This really hurts when you go watch a movie with lots of good reviews, find it not enjoyable or a good movie at all, and then question whether everyone else is stupid or that you are in fact the local idiot.
I love the prestige, but Interstellar was his best work in my opinion. Definitely gone downhill since then, although I still enjoyed Oppenheimer. Tenet hurt my soul
As someone who watched Primer and Tenet back-to-back (both first-time viewings), I am amazed that a film produced on an astronomically higher budget than the other could be twice as confusing, twice as long (!), and so much more exhausting because of the story’s reliance on world-ending stakes.
Hot take, but Chris Nolan is the master of making films that feel smart but are actually pretty dumb. He’s like Zack Snyder but he’s good enough at pulling it off that his movies are a hit with critics. People who tend to overestimate their own intelligence will often hold Nolan in high esteem. He’s also a cryptofacist.
I’m now wondering how pig was reviewed. I love fucky action movies and anything with Brad Pitt or Jason Statham. Pig was slow and boring but I still loved it.
Edit: 97/84 so pretty good, despite my utter lack of taste in cinema.
If you’re looking at critics reviews, you have to be careful when you see a lot of good reviews for a movie. A 100% on rotten tomatoes is more likely to be a boring slog of art that only a movie critic who is desperate for something different can enjoy than something the average person wants to see.
My rule of thumb: if a movie you were excited for got amazing reviews then go see it. If are just browsing a list of top rated movies currently in theaters and you haven’t heard of it, do more research to figure out why it’s well rated. At least you’ll know what you’re in for if you do go see it.
90+ on Metacritic may be what you’re thinking of, those can be more arty films that may or may not appeal to non-critics. 100% on Rotten Tomatoes is usually the opposite, crowd-pleasers that appeal to all audiences. Nothing amazing or groundbreaking, but a movie pretty much anyone will at least enjoy.
Since RT is just saying what percentage of critics thought it was watchable, high RT percentages just indicate universal enjoyment, they don’t say anything about HOW good the reviewer thinks the movie is.
I’m thinking of ending things (rottentomatoes.com/…/im_thinking_of_ending_things), 82% critic score, 49% audience score. This movie takes “it makes you think” to a whole new dimension. It’s two hours and fourteen minutes of melancholic confusion, wondering if you missed something important, then it’s over without ever really resolving anything. You’re on your own to connect the dots and make sense of the movie, or more likely you’ll have to do additional research to figure out what the plot actually was. I don’t regret watching it, but I also can’t recommend it.
Red Notice (www.rottentomatoes.com/m/red_notice), 39% critic score, 92% audience score. Bland, forgettable plot with cool effects. Explosions, The Rock, Gal Gadot, and Ryan Reynolds. A fun, enjoyable movie to stream on a weeknight, but not something I would have paid to see in theaters.
Screw movie reviews, watch the trailer (unless you’re stupid anti spoiler like myself) or find a recommendation site/individual reviewer that vibes with you, would you trust half the population to have similar taste to yourself, no? Well there goes half the ratings right away.
I check through RT, IMDB, Google Reviews, Letterboxd and average them all out.
You have to dig into RTs reviews and look at the critics average and the audience average (you can often find a film with 80% critic approval and 20% audience approval … and the site will only post the critics rating)
When doing your research … also look at the number of votes … if 100 members voted 90% chances are those are all movie production promoters boosting numbers. IMDB usually has higher numbers of votes for everything which gives a more reasonable average.
I get what you’re saying, but IMO a 2 hour movie is too low stakes to warrant spending more than a minute or two glancing at reviews, which is why RT and IMDB are nice, even if the summary score isn’t totally reliable.
Am I interested in it from a quick synopsis or trailer?
Are the reviews generally at least mixed or better?
If the answer to both those is Yes, there’s a good enough chance I’ll enjoy it to give it a shot.
Because I don’t want to pay $20 and spend 2 and a half hours to decide whether I wanted to spend $20 and two and a half hours on that thing.
Reviews exist to help people decide. Of course they won’t be exactly my opinion, but they can tell me whether the experience will be worth my time and money. Or at least if the movie contains stuff that I definitely wouldn’t want to see.
Letterboxd is pretentious, which is a good way to find ✨cinema✨, but if you just want to turn your brain off and watch an Adam Sandler movie or something, letterboxd is not the platform to look at reviews
Yes. Horses, dogs/wolves and people are the three land animals that are really weird in that they aren’t necessarily apex predators, but due to circumstance or evolution we’ve somehow stepped outside the natural flow which has resulted in us having a wide potential of diet, excess time and energy to spare due to lack of serious predators (yet) and luckily enough we’ve come to be more collaborative than competitive when it counts
Wolves who are “pets*” are also absolutely manic in comparison to normal dogs. Our lifestyle just drives everything to mindless activity to get it out.
(*: A wolf is not a pet even when they are very cute)
comicstrips
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.