Will anyone remember those movies 5 years from now. Probably not. I just chalk it up to some critics already having their minds made up that they were going to dislike this movie because they were sick of Nolan getting praise for everyone of his films and critics that don't get Nolan as a director. That 2nd part is more in the minority but there are some critics out there like that.Addicted2Movies wrote:Some movies currently with better RT ratings: John Wick, St. Vincent, Fury
Predict Rotten Tomatoes/IMDb scores
Posts: 6
Joined:
November 2014
I am guessing that it will get stuck between 8,5 and 8,8 on IMDB.
Will anyone even remember 2 of those movie 5 weeks from now? I don't think so. The thing that gets me is that I don't mind if critics took issue with some aspects of the film, that's fine. But 73% means that 17% of those critics believed that the movie isn't worthy of paying to see in theaters. That's simply outrageous and I guess is where the movie rating conflict comes into effect. Interstellar is perhaps the most theater friendly experiences in years.bootsy wrote:Will anyone remember those movies 5 years from now. Probably not. I just chalk it up to some critics already having their minds made up that they were going to dislike this movie because they were sick of Nolan getting praise for everyone of his films and critics that don't get Nolan as a director. That 2nd part is more in the minority but there are some critics out there like that.Addicted2Movies wrote:Some movies currently with better RT ratings: John Wick, St. Vincent, Fury
That's a very good point...while I don't think it's one of Nolan's best and I can see why it's been divisive, it's hard to understand how anyone could rate the film less than 6 out of 10. This is a film that really should have close to 100% approval, at least of it being worthy of paying full price to seeAddicted2Movies wrote:Will anyone even remember 2 of those movie 5 weeks from now? I don't think so. The thing that gets me is that I don't mind if critics took issue with some aspects of the film, that's fine. But 73% means that 17% of those critics believed that the movie isn't worthy of paying to see in theaters. That's simply outrageous and I guess is where the movie rating conflict comes into effect. Interstellar is perhaps the most theater friendly experiences in years.bootsy wrote:Will anyone remember those movies 5 years from now. Probably not. I just chalk it up to some critics already having their minds made up that they were going to dislike this movie because they were sick of Nolan getting praise for everyone of his films and critics that don't get Nolan as a director. That 2nd part is more in the minority but there are some critics out there like that.Addicted2Movies wrote:Some movies currently with better RT ratings: John Wick, St. Vincent, Fury
The letterbox'd ratings are much closer to that of say past best pic winners where there the ratings skew heavily towards widespread liking if not loving the film - http://letterboxd.com/film/interstellar/
It's like comparing apple and oranges. Sure Interstellar is better and more ambitious but John Wick and Fury are good in their genres. Movies get scores not only against the whole movie spectrum but also inside it's genre.Addicted2Movies wrote:Some movies currently with better RT ratings: John Wick, St. Vincent, Fury
John Wick, for example, is a breath of fresh air in it's genre and most scored it based on that. Nobody will say John Wick is a masterpiece but it's a good action movie, well directed and with good fighting sequences. How many action movies these day are like that? Not many. So that's why John Wick was received with praise.
Posts: 37
Joined:
September 2014
9.1 with 111.000 voters on IMDB is surprisingly good.
I think it probably ends on 8.9...
I think it probably ends on 8.9...
I don't think soWhoiam wrote:9.1 with 111.000 voters on IMDB is surprisingly good.
I think it probably ends on 8.9...
I'd be surprised if it's higher than Inception, if not TDK.Whoiam wrote:9.1 with 111.000 voters on IMDB is surprisingly good.
I think it probably ends on 8.9...
If anyone is still curious I did get an answer back from RT...
So it appears that the publications/critics themselves are in fact usually the ones who instruct how to mark the review. That's a relief, but it still calls into question how a B - is considered to be "rotten"Hi,
The editorial team has posted on the forums regarding reviews and ratings from many publications/critics. I'm including their post in this email.
All of the reviews currently marked Rotten (there are 8 of them at the moment) were self-submitted by the critics who wrote them or the outlets that published them, with the exception of The Guardian review by Henry Barnes.
In the case of the latter, we felt the review was mixed enough that we reached out to him for clarification, and he instructed us to mark it Rotten.
It's important to remember that scoring is not, in fact, consistent from site to site. A 3/5 does not always denote a Fresh review -- case in point: Time Out NY has instructed us to always mark their 3/5 reviews Rotten, period. The late Roger Ebert instructed us to always mark his 2.5/4 reviews Rotten, without exception. So different outlets maintain different standards for what is Fresh and what is Rotten.
Regards,
Jose
why rt editor in chief said that ----- Denby’s review reads mostly negative to uslcbaseball22 wrote:If anyone is still curious I did get an answer back from RT...
So it appears that the publications/critics themselves are in fact usually the ones who instruct how to mark the review. That's a relief, but it still calls into question how a B - is considered to be "rotten"Hi,
The editorial team has posted on the forums regarding reviews and ratings from many publications/critics. I'm including their post in this email.
All of the reviews currently marked Rotten (there are 8 of them at the moment) were self-submitted by the critics who wrote them or the outlets that published them, with the exception of The Guardian review by Henry Barnes.
In the case of the latter, we felt the review was mixed enough that we reached out to him for clarification, and he instructed us to mark it Rotten.
It's important to remember that scoring is not, in fact, consistent from site to site. A 3/5 does not always denote a Fresh review -- case in point: Time Out NY has instructed us to always mark their 3/5 reviews Rotten, period. The late Roger Ebert instructed us to always mark his 2.5/4 reviews Rotten, without exception. So different outlets maintain different standards for what is Fresh and what is Rotten.
Regards,
Jose
