Movies where Rotten Tomatoes got the rating completely wrong

I completely disagree. There were at least 100 films I've seen from that year that were worse than Cats. Loqueesha, Airplane Mode, Skateway Massacre, Butt Boy, Someone Great, We Summon the Darkness, Abigail, Triple Frontier, Our Ladies, Running with the Devil, Dreamland, Primal, Red Letter Day, The Grudge, and Kill Chain were all worse than Cats.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this.

Have you seen Loqueesha, Airplane Mode and Butt Boy?

Exactly as Thief said, the Tomatometer is not a real critical barometer. At best, it gives a very flawed idea of what the critical consensus of a film is, but this doesn't really mean much of anything unless one actually reads the content that is contributing to the score it has received.

Now this dreaded thing called reading certainly may uncover all sorts of biases on the part of the film critic. And you are rarely, if ever, going to read any sort of film criticism that is free from some amount or even an abundance of subjective reading. But neither of these things are a negative. They are actually inherently a part of the practice and what gives it its worth. You could even argue bias and subjectivity are the exact point of criticism, since the job of the film critic has much much less to do with them being mathematically 'correct' in their opinion, and more on how the communicate that opinion. How they start (not end) a discussion on any particular film.

So maybe those who seemingly can't understand this basic idea need to look at this from a different perspective.

Instead think of a critics opinion much like you would react to someone coming up to you and telling you what a wonderful day they are having.

Are you going to ask for proof of this?

No.

What you are going to do, if you have any interest in talking to this person, is you might listen to them talk about why their day has been so wonderful. The things they've seen. The thoughts they've had. The revelations they've come to.

Now is everybody who explains what a wonderful day they are having going to be equally compelling in talking about their wonderful day?

Probably not. Some will simply shrug and say 'not sure what was so great about it, but I sure am happy' and then move along. But then others may do a bit more than this and they might give you a reason to listen. Maybe it will be because of the quality of their descriptions of the things they've just seen. Or the insights which they inspired. Maybe this particular person looked under a bush and found someone's dog. Maybe they hid in a church to escape the rain and had an enlightening conversation with a priest about the innate goodness of mankind. Maybe they looked up at the sky and had a moment where they had a wild thought about aliens or just a realization about the smallness of our existence. Or maybe they suddenly realized they didn't have to have any kind of adventure at all, and all of the anxiety of life left their body, and they were content with the idea that simply being alive and walking these streets on this particular day was all they needed to be happy.

And maybe, as they detail these experiences they've had to you, you listen and find something of worth in what they say. Maybe it ends up colouring the way you view your own day, or your own life. Maybe it makes you think back on all the bushes you passed right by, not once thinking to check beneath to see if maybe you might find a lost dog down there too.

Or maybe you use this opportunity to say what a lousy day you've been having, and then you do your best to explain it from your perspective. And then they listen to you.

There are so many possibilities.

But what you don't do, is you don't say "well, that's not proof about the quality of today....that's entirely subjective...not everyone even likes dogs". You don't say "well my day is bad, so what does your good day have to do with me, I still say its bad so what's the point in you talking because you'll never convince me". You don't do these things because that's not how you communicate with people. And that's what film criticism is. Communication. And it has value, whether or not you are willing or are even interested in listening to it.

The tomato meter is as good as it needs to be. I'm have both a skeptical and eye-rolling relationship to professional reviewers since I've known a couple of them and know just how cynical and overdosed they are. They've seen way too many movies and think that every movie they see should be compared to whatever they think of as the benchmark of "Great".

As the Friday night, "Dinner and a Movie" sort of guy, I deliberately take a sarcastic view of their view. I don't need or want every movie to be Shawshank (the current IMDB #1). Does that make me into a luddite? If it does, that's OK because what I want is to be interested, engaged, excited and entertained.

Paying for a movie for all of those academic reasons is a bit like getting the dinner in that "night out" always in health food stores that are watched by my doctor. Sometimes I WANT a burger and fries, maybe a beer too. Honestly, Shawshank was to me an academic exercise, a film school exercise that was way too long. I was glad I saw it because I got to put that notch on my credentials, but sit through THAT again....no.

That's what I like about the Tomatometer. Reviews by a large number of relatively anonymous people, reduced to an aggregate number can be a good thing. Those aggregate numbers tell you something that smart reviewers completely miss because they are so wrapped up in their expertise. I generally read those reviews after I see the movie.

__________________
A hundred percent death proof.

Tomato Necromancy - now with Vitamin R!
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...ad.php?t=65140

My post was about how criticism is about communication, and much like films themselves, is a tool to gain empathy and understanding into the points of view of others. That fretting over who is right and who is wrong is an absolutely pointless distraction. And yet, here we are, treating film critics as some kind of monolithic voice of authority you are supposed to abide by at all costs, which is the complete opposite of what I've just said.

Either respond to my point, or there is nothing for us to talk about here.

Exactly

As for Rotten Tomatoes being completely wrong (your title, not mine), the validity of various forms of critical judgement is exactly the point. I'd punt to a statistics prof I once had whose statement of cynicism was that "Opinions are like a**holes, everybody has one and they all stink". Exactly WHO gets to cast judgement and for what audience is the question. Rotten Tomatoes is for someone who wants to take a shot at whatever is showing tonight and whoever is probably NOT looking for the greatest movie ever. It's gotta be worth watching, entertaining, fit in the 7PM Friday time slot, be near the food hall and not be way out in the suburbs. Once we pass all of those filters, the person can select a movie.

What are you talking about. I didn't write that title and I never said 'it's completely wrong'. I said it is flawed. Which it is.

Except not every opinion stinks. But I get it, opinions take effort, so it's easier to think there isn't any reason to even try. It's better to just repeat some bathroom graffiti your stat professor paraphrased to you decades ago, and that will suffice.

Anyone can cast judgement. And if you happen to say something that someone finds interesting or insightful you've contributed and what you've said has value.

But that's sometimes the tricky part, isn't it? You can't just put Horsey sauce on it and pass it off as something worth digesting

Ya, exactly. It's a tool to find films that have the highest likelihood of appealing to the average filmgoer. That's it. And that has some value to some people, and if you're one of them, great.

But you are aware some people are looking for more, and the Tomatometer doesn't address any of these more nuanced elements of film discussion? Right? And my post was about that, which you still haven't made any response to, so I don't even know why I'm continuing with this.

Those are YOUR qualifiers for what YOU are looking for. And I hate to break it to you, not everyone is you. Some people find worth in reading the opinions of those who spend a little time thinking over what they have seen. Not because they are looking for the CORRECT opinion. They are just looking for a different one. And this is what I was talking about in my post, not simply whether or not the theater is close enough to an Arby's to be worth travelling to.

Now if that is all you are personally looking for in your theatre experience, fine. I've only entered the discussion to explain what I think the benefits of more thoughtful or impassioned film criticism is, and it has to do with the value that comes from taking the time to listen to what someone else got from a film and seeing if it can add anything to your own experience. If not, you move on, and maybe read another take. Anything that might allow you to see things from a different vantage point. Because it's good to not be exclusively trapped in your own head, with your own biases and your own subjective interpretations forever. Good criticism, at its best, pokes a few breathing holes in the boxes we are trapped in, and allows us to not suffocate from the smell of our own filthy opinions.

You know, like the ones your stat professor warned you about.

Nope

If you watch those, I'm confident you will agree Cats is not the worst film of 2019.

I'm not watching anything that is going to change my opinion about Cats and I don't want to talk about this anymore.

A link to my review of Cats:

https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/2068158-cats.html

So Ive been on a North West America binge. If the settings there, I watch it. Started watching Joe Pickett, and it seems maybe too low-key. Before deciding if I should give it more of a chance I thought Id look at the Rotten Tomatoe score. It is 100% ! One hundred?! Breaking Bad wept.
Ill give it more of a chance though.