Main > Everything Else

Movie: Bridesmaids

<< < (5/6) > >>

Vigo:
The problem with RT is that it is someone assigning a simple thumbs up or thumbs down random reviews from all over the place. First, a number of reviews on their site are not really reviews, but more movie introductions. The "critic" doesn't criticize, but more gives background on the movie for anyone interesting in seeing the film. RT, picks out an excerpt from it, and assigns a positive or negative based on the very little the critic provided in commentary. Not to mention a number of critics are geared to a specific reader. A critic writes reviews for families with small children would have a negative review of something like the new harry potter films, because they are no longer geared to little children.

That being said, I looked at RT's list of top movies of all time...some are really lame. I like really toy story 2, but it is not the best movie of all time, sorry. Man on a wire is not the second best movie of all time either. Searching for Bobby Fischer? 100% RT score? How the heck did that get to be one of the greatest movies of all time?

Don't worry though, RT tells us that Bridesmaids is a better movie than Indiana Jones and the temple of doom, as well as the last crusade. Since I loved Indiana Jones, I am sure to love Bridesmaids even more.  ;D

shmokes:

--- Quote from: ChadTower on June 14, 2011, 10:20:38 am ---
Actually, I find the opposite to be true most of the time.  The more people love something the less likely I am to have much use for it.  


--- End quote ---

See, you've just admitted that Rotten Tomatoes would work for you "most of the time".   :cheers: What I mean to say is that you can choose to use it however works best for you.  But it just strikes me as unlikely that Rotten Tomatoes, which is nothing but raw, unadulturated data, cannot be more useful to you than a clip designed expressly to manipulate you.

Mikezilla:

--- Quote from: Vigo on June 14, 2011, 11:25:53 am ---The problem with RT is that it is someone assigning a simple thumbs up or thumbs down random reviews from all over the place. First, a number of reviews on their site are not really reviews, but more movie introductions. The "critic" doesn't criticize, but more gives background on the movie for anyone interesting in seeing the film. RT, picks out an excerpt from it, and assigns a positive or negative based on the very little the critic provided in commentary. Not to mention a number of critics are geared to a specific reader. A critic writes reviews for families with small children would have a negative review of something like the new harry potter films, because they are no longer geared to little children.

That being said, I looked at RT's list of top movies of all time...some are really lame. I like really toy story 2, but it is not the best movie of all time, sorry. Man on a wire is not the second best movie of all time either. Searching for Bobby Fischer? 100% RT score? How the heck did that get to be one of the greatest movies of all time?

Don't worry though, RT tells us that Bridesmaids is a better movie than Indiana Jones and the temple of doom, as well as the last crusade. Since I loved Indiana Jones, I am sure to love Bridesmaids even more.  ;D

--- End quote ---

 :stupid

shmokes:

--- Quote from: Vigo on June 14, 2011, 11:25:53 am ---
Not to mention a number of critics are geared to a specific reader. A critic writes reviews for families with small children would have a negative review of something like the new harry potter films, because they are no longer geared to little children.


--- End quote ---

That's the beauty of Rotten Tomatoes.  The large sample size corrects for that very problem.  That's what makes it superior to individual reviewers.  It takes all the biases and mashes them all together and They do a pretty good job of cancelling each other out.

As for your complaint about movies with seemingly inflated score, you're using the site wrong.  That's an easy mistake to make and probably my least favorite thing about Rotten Tomatoes.  It's telling you how many reviewers gave the film a good review.  This makes it so that a mediocre but largely unoffensive film (like almost everythin Ron Howard has ever made) might unanimously get like 2.5 to 3 stars.  So Rotten Tomatoes will give that film like 90%, cos only 10% of reviewers thought it was actually BAD.  That makes it easy to think that it's a much better film than it is.  The average critic score is also shown, but it's easy to miss because Rotten Tomatoes is all about the Tomato Rating.  But like I say, that's not how the site should be used.  The Tomato Rating should really be viewed as the probability that you will like the film, rather than necessarily how much you will like it.

SNAAKE:
RT is far more "effective" than trailers. movie trailers are designed to make the movie look good even if its terrible. I dont watch movies based on trailer. I check reviews first and usually RT/imdb.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version