Rotten Tomatoes Scores
 

Often the critics hate a movie that the audience loves, or the opposite, when the critics love a movie that the audience hates.

I tend to put more faith in the everyday movie-watcher than I do in the "professional" critics.

If you had to trust one of those two groups, which would it be?

_

I go with the audience, never the critics.

I don't trust the critics either.

Critics have their own agenda....not sure what that is. In the mean time, i'll take word of mouth from my friends any day over some snooty hollywood critic.

This has been a big issue for season 11 of Dr. Who. Worst season, by far, of the 50+ years (on and off) production, critics loved it, social justice warriors loved it, the entire fan base hated it.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1547864674.jpg

I always go with the audience. Most critics are paid by the distributors of movies. You can't trust a single critic review. There are some great movies that don't have the budget to pay the critics. Also, critics tend to favor the politically correct...or movies with strong liberal agenda themes.

For me, it depends on the genre.

After the genre is established i.e., drama, sci-fi, comedy, etc., I look at the players, i.e., directors, producers, actors, etc., then I look for awards nominations, i.e., Golden Globes, Oscars, film fest awards, etc.

Then I randomly close my eyes and click on a movie and watch as much of it as I can and come to my own conclusions.

At first, for example, I thought Roma was a boring, hoiti-toiti, foo-foo, art-house expression of cerebralness by an emotional Felini wannabe.

I was correct.

But it is really a great movie, too.

Audiences every time.

Rotten Tomatoes is probably the best there is. They don't always get it right but it seems mostly reliable.

---

I tried, I tried... I just can't stand her. :(

Audience.

I agree with the others in this thread. A movie that gets high marks from critics is suspect. I prefer an audience recommendation.

Would this be some of the same audience that's kept The Bachelor on TV for almost 17 seasons? Or idolized The Kardashians for 14 years before that show was finally cancelled? Or those who still find the various Real Housewives shows so fascinating after 13 seasons on the air?

Just because a film is popular with audiences doesn't mean it's any good...

I really like her (cute t*ts) but I don't want to watch hours of her. She was good on Broadchurch.

Anyway, how was Darwin.

Darwin was great! It looks like I'll be making several more trips this year.

So was Adelaide. I'll try to catch up next time.

I used to read Roger Ebert movie reviews when he was alive and was really aligned with his opinions. Maybe the Chicagoan in me. Now, although they've kept his business going and there are reviewers working there who pretend to write like him, their opinions are often 180 degrees from mine. I attribute a lot of this to political correctness over truth. Don't offend, and truth can damage a career for the rest of your life.

So yes, go with the audience.

One thing I've noticed about critics is they usually hate old fashioned-sentimental-corny movies. But the public eats it up. They never liked Frank Capra movies like It's a Wonderful Life. They called it Capracorn. They only like edgy stuff. Edgy is fine, but so is corn.

There has to be some overlap but as a rule I will bank on the audience score.

Bear in mind that pretty much everyone involved, including Rottentomatoes, says people use the scores incorrectly. For example, Aquaman has a Fresh score of 64, while the average critic rating is 6/10. Glass has a Rotten score of 38, while the average critics rating is 5/10.

I tend to listen to critics with similar sensibilities to my own. What I liked about Ebert was that he could acknowledge that a flawed movie could still be very entertaining, or that a cinematic masterpiece might be a slog to watch.

I was under the impression that the critics give a thumbs up or a thumbs down and that is the average that is presented.