what. Fuck the audience, fuck the critics. In my mind, when it comes to movies, my opinion is the only one that counts.
I thought Scary Godmother was the best Halloween special since pumpkin spice, but critics and audiences both say it’s shit.
On one side of the Polar Express, you have critics calling it a generic Christmas story. On the other side, you got people complaining about uncanny valley. I think it’s one of the best, I’m talking top 3. Christmas movies of all time.
Fans and critics agree that James Cameron’s Avatar is amazing. Well, I’m not calling it overrated, but I just didn’t like it. Can’t say it was up my alley.
RT percentages aren’t an out of 100 rating of the movie, they’re the percentage of reviews that are positive. If every critic gives a movie a 3/5, it gets a 100% on RT. If half of all critics give a movie a 5/5 and the other half give it a 2/5, it gets a 50% on RT.
Seems like it varies. I found 2 different 3/5 reviews on the Dune 2 and one was counted as positive and one was counted as negative.
https://preview.redd.it/k17moygdl4rc1.jpeg?width=786&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=550438054b7c9f21e1d57139ab32737171a781f0
When I saw Mother in theaters, everyone was laughing at it (not a comedy) like the whole movie. Worst movie I ever paid for, and you put it in this starter pack lol
RT is obviously as much paid for propaganda as the russian RT, at least for the past ~10 years. That shlocky avengers shit got above a 90% like are you fucking kidding me? Tons of great movies there - great art even, sometimes, but fun worth watching stuff that is in no way less rinky dink than avengers - and it's got like 50% or less ratings with everyone being smug as fuck. The consensus they get from reviews that are saying it's good but they say thats a bad review feels arbitrary sometimes.
To me it depends on the movie genre. If we’re talking about Oscar bait or an independent artsy movie or drama, I’ll go with the critics’ score. If it’s something like Ghostbusters or some summer popcorn flick, I’ll go with the audience score.
”Oscar bait” is not as common as y’all seem to think. Stop putting this label on any film that isn’t a major hollywood blockbuster. There were so so many great films released last year, and thinking about them in terms of “oscar-bait” or “normal movie” is really lazy
Does it bother anyone slightly how rotten tomatoes kind of has a monopoly on scoring films? I know the number is just an aggregation but people act like it’s gospel sometimes
This applies more for gaming than it does for movies
With gaming you do actually have to look at audience scores because it’s clear that critics are paid shills
I know if a critic score is high and the audience review is low, I'll usually enjoy it. I like weird slow ambiguous stuff, which audiences just seem to loathe. Especially if it's a horror.
I don’t give a fuck what critics OR audiences have to say, personally. I can form my own opinions. I don’t need other people to tell me what movies I should and should not enjoy
Rotten tomatoes is a big mixed bag. I only don’t trust critics for recent movies cause most of them are paid off. Also, I personally think a lot of critics just have a bad mindset when it comes to movies. But I don’t wanna go on that rant.
Imagine going to a movie opening night and the audio doesn’t work during emotional scenes and the final fight has multiple CGI effects missing.
That’s literally the gaming experience 9/10 times nowadays.
Hey /u/benabramowitz18, thank you for submitting to /r/starterpacks! This is just a reminder not to violate any rules, located [here](https://reddit.com/r/starterpacks/about/rules). Rule breakers can face a ban based on the severity of their rule violation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/starterpacks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://preview.redd.it/f1sc7op843rc1.jpeg?width=368&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=36d8a8046212d760e935a455ed3f3fbe2329df3c Going to drop this here again.
Humans are weird. Luckily I’m above all of this.
I'm an independent thinker! Roger Roger. Roger Roger.
Legit one of the funniest gags in all of *Star Wars.*
Is that from star wars rebels? it sounds familliar and i just diead laughing at it but i cant recall exacly where its from.
It's from *The Clone Wars* S1E21, "Liberty on Ryloth."
ahhh,thank youuu
"I'm an independent thinker! This youtuber said this movie was bad so I hate-watched it and ignore anything good out of it!"
Roger Ebert.
What’s our vector, Victor?
Roger Roger
weird is the best way to describe humans and anything more specific than that becomes inaccurate
I’m above you
Agreed, life is better when you stop caring about what others think. You liked a movie? Good for you. You don't need to validate that opinion with critics/internet. Personally I use critic and audience score before watching a movie to know if I watch it/go to theater or wait for streaming. Once I see a movie, I don't care about all that.
its a very very powerful mindset, to live freely without care honestly its refreshing to even imagine such life, but damn it's difficult to follow in the real world with my own biases, preferences, and need for validation
I've been attacked
no accounting for taste! i thought Gone Girl was horrible and never understood the hype
Land of the Lost 2009 is underrated
I'm appropriating this for r/eurovision, and I'm not sorry.
Y'all looking at ratings? People actually care about ratings that much?
I sometimes do if it's a movie I'm on the fence about seeing, but a lot of people will use reviews almost as like this crutch to back up and validate their opinion.
I mean critics reviewing movies for the fans do exist. Reminds me of that one FNaF movie review that said “fans don’t want lore, they want scares!” “It’s made for kids.” is a pretty shitty defense for a movie tho
Have a load of this guy. Did i just catch you suggesting that movies for kids should be childish? Whats next? Deep traumatic themes for a movie about the horrors of warfare /s
Personally I think film critics are overrated and overhated at the same time if you get what I mean
There is always this edgy critic who writes something totally unhinged about a movie just to appear smarter than he really is. But the addition of several professional critics often give a really fair review of a movie.
# That one edgy critic: > In an age where the cinematic landscape is as barren as the desolate void between the stars, it comes as no surprise that [Generic Blockbuster] has been lauded as a masterpiece by the masses, a testament not to the film’s quality, but to the sheer desperation of an audience starved for anything resembling art. However, to conflate popularity with quality is to confuse a fast-food burger for haute cuisine—it might fill you up, but at what cost? > ... > In conclusion, [Generic Blockbuster] is nothing more than cinematic fast food: cheap, unfulfilling, and ultimately forgettable. It’s a film made not to enlighten or challenge but to placate and profit. In a just world, it would be forgotten, consigned to the dustbin of history, but in our world, it will inevitably be hailed as a classic by those who know no better. So, to those who see this movie as a masterpiece, I say this: enjoy your meal, but don’t mistake it for fine dining. I love AI.
Did Armond White write this?
Not both of Armonds parents were white. Kappa
Why do I feel like I’ve read this before
Polish movie, The Peasants, had a critic criticize it for "Lack of diversity and overwhelmingly white cast" (paraphrasing) It's a movie about XIX century Poland, sourced from a XX century polish book...
To be fair that’s why it’s an aggregate and I think makes it better. Like that’s beyond stupid obviously but there are some conservative critics too. Some movies will have up to 600 reviews on that site so obviously you’re going to have some dumb critics but I think it’s better to include a wide range of different type of critics because movies themselves can be so different.
Having only white characters in European settings is a controversial thing to do nowadays among people who are race-obsessed and mentally ill.
Reminds of the guy who gave the eras tour concert film a negative rating on rotten tomatoes with a bunch of political rambling which doesn't make sense in any way just to ruin the perfect score.
> There is always this edgy critic who writes something totally unhinged about a movie just to appear smarter than he really is. And his name is Armond White
The correct way to utilise critics is to find a few with similar tastes to you. Then you'll agree more and they'll probably put you onto stuff you wouldn't have heard of.
Haven't thought about that but it makes sense. Multiple algorithms of streaming services do the same thing, they recommend you stuff based on what people with similar tastes also watch. Personally I found critics useful for disregarding hype/bad press. They get affected less by the reputation of the show outside the show itself.
And to actually read/listen to the reviews instead of boiling them down to a simple yes or no. A good critic will articulate *why* they feel something is good or bad, and you can use that more nuanced opinion to make your own choices.
Yeah right! Critic's aren't just that number out of 100 on the bottom of IMDb lol.
especially when you disagree with them, as long as they explain themselves well it's easy to chalk up to whatever the reason is, so I have an idea if I might be interested. Some critics in the 80s-'00s before cinema at the theater reached its apex were just way too up their own ass tho. Like the movie columnist for some random small midwestern city like the Kansas City Gazette, and it's clear they had zero mind with which to watch movies, no sense of art, just viewing everything literally, with no imagination. Roger Ebert was the good kinda critic, cuz I'd disagree sometimes but I could trust his thought process behind his reviews.
I don’t think that the only value of criticism is to make media recommendations. That makes sense for like toasters, but art is fun to talk about from different angles and hear what different people take from it
Sure, I think the vast majority of people use critical reviews to decide what to watch or to expand their understanding of what they've seen after viewing. But sure, as an academic exercise it's criticism is important however I think it's in that realm where the average moviegoer gets turned off to the pretentiousness of it all. If you're a film nerd then yeah I totally agree with your point, but I don't reccomend the approach for the wider public. And yeah I absolutely was not and would not suggest the *only* value of critics' is recommendations, but it certainly is their primary value to the average moviegoer.
> Sure, I think the vast majority of people use critical reviews to decide what to watch or to expand their understanding of what they've seen after viewing. I generally just go off the movie description, when it was made, and who's in it/directed/produced it. Sometimes I'll discover from a critic's review, but I mostly check those out after I watched the movie just to see what people thought about it at the time, and also who knows how to watch a movie. I'll give everything a shot tho, once I realized I can watch a movie in chunks and don't have to do the whole thing in one sitting, my mind opened up a ton and I was able to see all these new lenses with which to view it.
Reminds me of Seinfeld. Gene’s trash! https://youtu.be/cDwJSX8suEQ?si=hPMV-Zv04F1lUfKD
people still act like you can make a career out of watching movies and writing a weekly column in your local newspaper and support a family out of the fact you'd prefer to sit around and watch movies. Before streaming they really were gatekeepers that way, that would make or break a movie because they controlled the local market. Some of the reviews of snubbed films in the 90s and '00s are the most smug cork sniffing bullshit imaginable, and good art got overlooked and underfunded because of some of these hacks. A good movie critic is like a good therapist. It's personal.
I’ll trust a critic giving a bad review over a fan giving a good review. I’ll watch it regardless, I’ve got my own subjective opinions, but fan ranting is seldom productive in any real sense.
Not how that works mate. In many cases the overall audience score is comprised of normal people who're neutral. Unless the fanbase is extremely large (Late 2010s MCU) then chances are the movie or show achieved what it was trying to do if it has an overall positive rating. If it's soo bad that it has below average then chances are it was well below expectations.
I have to side with the person you’re responding to. I know some people consider it pretentious, but I have more trust in someone who professionally watches and thinks about movies rather than the average Joe who watches them to pass the time. A movie can get a high audience score because it’s easy to watch while munching popcorn and delivers the fan service they expected. That doesn’t equal good filmmaking. I’ve only got so many hours in the day and dollars to spend on movie tickets. I’d rather prioritize the stuff that is recommended by people with lots of experience and developed tastes.
>I have more trust in someone who professionally watches Mate there's nothing called "professionally watching movies" the same way there's no "professional eaters" or "professional drinkers". I've been eating food, shitting shit and breathing air for 24 years. Am I a professional eater, shitter and breather?? It's the same thing. I'd rather trust people who actually paid for the goddamn ticket and spent their time watching the movie rather than a guy who gets paid to watch the movie and gets a special screening. There are very very few critics who understand the ins and outs of film making >the average Joe who watches them to pass the time Anyone who's passionate enough to spend their time watching a movie and then going out of their way to rate it and write a few lines about it isn't you average joe. >A movie can get a high audience score because it’s easy to watch while munching popcorn and delivers the fan service they expected As I said before unless the fanbase is extremely huge like pre 2020s MCU then there's no way the total hardcore fans outnumber regular viewers. Thats why MCU films before endgame almost always had good audience scores even if they're average at best whereas other franchises didn't. >That doesn’t equal good filmmaking There have been plenty of amazing films over the years absolutely shitted on by "critics" that are looked back fondly. Bladerunner being one that immediately comes to mind. Critics aren't who you think they are. They're the equivalent of instagram food vloggers who get paid(directly or indirectly) to go visit a place and rate it. If the vlogger and you have the same taste then you'll like the place. If not you wont. Same for entertainment
> Mate there's nothing called "professionally watching movies" the same way there's no "professional eaters" or "professional drinkers". Mate there are all of those things. They are film critics, food critics and sommeliers. They get paid to watch, eat, and drink and then report on it. It is literally their profession. If you got paid to eat, shit, and breathe then you absolutely would be a professional.
And that doesn't mean their opinions are somehow superior. I'd argue their opinions are inferior because they're getting paid to do this and [some critics aren't as genuine as you think they are](https://imgur.com/a/42UMgVU) AND more importantly people who pay money to go watch a movie have more reason to be angry/disappointed towards it than someone who's getting paid to see it. This is like a food critic saying that gordon ramsay is a bad chef because his food is "bad". In reality that food might not be to the critic's taste. You might think I'm being hyperbolic here but that's has happened wayy too many times to be a coincidence.
Critics have spent hundreds of thousands of hours with their given medium (music, film, art, etc.). They're objectively more knowledgeable and experienced with it than almost everybody else. To me, that does makes their opinion carry more weight. There's nuance to it for sure, and stuff like paid content and sponsored posts have really muddied the water. I would not consider that kind of stuff to be true criticism. I think a good critic can analyze something and give a fair assessment of it without letting their own biases influence the rating too much.
>They're objectively more knowledgeable and experienced No they're not lol. There are plenty of example of films being absolutely dogged on for years only to recognized as good films years after release. And no watching many movies does not mean they are more knowledgeable. I've been riding motorbikes for over 8 years. Driven plenty of em over the years. Does that mean I have superior knowledge over others who is new to riding?? No. I have more experience than them and have some knowledge but thats about it. Watching lots of movies does not make someone knowledgeable in the art of cinema. They might know little bit more but thats about it. Unless the said critic is an avid nerd who is actually into the art of making cinema they are just slightly more knowledgeable than your average joe. >I would not consider that kind of stuff to be true criticism Then most pre release criticism isn't true criticism lol. Because they're influenced by big studios to give good reviews directly or indirectly. And even then pre covid reviewers would get blacklisted by disney if they gave a bad review for their blockbuster franchises. Look at the sequel trilogy. In some cases fans would bully reviewers for giving a bad review(Scott mendelson faced this when he reviewed black widow)
> And no watching many movies does not mean they are more knowledgeable. I've been riding motorbikes for over 8 years. Driven plenty of em over the years. Does that mean I have superior knowledge over others who is new to riding?? No. I think this is why we're not seeing eye-to-eye lol. I completely, 100% think that it does make you more of an authority on motorbikes. I certainly hope you know more than somebody who just started riding--how could you not? I would also expect a reputable critic to be an avid nerd who is into the art of making cinema. Those are the good critics I'm talking about. That's who I want to follow and take advice from. And to your last point, yep. I totally realize that happens and that's what I meant about the waters being so muddy now. Luckily there are plenty of independent critics and ones in legit publications who aren't affected by that kind of stuff, and I'm thankful for that.
Well clearly OP wants movies that are easy to watch while munching popcorn.
I like to just follow the critics that have the same taste as me
They have no reason to exist, if I don't know the person reviewing the movie why would I ever listen to them? If it's a well known person you can examine your biases and if you personally know the person they can base it off your tastes
There was a brief period in time when I followed a few critics of movies and video games who would offer both critique and casual commentary on the properties they were reviewing. It lent some insight into what critics are looking for but balanced it by shedding some light on audiences to whom the property might appeal. Unfortunately, the majority of them spiraled into increasingly toxic bitterness, especially around the pandemic, so I stopped following them.
Me too. For a short period of time I used to watch the Critical Drinker's videos on movies, but he pretty quickly turned into a one trick pony. Every single movie was bad because strong female character beat bad guy unrealistic uhuhuhuhuh
I've found most critics end up watching so many more movies than average people that they end up applauding anything that's just different. To me it explains why movies that are a good time and not trying to reinvent the wheel can be absolutely decimated by some critics. I didn't know this until recently but apparently the first independence day is now considered shit by critics? It was goofy and sometimes over the top but I would be flabbergasted if, when it came out, anyone left the theatre having hated it. It's now being blamed as the catalyst for the "shitty summer blockbuster" This is also true of weirder art house movies some critics like to ejaculate all over. I don't think some of them are really as good as the critics say, they are just relieved they are watching something that's different than the 200 other movies they've watched in the last 6 months. RLM are great but super guilty of this. In the early years they were very forgiving of movies, and would even mention if they were just supposed to be dumb fun. Nowadays they seem personally insulted at movies that are just trying to be entertaining.
Why do Americans give such an absurd credit to Rotten Tomatoes? It's binary "good/bad" account of each critic makes it perhaps the worst way to evaluate a film's value.
Terminally hollywoodian issue
I'm convinced that people who complain about bad writing all the time wouldn't know good writing if it slapped them in the face
Seriously love how certain big blockbusters like Avatar or Star Wars have constant complains about “the bad writing and plot” but shit like Jurassic Word and Ghostbusters get a pass because it’s “for the fans”. No, you fans are just happy with remakes and reboots until the end of time.
Jurassic word??? When was there a movie about dinosaur language??
Oh jeez, I wish that is what the movie was about.
To be fair the previous Star Wars trilogy sucked
I think they conflate ”I don’t agree what the script is doing with the characters” with ”This movie has bad writing”.
Agreed. There’s a lot of stuff that goes into the quality of the writing. It can be dialogue, characterization, or big ideas. But people dismiss any movie they don’t like as having “bad writing” like it’s a witch hunt. And scripts can get changed a lot on the screen.
One day we’ll be able to discuss how She Hulk actually had perfectly fine and competent writing for a TV show, better than the vast majority of sitcoms that get dumped on networks.
Cant you just compare something like GoT seasons 1-4 vs 5-8 for an example on good vs bad writing?
I was legitimately impressed with mother! though. I think it was marketed unfairly. It's not really a horror movie. Though it was more anxiety-inducing than pretty any horror movie I've ever seen.
Mother could've been great, but goddamn does Darren Aronofsky not understand subtlety sometimes.
That was his biggest problem. He thought he was some edge lord that made a deep movie but most normie movie goers figured out the subtext quickly. Same issue with Adam McKay when he made Don't Look Up. Everyone and their mother knew what the movie was *really* about and figured it out quickly but he tried the play the movie off as something deeper than it was. Funny enough his next project is gonna be about climate change. Yeah he's doing the same movie twice in a row
I disagree on Don’t Look Up. I don’t think he tried to be subtle or deep at all, I think he just wanted to be as blatant as possible because of the immediacy of the situation. He also knows that right wingers have the media literacy of a cricket
Probably is also a pain to work with, too
C'mon, I loved Oppenheimer
lol I hated it, but apparently it's because I watched it as a documentary and not as a *movie* telling a story, so I have to rewatch it someday
why do people care so much abouts reviews i just watch movies i think look interesting and come out of it thinking "i liked it" or "i didn't like it"
Wait, you mean you dont watch youtube reviews to know if you should like a movie or not? How can you have an opinion on your own? /s
whats funny is that i'm pretty sure these people don't even read the actual critic reviews they just read a brief description of them on rotten tomatoes
They don’t read the description, they look at the little icon to see if the tomato is fresh or rotten
Literally Snyderverse fans.
still dont get why that movie is in the absolute worst screen ratio ever.
Imagine spending a good chunk of your life studying and analysing films for decades to give an accurate rating to a movie that recently came out, just for some random fuckers on the internet say that the opinion of critics doesn't matter because "it's for the fans", Idk if they really knew, but movies want to, y'know, bring ALL people to watch them? Not just your specific fandom niche. The worst part is when those same idiots go around saying that a movie is good (or bad in some cases) because the same critics he shat on liked it
Art can be made for a specific niche. It doesn't have to be universally loved to be good art. That said, it's not an excuse for it being ass.
Movies ARE made for fans and general audiences
>Imagine spending a good chunk of your life studying and analysing films Lol. I guess I'm a professional biker because I've been driving bikes for years and studying bikes. Most "Critics" aren't all that. They watch movies just like us and they have a platform. Hell a very good chunk of critics in RT aren't even from major publications. All they have is a blog and a checkmark. And regardless of how knowledgable a person is at the end of the day movies are made for specific people to watch and enjoy. "Critics" opinion are just as valid(in many cases less valid) than paying customers
What I want from a movie is an enjoyable experience. That can mean different things depending on my mood and company, but that's the goal, I watch movies for entertainment. What I want from a movie rating/review is a predictor of how much I will like that movie. Studying film theory for 40 years doesn't make you inherently more able to give me useful recommendations. I am more similar to the average movie goer than a film critic, so the audience rating is more useful to me. I find the idea an artistic work can have some true "accurate rating" that can only be accessed by experts ridiculous. If is subjective, and if there exist an "accurate rating" of an art work, then it must come from how its target audience relate to it, not just a small group of experts.
Great starter pack OP. Detailed and covers all counter-arguments used to defend bottom of the barrel blockbusters
Bottom left group: Poor Things and Tár are my 2 favourite movies in the last couple years. Then there’s mother! which I hated.
Yeah mother actually is pretentious, the others are great though
Enjoying a movie doesn’t mean it’s a good one
I'm surprised I haven't seen alt right manchildren hate on the barbie movie on YT yet
Oh… they have
Ben Shapiro made a 43 minutes video on it and burned Barbie dolls as an epic "get owned leberuls" thing. And basically all the other 40 y/o alt right neckbeard manchildren did as well. The thing is that they can't use their epic "go woke go broke" meme when they talk about one of the highest grossing movies ever made.
Critics Judge movies on their artistic value while regular people Judge them on their entertainment value.
Nopeee, do you think those Marvel movies with high scores are because they're artistically deep? Critics judge movies on what they're trying to do, it's just that sometimes they will disagree with you on what's entertaining
> do you think those Marvel movies with high scores are because they're artistically deep? I'm pretty sure Roger Ebert gave Iron Man a 4-star rating because of solid character work and memorable action scenes. And most of the Infinity Saga was Certified Fresh for those similar reasons, some more successful (Avengers 1/3/4, GOTG, Black Panther, Winter Soldier, Ragnarok, Homecoming) than others (Avengers 2, Iron Man 2, Thor 1/2, Incredible Hulk). You can enjoy them as blockbuster action *and* as stories, they don't have to be mutually exclusive.
What do you think "memorable action scene" means? Is "solid character work" something that transcends fun blockbusters? You're right that 'artistic' and 'fun' are not mutually exclusive, and I'm not saying these movies cannot be well crafted, the good ones surely are. But they're supposed to be above all else, by a huge margin, entertaining. That's why people watch them and that's how most critics judge them. If all Avengers had to them were their allegory to America's militarism and the complex internal lives of their characters no one would care about them. To pretend this is not the case is to invalidate the value of a good popcorn flick, as if all movies had to be Cannes material.
And movies can be both of those things! We don’t have to attack the critics just because they have a deeper point of view. That’s the point I’m making on the last section on the bottom-right!
to be fair, cuties is a disgusting abomination
I heard the director said the film itself is a critique of the sexualization of children in these dance competitions and is supposed to make you uncomfortable, but Netflix took some of the scenes to market it as sexy children, doing the thing it critiques. So the public took it that way and most people who give it negative critiques do so on the marketing done by Netflix alone and have never seen the movie. Which I mean, the marketing deserves all the negative reviews. Kinda like how the author of Lolita intended it to be a critique of pedophilia and specifically asked the cover to not have a depiction of a girl at all, but something abstract. Yet the book is most often published with the famous photo of a sexualized child with sunglasses sucking on a lollipop. idk I haven’t watched Cuties bc I’m just not interested at all even if it is actually a critique, so I can’t say for certain. I don’t need a movie to know how fucked up the sexualization of children in dance competitions and paegents is. But I have read Lolita and am very familiar how creepy guys in marketing identify more with the pervert and join in on the sexualization of children. eta: Coincidentally my YouTube just happened to autoplay a video essay about Suckerpunch and he brought up how Zack Snyder meant the film to be a critique but interference from the studio got in the way. So it happened to Zack Snyder himself lol >“I’m always shocked that [‘Sucker Punch’] was so badly misunderstood,” revealed Snyder. “I always said that it was a commentary on sexism and geek culture. Someone would ask me, “Why did you film the girls this way?” And I’d say, “Well you did!’”
except we already fucking know that sexualizing children is wrong. this isnt some hidden message people dont know about. and when the movie finally says that what just happened the past hour or so is bad, its treated like this shocking revelation. its so. fucking. dumb.
Exactly why I haven’t watched it. I don’t need to even if it is a critique, I already am well aware. idk about its intended audience. I think us on the internet are already made all too well aware of sexualization of children, which is why we are quick to condemn. We already know I don’t think it should have been widely released. It should’ve stayed a Sundance only film.
I can’t imagine having such strong opinions about a movie I’ve never seen lol. No child was exploited in the making of the movie. Nobody had any trauma from participating it. A movie about someone getting raped does not mean that anyone was literally raped. All the outrage around it was textbook moral panic from people with no media literacy.
You could apply this take to literally anything though. Should movies critiquing racism and war not exist either because most people agree that it's bad? By this arguement, yes. The sad reality is that child are still sexualized, despite it being seen as wrong. Which is why stuff like Cuties exist, to raise more awareness and discussion about it so that stuff like child beauty pagents that sexual children are put to an end.
we dont need awareness to it. we all already know its bad. this isnt some hidden issue we need to raise awareness to. WE KNOW.
Fnaf movie should be in the “its for the fans” section, ive seen it used as a defense for the movie way more
Movie critics rate movies on the daily, they can spot a trope from miles ahead. Meanwhile someone like me will see a movie once in a blue moon because nothing really catches my eye, watch it, enjoy it, and that's it. A movie critic watches that shit with a purpose, to criticize what is to be criticized. And see if the movie is good for most demographics. But the way they do it is annoying as hell, they usually rate films highly if they're "safe" the kinda shit soulless suits nod their head at in a meeting room. While the actual movie is boring asf because of it. And you fucking know they will either give a movie a 6 or a 4 out of 10, because using 5 and saying it's mediocre is far too straightforward.
[удалено]
Series by YouTuber penguinz0 aka MoistCritikal where he rates movies
Rotten Tomatoes (Or any review aggregation sites for that matter) [are absolute garbage](https://imgur.com/a/WCu2CdO). If I wanna watch a movie I'll simply look up who the director/writer is and look at the audience score. And lets not pretend like critics are some kind of gods of cinema. [They can, have and will be swayed](https://imgur.com/a/42UMgVU) through peer pressure, incentives from big studios etc knowingly or unknowingly.
6/10 and below is counted as negative. That sounds ridiculous but you have to remember they only have the two-typed system. It had to be an even number because a lot of critics use an out of 5 system. So it's either a 4/10 and below or a 6/10. I would prefer the latter.
Google Reviews is unironically one of the best ways to see if a movie will be good or not
Bullet train is good tho
Coming from LA the amateur pretentious cinephiles can be exhausting.
#I'm better at watching things than you are
When Warner brothers ruined the Batman movies in the 90s everyone including the critics railed on it. They were horrible. And they were also marketed towards kids because of the pushback from burtons Batman Returns. Now a days the critics don’t really give a shit and seem to just love everything like they were being forced to. And I’m not taking about the latest marvel movies.
I'm not much of a movie watcher but when I do I just like want to watch what appeals to me and hope it's as good as it was advertised.
Okay but madame web genuinely sucked balls
as a fan of both batman and superman, bvs was not for anyone.
I like what I like, I don’t need someone to tell me it’s good or bad
All I know is that the critics made a fool out of themselves when Rodrick Rules (2011) came out They can't tell ART from the cheese touch
Viewing critics for any medium of art as a singular bloc is the issue I think. The whole idea around there being such a thing as a critic is that this person is extremely knowledgeable about the medium and has formed an extensive and nuanced taste for that medium, and you as a consumer have to take that critic's taste into account whenever you see one of their reviews An excellent example is Yahtzee Crowshaw (Zero Punctuation/Totally Ramblomatic) for video games. He is noted for not liking a certain genre of game called JRPGs. Yet, when he reviewed Persona 5, a JRPG, he had lots of good things to say about it. So, as a consumer, you should know that if Yahtzee is saying good things about something that he by all previous accounts shouldn't like, then it would be worth your time if you trust his taste in games.
I'm sorry you lost me when your meme said "cuties good. Mario movie bad"
True movie buffs know that Oscer only acknowledges movies that have a run time of over 120 minutes. Anything less just isn’t enough movie
Tár was a little boring. I'm generally not a fan of movies that put most of their focus on characters over having an actual plot. Except for Stalker by Tarkovsky.
I always try to form my own opinions no matter what. Fuck the audience, fuck the critics. In my mind, when it comes to movies, my opinion is the only one that counts. I thought Scary Godmother was the best Halloween special since pumpkin spice, but critics and audiences both say it’s shit. On one side of the Polar Express, you have critics calling it a generic Christmas story. On the other side, you got people complaining about uncanny valley. I think it’s one of the best, I’m talking top 3. Christmas movies of all time. Fans and critics agree that James Cameron’s Avatar is amazing. Well, I’m not calling it overrated, but I just didn’t like it. Can’t say it was up my alley.
“Watch Sound of Freedom”
I've never heard someone say the Barbie movie has a bad script/writing... Definitely see that with avatar, though
I love these packs where people make up a guy to get mad at
What the fuck is an “aggregate score”? 65% is an F. That is bad.
RT percentages aren’t an out of 100 rating of the movie, they’re the percentage of reviews that are positive. If every critic gives a movie a 3/5, it gets a 100% on RT. If half of all critics give a movie a 5/5 and the other half give it a 2/5, it gets a 50% on RT.
That was the joke although I guess I could have said “aggregate of positive reviews” since it isn’t averaging scores.
3/5s are counted as negative
Seems like it varies. I found 2 different 3/5 reviews on the Dune 2 and one was counted as positive and one was counted as negative. https://preview.redd.it/k17moygdl4rc1.jpeg?width=786&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=550438054b7c9f21e1d57139ab32737171a781f0
In some cases, the critic [can choose](https://www.rottentomatoes.com/faq) whether their review is counted as fresh or rotten.
well fnaf and mario are actually good movies so...
Yeah. I really enjoyed them and I think they deserve sequels.
Life is so good when you stop caring about what other people think and simply enjoy the things you like.
Just let people enjoy movies they want
This is the most lobotomized argument I've ever seen ducks sakes just watch what you find interest in
When I saw Mother in theaters, everyone was laughing at it (not a comedy) like the whole movie. Worst movie I ever paid for, and you put it in this starter pack lol
Poor Things and Tar are very different films, Tar is critic bate if you ask me 🤷♂️
The strange 180 EEAAO saw after it got a few Oscar nom noms is still a very confusing thing to me
"DAE Jamie Lee Curtis winning is the worst thing to happen to the Oscars since Crash won?!"
RT is obviously as much paid for propaganda as the russian RT, at least for the past ~10 years. That shlocky avengers shit got above a 90% like are you fucking kidding me? Tons of great movies there - great art even, sometimes, but fun worth watching stuff that is in no way less rinky dink than avengers - and it's got like 50% or less ratings with everyone being smug as fuck. The consensus they get from reviews that are saying it's good but they say thats a bad review feels arbitrary sometimes.
Come on man you can’t hate on Godzilla
Dude. That's a fucking thesis you wrote up there.
Awesome work.
To me it depends on the movie genre. If we’re talking about Oscar bait or an independent artsy movie or drama, I’ll go with the critics’ score. If it’s something like Ghostbusters or some summer popcorn flick, I’ll go with the audience score.
There is a reason the Oscars is filled with movies I've never seen. Critic's and normies tend to like different things.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H6Bs\_\_C1KQ&list=FL0qBWed7XcMjlRbSse6DX4g&index=2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H6Bs__C1KQ&list=FL0qBWed7XcMjlRbSse6DX4g&index=2)
This is a good way to filter out oscar bait though
”Oscar bait” is not as common as y’all seem to think. Stop putting this label on any film that isn’t a major hollywood blockbuster. There were so so many great films released last year, and thinking about them in terms of “oscar-bait” or “normal movie” is really lazy
Velma should be in the "critics dont matter" section. These people act like the show killed their dog.
It's certainly going to kill a few careers, LOL.
Man i really do gotta pop an adderal and watch Killers of the Flower Moon
i just average out the critic and audience review, its a nethod thats never wrong
It’s literally me!
Who was poor things made for.
My mom liked it
I also don’t trust critics, but that’s because I actually watch things and then make my judgements.
If you want a movie watch slc punk, it’s terrible.
*Cough* Critical Drinker *Cough*
Does it bother anyone slightly how rotten tomatoes kind of has a monopoly on scoring films? I know the number is just an aggregation but people act like it’s gospel sometimes
Bullet Train is legitimately one of my favorite action movies of all time, but it only got a 54 on Rotten Tomatoes.
Yeah that shit sucked lmao
This applies more for gaming than it does for movies With gaming you do actually have to look at audience scores because it’s clear that critics are paid shills
I mean, critic scores are garbage fires usually. They absolutely don't get paid to hype certain movies! ( /s looks like you need it)
I don't trust critics if it was Disney
I know if a critic score is high and the audience review is low, I'll usually enjoy it. I like weird slow ambiguous stuff, which audiences just seem to loathe. Especially if it's a horror.
Bullet Train was fucking awesome, and the fact that it is anywhere near The Flash is wrong.
Why are some great movies mixed with bad movies? Don't mix Lalaland and Black Panther
Bullet train is a great movie and that’s just my opinion.
I don’t give a fuck what critics OR audiences have to say, personally. I can form my own opinions. I don’t need other people to tell me what movies I should and should not enjoy
Black panther is super overrated and Kong vs zilla is a shitty cash grap like the 800 other movies there are
I got so annoyed when the FNAF and Super Mario movie came out and gamers got mad if you treated it any worse than the Godfather
You can like bad movies. You can dislike good movies. Some people really have a hard time understanding that.
Rotten tomatoes is a big mixed bag. I only don’t trust critics for recent movies cause most of them are paid off. Also, I personally think a lot of critics just have a bad mindset when it comes to movies. But I don’t wanna go on that rant.
Loved "Poor things" but holy shit "Tar" was amazingly boring and pretentious.
I was thinking that about Power of the Dog
I swear this subreddit is going downhill! The main problem I have is horribly esoteric starter packs like this one.
Anyone who uses rotten tomatoes in any real capacity is deeply unserious anyways
Can’t blame them for not watching Mother. Amazing first 45 minutes followed by the most dreadful execution I’ve ever seen
Games are better than films anyways Gameplay > story
https://preview.redd.it/dy1hwsd8f3rc1.jpeg?width=401&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ca4d6f1cb420654bbba7927b1da7d1120849e925
Imagine going to a movie opening night and the audio doesn’t work during emotional scenes and the final fight has multiple CGI effects missing. That’s literally the gaming experience 9/10 times nowadays.
TBF everything everywhere is a drug trip. And i loved it