Thursday, May 26, 2016

Should I Trust Rotten Tomatoes?

This is a question that a lot of people do not ask, at least the folks that I have come in contact with.  For some, the aggregate score of a film is enough to dictate whether or not to watch a movie.  With others, they don't pay attention at all or are unaware of the service.  I sit here thinking about it as I am about to see X-Men: Apocalypse tonight and the current rating for the film is sitting at forty nine percent.

For those who don't know, the website rottentomatoes.com posts a percentage of how many critical reviews were in favour of a film.  This can be a helpful tool for people who want to save their hard earned (or lazily earned, I'm not going to rule that out) dollars on something worthwhile.  Seeing that a movie was a hit with a large percentage of critics could be enough to make the decision to spend the bucks on a theatre ticket.

However, it is incredibly subjective.  The percentage is only on a scale of whether or not a film was recommended, not how good it is.  As someone who doles out film ratings on a weekly podcast, my magic rating for something being 'recommended' is three out of four stars.  However, there have been plenty of movies that get the dreaded two and a half stars, thus falling short of the glorious recommendation, that will still hit a target with a great number of people and I found fun to watch.

What am I saying?  Essentially, I am saying that a simple yes or no on a movie doesn't really mean squat.  What helps is following certain critics and seeing over the long haul if you have a similar view to movies as her or him.  That means when they like something, you have a good chance of liking it as well.

The notion that a site like Rotten Tomatoes is the end all of quality rankings is something that we should not fall into.  There have been a number of low rated movies that I like (it doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen), and there are also numerous times when something that is rated highly bores me to sleep.  Gathering anecdotal evidence from friends and the random passerby (I say random because someone with anxiety issues like me tends not to stop and hold cinematic court with people I don't know), this is the case with many people.

Once again, what am I saying?  That while there is some value to be gleaned from sights like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, they shouldn't be the one stop shop for deciding whether or not something is worth seeing.  Taking the time to actually read reviews goes a long way, as something that is a sticking point for a critic may not be one for you and you can feel comfort knowing that you will see the movie differently.

For me, the excitement that I have for X-Men: Apocalypse has not wained.  It is not reviewing well, but this has been a solid franchise since Matthew Vaughn reset the story with X-Men: First Class.  There is a deep well in my soul that warns me that I will not like it because of the rating it has on Rotten Tomatoes, but I am keeping that bastard tempered.  The best thing I can do is remain positive that I will like it, and then go and let the film speak for itself.  A lot of times, that is the best that anyone can do.

Disclaimer - the thoughts and opinions on Rotten Tomatoes do not apply to Bucky Larson: Born to be a Star.  That movie is horrific.  Full Stop.

1 comment:

  1. Rotten Tomatoes does have great value, but the biggest problem is that people often just look at the percentage and don' bother reading reviews (or even the consensus) to see how it arrived to that score. It is the same with critics because people will often just look at the star rating or the direction of the thumb, but the more important thing is finding out why the critic chose that rating.

    ReplyDelete

About Me

My photo
I'm smarter than a bat. I know this because I caught the little jerk bat that got in my apartment, before immediately and inadvertently bringing him back in. So maybe I'm not smarter than a bat.