Critics vs. general public

[agent817]

I usually tend to watch something if it remotely draws some kind of interest. However, there are movies out there that have this weird sense of interest that I sometimes have, like "I don't think I want to see it but for some reason, I kind of do." When it comes to those types of movies, it's usually something that I can either wait for premium cable or for the library to carry it so I won't have to pay for it. But if I do have to pay, I will mainly do discount Tuesday for that, or early bird special.

However, looking at the fan backlash of "Spring Breakers" and how that movie was given decent reviews, I don't know if the critics were paid to praise it or if they really actually like it. Personally, I liked the movie, and I can understand if someone wouldn't. It's not really for everyone and I can kind of see that a lot of people watched it thinking it was going to be a party comedy when it definitely wasn't.

I know that "Horrible Bosses 2" was given a low rating score on Rotten Tomatoes, but I enjoyed it, and I only paid $5 to see it.

When talking about the general public, do you also mean IMDB users? The people who act like cynical movie fans and also insult a movie for liking a movie that they didn't? I never understood why some people do that.

Jan 14, 2015 7:04:55 GMT -5 Rubix Cube Johnny said:

I can go either way on this. For example I like the movie Equilibrium, and even though the critics slated it, it has a pretty high IMDB score. But on the other hand I hate The Boondock Saints, and I agree with the critics that it's a faux-tarantino piece of plastic-paddy shit. Yet the users of IMDB scored it high to.

So in conclusion, boondock saints sucks.

While I enjoyed both "Boondock Saints" movies, I am not someone who praises them a lot like those fanboys who act like it's a great film. However, you'd be surprised that there people who didn't like the film. I can see how it gained cult status, though.

[Hit Girl]

If I am interested in something, I'll check it out for myself. I don't care what critics say.

[Deleted]

Jan 14, 2015 9:46:06 GMT -5 nate5054 said:

Usually the critics. The general public made Meet the Spartans #1 at the box office for a week.

And I saw a bunch of people go on and on about how it's the funniest film ever.

Ergo, I prefer critics.

But, not all critics are valid. In addition to the "Buy a Review" group and the people that make sure a movie never receives a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, you get your snoots. Open-minded critics are very compelling, but are hard to find.

[Deleted]

If a movie has a high critic score and an extremely low audience score, it means it's probably the biggest boring pretentious piece of shit movie ever.

[Famous Rocking Chimes]

Jan 14, 2015 12:18:06 GMT -5 @jdogindy said:

Jan 14, 2015 9:46:06 GMT -5 nate5054 said:

Usually the critics. The general public made Meet the Spartans #1 at the box office for a week.

And I saw a bunch of people go on and on about how it's the funniest film ever.

Ergo, I prefer critics.

But, not all critics are valid. In addition to the "Buy a Review" group and the people that make sure a movie never receives a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, you get your snoots. Open-minded critics are very compelling, but are hard to find.

This is why I quite like Jeremy Jahns' reviews, he always seems pretty level headed and honest about what movies he likes.

[Deleted]

Honestly the two biggest problems with using Rotten Tomatoes to decide if you want to watch the movie is that it:

1. Brings the worst in critics. Like if every review is positive for a movie, it forces a critic to give the movie a positive review even if he/she didn't like the movie due to extreme fanboyism trollism they'll have to endure breaking a near perfect score or a troll/contrarian critic will use it as an opportunity to get more notoriety, page views, and possible more fans or viewers for all of his reviews.

2. Rotten Tomatoes barely highlights the average critic score of the movie that it's easy to miss sometimes. Like sometimes you see a movie with a 94% fresh rating but the average critic score is like a 6.8/10 and then you see a movie with a 74% fresh rating with a average critic score of 8.6/10 rating. Like it shows that the 94% fresh rating movie is a good serviceable film with barely any flaws or detractors but it's really just an average good film, while the 74% fresh rating movie is a polarizing movie that is either considered great or terrible and many of cinemas greatest movies were polarizing to critics when they first came out. Every Stanley Kubrick film was extremely polarizing upon release or hated by most critics.

[Deleted]

Neither.

I can judge for myself based on the trailer and the people working the film whether or not I'd give it a shot.

I mean, the days before you could go on youtube and watch any trailer, any time you want I might care more what a critic thinks (if we already had similar tastes) but now I can get a feel for the movie w/o.

And don't even get me started on how stupid rotten tomatoes is.

[Famous Rocking Chimes]

Jan 14, 2015 13:55:29 GMT -5 @supersweetbotch said:

Honestly the two biggest problems with using Rotten Tomatoes to decide if you want to watch the movie is that it:

1. Brings the worst in critics. Like if every review is positive for a movie, it forces a critic to give the movie a positive review even if he/she didn't like the movie due to extreme fanboyism trollism they'll have to endure breaking a near perfect score or a troll/contrarian critic will use it as an opportunity to get more notoriety, page views, and possible more fans or viewers for all of his reviews.

2. Rotten Tomatoes barely highlights the average critic score of the movie that it's easy to miss sometimes. Like sometimes you see a movie with a 94% fresh rating but the average critic score is like a 6.8/10 and then you see a movie with a 74% fresh rating with a average critic score of 8.6/10 rating. Like it shows that the 94% fresh rating movie is a good serviceable film with barely any flaws or detractors but it's really just an average good film, while the 74% fresh rating movie is a polarizing movie that is either considered great or terrible and many of cinemas greatest movies were polarizing to critics when they first came out. Every Stanley Kubrick film was extremely polarizing upon release or hated by most critics.

Oh how I remember the rage that occurred when Toy Story 3 got screwed out of a 100% rating on RT from a critic who felt Jonah Hex was the best movie that came out that summer (which also screwed the Toy Story trilogy out of being the only movie trilogy to have gained 100% for all of their films).