Rotten Tomatoes. Do you agree with their ratings?

[Champ]

I usually go on Rotten Tomatoes before I go watch a movie in the theater or something on netflix. But there are a lot of movies that I like that didn't receive good ratings on Rotten Tomatoes.


Do you guys like any movies that didn't receive a good rating on Rotten Tomatoes?


Man on Fire only received a 39% on RT.
Man on Fire Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Heavy Weights got a 20%. It was a great movie in my childhood.
Heavyweights (Heavy Weights) Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Happy Gilmore got a 59%
Happy Gilmore Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Death to Smoochy only got a 42%
Death to Smoochy Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Seven Pounds only got a 27%. I thought it was a good movie.
Seven Pounds Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Kingpin is a classic movie. It only received a 51%
Kingpin Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes



Those are just some off the top of my head.

 

[MrBill]

I tend to go with the user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes over the critics reviews.

 

[Houston]

I don't care about reviews since half of the time I don't agree.


When I am interested in looking at them though I go to Wikipedia. They give the ratings and opinions from multiple major sites/publications in one spot.

 

[Nukleopatra]

I use it, because I agree with it. I've always had a ton of respect for movie critics, even moreso now, because I end up agreeing with them about 90% of the time.

The community is laughable, though, so I completely dismiss their ratings.

I also like the option of rating our own movies, which I've been using for a long time now.

 

[A Tasty Burgerr]

When I am interested in looking at them though I go to Wikipedia. They give the ratings and opinions from multiple major sites/publications in one spot.

That's what rotten tomatoes is....


If you guys are looking for multiple viewpoints just read through some of the reviews that are averaged.

i.e. 50% on rotten tomatoes doesn't mean its a bad movie. It means half of critics thought it was a good movie and half thought it was bad.

 

[Nukleopatra]

i.e. 50% on rotten tomatoes doesn't mean its a bad movie. It means half of critics thought it was a good movie and half thought it was bad.

True.

Seven Pounds might be at 27%, but the average critic rating is actually 46%.

My rating would be about 30%.

 

[Buzzman]

Water for Elephants sweet movie that for some reason just didn't gel with critics. Rotten Tomatoes is right a shitload but its never certain and I never use it to base on what movies to see.

 

[Nukleopatra]

Water for Elephants sweet movie that for some reason just didn't gel with critics. Rotten Tomatoes is right a shitload but its never certain and I never use it to base on what movies to see.

Yeah, but the average critic rating is 62%, more than fair especially how awful Pattinson was.

 

[Buzzman]

Pattinson was sweet, he just didn;t stand a chance standing next to Christoph Waltz.

 

[MvP]

It seems to be very accurate at the extremes. Movies from 0-15% always end up being awful, and anything 85% or higher is typically great. In between those, it can get a bit random, and usually comes down to how much you are interested in the plot, or the director/producer/actors involved.

I check the site at least once a week to see how new movies are faring. I did not expect Source Code to be any good, and thanks to the high review percentage, I'm somewhat interested in seeing it now.

 

[Nukleopatra]

Lol @ ''Pattinson was sweet.''

They could have gotten more out of a cardboard cutout, and it would have cost less. Again, 62% is more than fair for the movie, it won't be getting that from me.

Anyway, If you want to question a site, or the critics, you might want to post movies that didn't completely fucking suck, because if Seven Pounds, Heavy Weights, Man on Fire and Happy Gilmore are the only examples you have, you pretty much just proved them right.

 

[padman59]

I use RottenTomatoes and Metacritic for the variety of reviews they provide. I don't really care for the overall scores TBH.

 

[Goober]

I like rotten tomatoes because the critics can tell the difference between a good movie, and complete shit. Most people can't apparently. For example, the movie boondock saints. Absolutely terrible movie, and yet for some reason audience opinion is 93% on rotten tomatoes, while the critics have it at 19%.

 

[nflman2033]

no, don't agree with it, very rarely. I like having different critics on there and see their opinions, but I basically don't rank it any higher than IMDB or Allmovie, meaning I just read it for fun and make my own opinion

 

[Nukleopatra]

no, don't agree with it, very rarely. I like having different critics on there and see their opinions, but I basically don't rank it any higher than IMDB or Allmovie, meaning I just read it for fun and make my own opinion

Dude, you liked Rocky 4.

'Nuff said.

 

[CCBrink]

I usually check out Metacritic and IMDB.

 

[nflman2033]

Dude, you liked Rocky 4.

'Nuff said.

depends on what you mean by like, I enjoy it, its entertaining, but that doesn't mean its one of the best movies of all time, or even for 1985.

 

[Nukleopatra]

Just messing with you.

Rocky 4 is the perfect example of why you should listen to the critics over 13 year olds.

Rocky 4 - Critics: 47%
Rocky 4 - Community: 79%

L.....O......L!

 

[stevsta]

never ever ever look at reviews for a comedy from a review site

for the rest of the movies they are a pretty good indicator of the quality of the movie (always look for the critics that matches your taste in movies)

 

[BigHouseUSA]

At least 90% of the time I think the average rating is spot on. I usually don't look at ratings until after I see a movie, unless it's one I'm skeptical about.