Inspired by the linked XKCD. Using 60% instead of 50% because that’s an easy filter to apply on rottentomatoes.
I’ll go first: I think “Sherlock Holmes: A game of Shadows” was awesome, from the plot to the characters ,and especially how they used screen-play to highlight how Sherlocks head works in these absurd ways.
Just goes to show you some people (critics) have no taste. That movie was awesome!
Right? It also got a 61% audience score, which I found surprising. I always hear good things about it from people.
I thought it was cheesy, but I still enjoyed the movie.
It is a horror movie so that could put a lot of folks off, especially with some of the imagery. That’s one of my favorites but just a theory on why others may not like it.
As always, it has to be kept in mind how the RT scores work. It doesn’t aggregate scores, it just aggregates if the review is positive or negative.
A movie with hundred critics saying “Yeah, the movie is fine I guess” will score higher than a movie with 90 of those critics saying “This is the best movie I’ve ever seen!” and 10 of them not really feeling it.
The concept of mass critic aggregation also just has fundamental problems compared to following and learning the tastes of a specific critic, in order to evaluate their review.
I love the dismissal of critics as a while because a movie you like scored low. It’s a good creepy movie but it’s no that good of a movie overall. It’s very cheesy, the dialogue is poor, the story is minimal. It’s got great creeps though.
I enjoy critics that can clearly convey the reasons why a movie might hit or miss for their audiences. I detest critics that have to dissect a film and score it low because it doesn’t meet their art house ideals.
And there are people who feel the exact opposite of me. Which is fine.