I swear rotten tomatoes and IMDb fucked up movies and tv more than anyone talks about. You can’t REALLY make an review of a work of art, even if it is corporate produced tripe, with a percentage scale or */10 system, and before anyone comes at me I know it’s been done for decades but it was never a be all and end all thing, critics wrote articles about things and you might disagree with their sensibilities and go see it specifically because a particular critic didn’t like it, the opposite is also true.
At some point though we crossed a line where no one actually reads the criticism and internalizes it, instead they just look at the number and make it either a personal attack or validation. Thats a really bad way to experience art of any kind.
This isn’t a complete thought I feel, but I hate the reality of film and television criticism today, not because critics are worthless, because that’s just silly. If you like something Peter Travers said was dog shit go find a critic that speaks to your taste it’s not difficult and doesn’t mean your favorite movie actually sucks.
I agree they both fucked it up, but my main problem is how there seems to have been a clear shift in how they “weigh” reviews after both IMDB and RT were bought by large corporate entities (Amazon and Fandango, respectively).
I can’t help but feel like a lot of the movies coming out from those companies or their subsidiaries (…and at least some number of politically expedient allies) somehow manage to get higher overall review scores on RT and IMDB than they maybe deserve.
For example, that shitty right-wing nationalist churchslop movie “Young Washington” got relatively high scores on RT…
…and IMDB…
…but not on Letterbox’d…
…which is one of the main reasons I shifted to checking Letterbox’d for reviews… but unfortunately, another day to shift to a different platform be coming soon again.
In Darknet Diaries Ep 27: Chartbreakers, Jack Rhysider describes how cheap and easy it is to buy your way to the top of the Apple Podcasts rating chart or onto the New York Times bestseller list.
After listening to this, it’s pretty easy to extend the logic to every other rating platform. Paying for review manipulation is basically part of the marketing budget.
I want to be clear I don’t disagree at all you’re correct. Corporate control of art means they will go to any lengths to ensure profit.
But also, I really kinda glossed over the overarching problem, which is that the film industry is now driven by reviews and vibes reviewed by c-suite folks that answer to shareholders and don’t give a fuck about the actual film or show or whatever
This has always been true with the plastic arts but we’ve reached a zenith.
I will die on the hill that art cannot be considered a financial investment. It by definition has to take risks and investment people cannot handle that
This Patrick Willems piece does a really good job of digging in to why so many streaming “blockbusters” are so shitty these days.
Tl;dw: The streaming companies have the metrics, and are now essentially making movies that hit certain beats to satisfy what they perceive as customer requirements, rather than movies that exist for their own sake.
Art by corporate committee, a fucking travesty
Yeah fedi needs a letterboxd. I kind of wonder if bookwyrm would be a good inspo for it.
I think NeoDB is a good start. Just needs a larger community l
I’m on it 🫡
Yeah these ratings are worse than useless. Oh The Abyss 14% better than Amelie?? Fuck off, Poindexter.
They’re completely disconnected from my own opinions and when I see then before watching a movie they just distract me by wondering what tf other were watching.
You can’t map.reduce this shit, it’s totally subjective
it’s totally subjective
Yet we agree that there is such a thing as one movie being better than another, broadly speaking. It’s not something to boil down to a percentage, but you might as well show more detail when you have the data.
Personally, I use ratings to estimate whether a movie that I’m interested in is worth my time. Especially Rotten Tomatoes is super useful for this because the critics score is basically a distilled thumbs up or down.
it’s totally subjective
Yet we agree that there is such a thing as one movie being better than another
I mean I wouldn’t say that, it’s kind of the opposite of what I was saying actually. But if reviews form a kind of aggregate metric you find useful then that’s good for you.
Elsewhere I even talked about how frequently I disagreed with Siskel and Ebert’s thumbs ups/downs, but the text of their reviews at least showed me I would love a movie they thought was bad.
You can’t REALLY make an review of a work of art,
They are not reviewing work of art though, they are reviewing products.
Is anyone else getting a little uncomfortable having their confirmation bias put in the spotlight like this?
It’s a three hour movie. If you need a heuristic to justify why you saw it (or skipped it) do what is necessary.
This is gonna have to be a home viewing because there will NEED to be at least one pee break and stretch exercise in the middle.
They should bring back the intermission before people start bringing pee bottles.
Nah, I know I’m fickle
Seeing it on Sunday!
I do have an issue with the amount of stars in the movie, especially Zendaya, but I’ll try to keep an open mind.
I don’t care about the historical accuracy or the racial makeup of the cast, all I care about is whether it’s a movie I enjoy watching.
especially Zendaya
She’s a stellar actress and a smokeshow.
I’m more annoyed that they included Matt Damon in the leading role. That guy’s been washed for years.
I don’t care about the historical accuracy or the racial makeup
I do think it’s very funny to be mad about Elliot Page for being transgender when I’d be more upset that he’s got zero tan in a movie about rugged sea faring people just north of Egypt.
Like so much Sword and Sandal that Hollywood produces, it’s way too white. Maybe make more movies that take place in the Baltics if you want to use this many Brits, Franks, and Nords.
Agree to disagree, I’ve never seen anything I’ve enjoyed her in.
Well, I’m a huge fan of Challengers. And she was a great Mary Jane in the Tom Holland Spidermovies.
She’s mid, I don’t give a shit if she’s in it or not tbh
She’s alright,
Smokeshows often have curves tho, but to each their own.
Dune?
I have some thoughts on Dune, all right.
I found she was a terrible choice for the character she played in it. Like I think she’s a fine actress, but she definitely doesn’t play a rugged desert woman well. I think a large part of my issues with her character are from the writing/adaptation, but I also don’t think that she’s who I’d cast.
I actually think Damon did a good job in this one
What movie?
Edit: Duh - it’s in the description.
I have a very simple system. If the movie was made for legitimate artistic reasons, then I think it was worth the effort to make it. If the movie was made to sell tickets, I don’t bother.
I decide which artistry is legitimate.
understandable but like, aren’t 99% of movies made to make a profit?
Yes that’s true but I have a pretty simple algorithm for movies that were “made to sell tickets”
- franchise movies, especially if the story ended already
- comic book movies
- remakes
- movies based on a property that doesn’t translate well into movies(video games, certain kinds of books)
Hm…I can see your angle but some of those can be fun to still watch.
Movies can’t always be about deep thought 100% philosophical question of life. That’s tiring for me.I do want to point out that “legitimate artistry” doesn’t equal “deep thought 100% philosophical” all the time or even most of the time.
Like I think Indiana Jones is legitimate artistry. Same with The Terminator. Or Alien. Or Mad Max. Even Sinners is legitimate artistry. Get Out.
I haven’t seen it yet, but I get the impression that “The Odyssey” was made because Nolan thought the subject matter was interesting.
People have made cool movies for the love of the game forever. I think the big difference is “did an executive come up with this idea in a boardroom?” Or “did a real creative person come up with this idea?”
Thanks for explaining your standpoint.
Hereby I stand corrected :)
Are there any movies you like which are an exception to those?
I liked Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy… Actually just the first 2.
The primary target can be X or Y or a 50/50 split.
Someone can have passion to make a movie but also wanting more € to make more movies.
Or get rich from the (maybe) one-hit wonder ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Simpler than that. The movie was made because Nolan saw the Titans movies and thought, “someone should make a not ‘ass’ version”.
Historically I never had the patience but I’ve watched a ton of movies over the past couple years (easily 300+) and initially I agreed with audience rating. Although I’m far from an insufferable cinephile and really don’t care about underlying theory and whatnot, I definitely find myself agreeing more with critic rating now. Of course there’s plenty of exceptions where I disagreed with both. Movies can be fun or awful for you regardless of what anyone else thinks.
That being said, I think Roger Ebert’s reviews usually nail it. That man was a connoisseur of weird enjoyable movies and quick to call out corporate crap.
As much as certain people like to proclaim reviewers are paid shills or sycophants, especially whenever a movie with diversity cast does well… The audience metric is nigh on useless half of the time.
Look at that Melania movies critic and audience score. Then see a genuinely great movie with some non white person cast in a main role get review bombed to hell and back by the same people
I’ve been with this in video games too.
I spot it with Ubisoft. The entire audience is primed to the idea Ubisoft = Open World = Slop which is sometimes true but many levels of disingenuous. Ubi has some pretty good writers that have made some enjoyable characters, though they’re often muddled by the need to build 80 hours of content. So when a Ubisoft game gets good reviews (not often) everyone feels it was paid off and that it’s laden with microtransactions. Meanwhile I’ll be like “If I literally wanted to burn money on this game I wouldn’t even know which menu it’s in…”
If you can manage subtitles I would suggest Survive Style 5+, don’t look it up, just watch.
See also: everyone driving slower than me is an idiot, everyone driving faster than me is an asshole.
I never look at reviews, I just go in expecting to be disappointed and so usually am not. Even shitty movies are fun since I plan on them sucking…
Update- saw it last night. A bit of a mess, but interesting and enjoyable. I like how it was a retelling of the story but connected it with modern themes. I enjoyed very much the diverse cast, I like performances, and appreciate various takes on the roles from performers with different backgrounds. Dialog was a bit wooden in places, especially the last line, but it was a show, not a documentary so I don’t mind a little ham-fistedness.
The best part was the Trojan Horse portrayal. My whole life I’ve seen the cartoons of a horse rolled up to the gate, and a simple telling of how they were tricked. This put the human cost of it into perspective (the fictional human cost anyway), and the stuggle with how it unfolded by Odysseus. Made me think about it more than I ever have, and from a new perspective.
Bring a bucket of water balloons and you will enjoy every movie.
Disney movies like zootopia 2 are 100% but v for fucking vendetta is like 70? Wtf RT
Read the “professional reviews” and are like “my daughter liked it so 10/10”
I love me some V for Vendetta, but Zootopia is also really good at what it is. It’s meant to entertain children while also having some laughs for the parents, and Disney is really good at that shit.
That sounds about right, you need to think about who is going to see those movies. Zootopia will be parents and children, who are a lot easier to impress than the kind of snob that would watch V for Vendetta.
V for vendetta is for snobs?
Definitely people who think of themselves as having more refined tastes.
Also, it’s not actually that good.
A movie doesn’t have to be a flawless masterpiece to be 100%. Getting certified fresh on RT is honestly more a balancing act of meeting expectations, but also not being so predictable that it becomes bland.
My partner and I walked out of The Odyssey after ten minutes and got a refund.
WAY too loud. Excruciatingly, painfully, unnecessarily loud. And yet I still had trouble hearing some of the dialogue. We were in an AMC Dolby theater, and I don’t think I’ll ever go to a Dolby branded theater like that again.
I’m not sure how to split the blame here between AMC, Dolby, or Christopher Nolan, but I’m mad at all three for the ringing in my ear that’s still there several hours after we walked out.
Can’t comment on the movie itself as we barely saw any of it. Might see it at a different theater but I’ll be bringing earplugs just in case, though I may want a refund there too if it’s still so loud as to require earplugs.
Nolan really not helping his reputation at being an outright sadist when it comes to sound.
Hey, I go to a lot of AMC theaters, I feel very strongly that it was the “Dolby” theater. I’ve had similar experiences there (but haven’t walked out). It might be a perfect storm of scenarios making it uniquely worse, but I can definitely say everyone in our group has all had the same experience at Dolby theaters.
I watched it, did not care for it. To dark, there were so many points i could not see what was happening, WAY to loud, actually hurt my ears, and, i just did not enjoy it as an experience. Actors are all fine, but there were times where the writing felt clunky or out of place ngl.
My partner and I actually walked out after 10 or 15 minutes because it was so painfully loud. Asked for (and received) a refund.
Infuriating that I can’t trust movie theaters to maintain reasonable volumes. I shouldn’t have to bring earplugs to a movie.
Things to do when bored: arguing about taste.
I have so little incentive to go to the movies these days that any negativity, deserved or not, is just enough.
You don’t have to go to the movies to see a movie
Arrr!
Yeah, even without piracy, I don’t care to wait a month or two to see something that peek my interest
That’s fair
You forgot the “haha go woke go broke” and “fucking NPC” line. For some reason the people that take movie and game reviews too seriously are those right wing basement dwelling chuds
I love Man of Steel, needed a bit better editing (because his conflict between helping humanity or not is undermined by pretty early on by helping those offshore workers) but otherwise I think it’s a pretty good movie.
I think the best approach is to find reviewers whose tastes largely align with your own. Their reviews can serve as a good reference when you’re looking for a movie you haven’t seen yet.
There are simply too many criteria you could apply. The “Cinesiasts”, for example—who like films like Citizen Kane or works by Ingmar Bergman, Aki Kaurismäki, and the like—naturally know a great deal about their field. However, that by no means means their reviews would be a good reference point for the general public, who simply want to be entertained and don’t place too much value on artistic merit or the most elaborate technical skills of filmmakers.
