TV/Movies Megathread

[Malthus]

Thats what we're talking about. Modern reviews on old films, looking at a film on its own merits rather than for all the influence and importance it has.

What Syt means is re-evaluating films after some time has passed and you get more distance, which is fine and has nothing to do about analizying them in a vaccum since nobody does that. Citizen Kane barely made a splash when it came out, it was re-evaluated later.

That said, RT score is too broad a brush for this kind of exercise, imho.

My main problem with RT scores is that they over-reward mediocre but relatively solid movies that are unobjectionable.

[grumbler]

My main problem with RT scores is that they over-reward mediocre but relatively solid movies that are unobjectionable.

Your problem is with movie critics, not RT.  RT just tells us what the critics are saying.  It doesn't award "scores" per se (though it does make critic responses binary in the "% fresh" metric), it just reports them.

Mediocre and unobjectionable movies have been over-represented in production because they are low-risk, even if low-reward.  It doesn't take more than one mega-flop to end a bunch of careers.

[Barrister]

No I tend to agree with Malthus.

A bland but well made movie will get very few negative reviews and thus a high RT %.

I was looking at a list of movies that have a 100% RT score.  https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/100-club-certified-fresh-movies/

There are some very good movies listed.  Maltese Falcon.  Citizen Kane. 12 Angry Men.  Cool Hand Luke.

You know what else is listed?  Paddington 2.  Now I don't want to shit on Paddington 2 - I've seen it, and it's a good kids movie.  But it really doesn't belong with some of those other movies.

[Syt]

I was looking at a list of movies that have a 100% RT score.  https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/100-club-certified-fresh-movies/

It has Before Sunrise. That movie is for Vienna's tourism what Sound of Music is for Salzburg's. (not knocking the movie)

[Eddie Teach]

I've been meaning to see that. I liked the sequel.

[grumbler]

No I tend to agree with Malthus.

A bland but well made movie will get very few negative reviews and thus a high RT %.

I was looking at a list of movies that have a 100% RT score.  https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/100-club-certified-fresh-movies/

There are some very good movies listed.  Maltese Falcon.  Citizen Kane. 12 Angry Men.  Cool Hand Luke.

You know what else is listed?  Paddington 2.  Now I don't want to shit on Paddington 2 - I've seen it, and it's a good kids movie.  But it really doesn't belong with some of those other movies.

Again, that's on the critics.  RT doesn't rate movies, it aggregates critical reviews.  If reviewers liked Padddington 2 more than they disliked it, then RT is going to show a high aggregate "fresh" rating.

But that's the nature of binary scoring systems.  They have the same problem that the US Electoral College system has.  The EC is just an aggregator of state outcomes.

[Barrister]

No I tend to agree with Malthus.

A bland but well made movie will get very few negative reviews and thus a high RT %.

I was looking at a list of movies that have a 100% RT score.  https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/100-club-certified-fresh-movies/

There are some very good movies listed.  Maltese Falcon.  Citizen Kane. 12 Angry Men.  Cool Hand Luke.

You know what else is listed?  Paddington 2.  Now I don't want to shit on Paddington 2 - I've seen it, and it's a good kids movie.  But it really doesn't belong with some of those other movies.

Again, that's on the critics.  RT doesn't rate movies, it aggregates critical reviews.  If reviewers liked Padddington 2 more than they disliked it, then RT is going to show a high aggregate "fresh" rating.

But that's the nature of binary scoring systems.  They have the same problem that the US Electoral College system has.  The EC is just an aggregator of state outcomes.

I don't think it's "On" anyone.  As you point out it's just the nature of the system.  Paddington 2 should get a positive review from a critic, so in this they are correct.

[grumbler]

I don't think it's "On" anyone.  As you point out it's just the nature of the system.  Paddington 2 should get a positive review from a critic, so in this they are correct.

Metacritic assigns scores to reviews, so maybe it would be more up your alley.  It has far fewer (like 1/6 as many) reviewer scores, but Paddington 2 (88) does rate lower than Maltese Falcon (96) or Citizen Kane (100).

It has fewer reviewers rated because it takes more effort to assign each one a numerical grade than to just rate "fresh" and "rotten."  Paddington 2's RT rating is based on 241 reviews, Metacritic's is based on 38.  Citizen Kane's numbers of critics considered are 92 and 19.

But even if we toss RT as being too biased and unreliable and use Metacritic, my points still stand:  Metacritic's score for the 2019 version of The Lion King (that viper says is better and I say is worse) is a 55 compared to an 88 for the 1994 version (in RT it is 52 and 92).

[Malthus]

My main problem with RT scores is that they over-reward mediocre but relatively solid movies that are unobjectionable.

Your problem is with movie critics, not RT.  RT just tells us what the critics are saying.  It doesn't award "scores" per se (though it does make critic responses binary in the "% fresh" metric), it just reports them.

Mediocre and unobjectionable movies have been over-represented in production because they are low-risk, even if low-reward.  It doesn't take more than one mega-flop to end a bunch of careers.

I think it is just an issue with a binary system.

As you point out below, Metacritic is better in that respect.

If all you can do is rate movies as "fresh" or "rotten", solidly mediocre movies that few critics actively dislike will always do well (as they will have few "rotten" ratings) while movies that are innovative or controversial will do less well, because they will have sone very enthusiastic likers and some detractors - an "pretty okay I guess" counts as "fresh" as much as "a work of superlative genius", and the latter type of movie is likely to attract at least some reviewers who rate it as "pretentious garbage".

[celedhring]

RT also does movie scores, aggregating the reviews that give a star, number or letter grade to a movie. They just don't feature them nearly as much as their fresh/rotten score. Paddington 2 has 8.80 and Citizen Kane 9.6

[Tonitrus]

You guys are putting way too much effort into analyzing critics.  Just watch shit and decide if you like it yourself.

[celedhring]

You guys are putting way too much effort into analyzing critics.  Just watch shit and decide if you like it yourself.

Not enough time to watch everything, so you gotta use something as a filter. Granted, I pay little attention to film reviewers, and go mostly by WoM.

[Sheilbh]

You know what else is listed?  Paddington 2.  Now I don't want to shit on Paddington 2 - I've seen it, and it's a good kids movie.  But it really doesn't belong with some of those other movies.

Strong disagree. Paddington 2 is absolutely brilliant and has, in Hugh Grant, one of the greatest performances ever seen on film.

[Josephus]

Reviews for Ratched run the gamut from very good to absolute shit. Like any season of American Horror Story I suppose.

[The Brain]

Is Away any good?