What’s more important than the score is the written reviews.
So many films with bad scores because people didn’t “get it”, or watched a film that wasn’t “for them”.
For example, I’ve seen critics write reviews for the third movie in a franchise, saying they didn’t understand what was happening, because they didn’t watch the first two.
The critic reviews are also partially made up. The site will interpolate >= 50% in whatever review system the reviewer uses as a good review.
My man, If you need your tastes to be affirmed by some magical numbers, then I don’t know what to tell you.
It’s not about affirmation, it’s about feeling connected to some parts or the human race. Mostly people who are simular to ourselves. When you meet your friends, you probably discuss things you all like. Its universal.
We feel what we feel and we look for others to feel the same. Not affirm it, but to not feel alone in our feelings.
You must be great at parties :p
Sometimes it’s just fun to have someone that agrees with your opinion.
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
For me it’s more, “I wonder why critics / audience disagree with me?” It’s an interesting thing to think about.
I try not to expose myself to any social media surrounding a movie before I watch it. No reviews, no trailers, nothing. Then I compare my experience with others, and it’s usually wildly different. It makes me wonder how much of a review is “inertia” from the environment surrounding the movie, rather than the movie itself?
As an example, I absolutely loved the film Chappie. I thought it was a great film, but the general population AND critics absolutely blasted it. I actually agreed with some of their points in the reviews, but overall I still like that movie a lot, and I still rate it 9/10.
If I’d seen the 30% rating beforehand, would I have even bothered watching the movie? Maybe not…
Chappie was great!
I know right! One of my favourite movies, actually. I remember it fondly.
RT lost its credibility a long time ago and IMDB just results in the bell curve effect where most things end up at 3.5/5 which is too accurate/condensed for most people.
You need to follow a couple or even just one film critic who makes quality reviews on their own if you want good information.
If this is a place to throw hot takes: Battlefield Earth is better than Mad Max 1979, if only just marginally.
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?
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)_/¯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 tjose can be fun to still watch.
Movies can’t always be about deep thought 100% philosophical question of life. That’s tiring for me.Are there any movies you like which are an exception to those?
I liked Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy… Actually just the first 2.
cars 2 is the best one fight me
Cars 1 is better
You, my friend… need to 🎶 find yourself. Yea, that’s when you find yourself 🎶
fight me
Cars 7: Mater’s Mutti’s Revenge was far more romantic than the title indicates
You, me, friend. I don’t care what people said, it’s a nicely executed spy thriller.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
There’s too much media now. Used to be, a few good movies came out every couple months. Now between all the studios and streaming services and other formats, we exist within the cone of a firehose of content. No one has time to read and internalize reviews, they’re just looking to filter the firehose to a binary watch/don’t watch
I view the rating as marketing these days. There are so many awful movies with good reviews, that I’m 100% convinced that they use bots to push the rating up, trying to increase the sales.
Since people generelly trust the reviews, it works.
Toy Story is 100%
What does that mean? Does it mean it’s the best movie ever made? Nope, it just means everyone at least kinda likes it. It’s Toy Story, it’s a good movie. Though I wouldn’t say it’s the greatest movie of all time. Just a decent movie.
The way the scoring works means that if everyone thinks a movie is better than average, the movie gets a perfect score.
If 75% of the critics think something was the greatest movie ever, while 25% didn’t like it, it’s a 75% score. It might be a movie you’ll think is the greatest movie ever too, but you might give it a miss to watch movie that 90% of the critics thought was just ok instead.
So if a studio is making a movie to try to get a good score, they will make it so it doesn’t offend anyone, and have it universally be considered ok. The way these sites measure movies encourages mediocrity and playing it safe.
Good to see a fellow ball knower out here
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
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
Kinda why Siskel and Ebert was popular back in the day. Siskel approached criticism as being about trying to encourage film makers to make better movies. Ebert was about indicating whether he thought the audience would like the movie. So they would debate. One of them or both would often be wrong. But from the discussion you could get an idea about whether it’s a movie you might enjoy.
There just isn’t anything like that now. You’re going either hear someone tell you it’s the best thing ever, or it’s the worst thing ever. Someone will review it as if it’s supposed to be art while someone else will tell you if it’s got good action scenes in it. These will all be ones or zeros that are added up to produce a rotten tomato number. We don’t even really know what perspective someone is reviewing something from.
You’re right, it’s all subjective so there’s no way to know whether you’ll like a movie until you’ve watched it yourself.
How can you be wrong about an opinion?
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.
Odessey is a piece of shit movie. They even confess it’s made from “a female perspective”. It’s full of race swaps and gender swaps, pushing the same gay/trans agenda that we have seen for years from Hollywood now.
Also it’s incredibly lacking any colors appearently. It looks like brown mud, through the entire movie.
Nolan got told to make a diversity movie and it’s his worst movie because of it.
Some youtube channels who reviewed this shit movie:
-
The Odyssey is an Overhyped Pretentious Nightmare - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY3EgxurBL8
-
Odyssey Was Everything I Expected it to be…AND WORSE! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6atY6ahfH1w
-
The Odyssey - Oh, Dear… - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkGOs3_q79I&t=153s
Admittedly, these are from youtubers I listen to, and Im sure there are others who love the movie. But I share the perspective of these ones.
So I will admit I have absolutely no knowledge of this film. But why is a female perspective bad?
This is a masculine story about a masculine hero if you haven’t noticed. That’s why feminist perspective makes the movie awful.
This comment being downvoted just shows how many in the lemmy community has the same mindset as hollywood today. Movies being about diversity, gay, trans are good, but masculine movies about strong heterosexual men, thats the enemy for you guys. Its funny. :)
Not sure how that would make it bad, just different.
Middle Earth from a female perspective could absolutely be a good film - though I wouldn’t trust anyone to actually do it well. It would also be a very different story.
I can easily see how it makes it bad, and not just different. But we are all different.
I think we need masculine movies today. Top gun is an amazing movie, if you want an example. Making a version of top gun from a feminist perspective would be absolutely awful and not just different.
Masculine movies are good. I like them.
You need masculine movies to feel masculine yourself? That’s pretty sad
You need gay/trans/feminist movies to feel good about yourself? That’s pretty sad.
I haven’t seen it yet but I already hate your comment. What in the right-wing fuck is this and why is it getting upvoted? Go back to Facebook
Lemmy today seems like a hotbed for some of the shittiest bad faith takes out there.
Bad faith comment? Because you don’t agree with it? Please. I’m fine with your opinion about it, so maybe you can be fine with my opinion about it, since this is MY opinion about it. Get it?
I dont like your comment either. Right wing? I couldn’t care less about politics. Go back to Instagram.
-
Is anyone else getting a little uncomfortable having their confirmation bias put in the spotlight like this?
Nah, I know I’m fickle
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.
I don’t know how anyone can extrapolate from these aggregate reviews. Taste in art is so personal. I find these utterly useless. Personalized movielens ratings are a little helpful at least.
