lab276 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) The "Top Critics" on RT are different depending on what country you visit from. If you're from America they're all American, if you're British they're all British... No, I've got some Australian, American and one British. Edited February 14, 2012 by lab276 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 That's not true, tribefan. When I wasn't in America, it was all American with a couple of Australian and British. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) Well, when I look at the top critics for any film all I see are American or Canadian sources. I don't know what the formatting is for the UK now because I can't visit the uk.rottentomatoes domain anymore, but when I could I remember the top critics being only Brits.Either way, Metacritic is still ethnocentric. Edited February 15, 2012 by tribefan695 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieMan89 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) It's far from ridiculous. Critics are out of touch with what the paying public likes. They always have been and they continue to prove it with every film they review.Sorry, but you are incorrect. About the only times critics tend to be off with the public are with big franchise sequels (which will usually do well irregardless of quality) and small indie films. Otherwise the movies that do well, far more often than not, mimic critical reception. Just because YOU disagree with critics most of the time isn't in any way indicative of the general public's opinion. Edited February 15, 2012 by MovieMan89 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Isn't baumer one of the biggest defenders of Armond White here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 You put way too much stock on Metacritic. I don't mean to sound accusatory, but RT can be very telling as well, when they have the average rating. Also, if we're going by JUST the top critics (used in RT), DH2's 8.7 actually beats all the LoTR films.Any this is why people shouldn't judge a movies quality by looking at RT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BK007 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Deathly Hallows 1 doesn't deserve a 65 from MC. MC can be very harsh.But besides most of the time the colour rating for a film is right. The red films are terrible, the green ones you should like and the yellows depend on your taste. baumer loves to go 100% anti-critic but that's ridiculously biased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Iron Man 2 was one of the worst blockbuster sequels of the decade. It was boring as hell and unoriginal and just sucked overall. Deserved less than 40% on RT, but instead, got 74%. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddddeeee Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I think if critics were to review their reviews (lol) today that IM2 would be rotten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BK007 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Captain America is also fresh and higher than Thor when it is ridiculous.Oh and Revenge of the Sith is fresh as well. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockNrollaDIM Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 IM2 was revolting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 How was IM2 revolting? Seriously, I really enjoyed IM2. It had a final act that was way better than the first, and while the first two acts are not as good as the first film, they're still enjoyable. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiccup Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) The rating for DH1 bothers me. DH2 to was fantastic but DH1 was emotionally great and had the best acting by far in the series mostly from Rupert Grint and Emma Watson. It should be rated in the 90's%. Edited February 20, 2012 by Andrew the Alien 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I always knew DH1 would be the most divisive among the critics, but when watching the film, you just know it deserved more than it got. Still, its 79% rating isn't bad, and the average rating is 7.2, which is quite good, especially for half a film. I truly and wholeheartedly believe that DH1 will end up having a response similar to ESB in the sense that it will only get more appreciated with time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockNrollaDIM Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 How was IM2 revolting? Seriously, I really enjoyed IM2. It had a final act that was way better than the first, and while the first two acts are not as good as the first film, they're still enjoyable.It commited the cardinal sin of brainless superhero movies- it was boring. I can't give you a piece by piece breakdown because I don't remember. There's nothing to remember. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jawa Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I'd have given Iron Man 2 90%. I thought it was one of the best superhero sequels to date. It suffered critically for the same reason as DH1: it's a set up for a bigger film (more on that later). I think after the Avengers comes out, it will be looked back on much more favorably for its contributions to the MCU.DH1 getting 79% was a disgrace. It deserved the same score as DH2, and is easily one of the most thoughtful, character-driven blockbusters of recent years. People say DH2 was cheated out of a BP nomination. I say its DH1 that REALLY got cheated.The RT scores of TF1 and TF3 should be switched. I never understand people who say they loved the first but hated the third (or worse yet, people who liked the second and hated the third). The last 45 minutes of TF3 is some of the best action ever put to film.Dead Man's Chest has been mentioned a lot in this thread, and I'd have to agree. Its a much better film than its given credit for. The plot of DMC is actually pretty straightforward. It was AWE where Pirates became needlessly complicated.Singer's X-Men films deserve scores in the 60s.Spielberg's War of the Worlds deserves a score in the 20s.More will come as I think of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I actually absolutely adore War of the Worlds. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BK007 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I'd have given Iron Man 2 90%. I thought it was one of the best superhero sequels to date. It suffered critically for the same reason as DH1: it's a set up for a bigger film (more on that later). I think after the Avengers comes out, it will be looked back on much more favorably for its contributions to the MCU.DH1 getting 79% was a disgrace. It deserved the same score as DH2, and is easily one of the most thoughtful, character-driven blockbusters of recent years. People say DH2 was cheated out of a BP nomination. I say its DH1 that REALLY got cheated.The RT scores of TF1 and TF3 should be switched. I never understand people who say they loved the first but hated the third (or worse yet, people who liked the second and hated the third). The last 45 minutes of TF3 is some of the best action ever put to film.Dead Man's Chest has been mentioned a lot in this thread, and I'd have to agree. Its a much better film than its given credit for. The plot of DMC is actually pretty straightforward. It was AWE where Pirates became needlessly complicated.Singer's X-Men films deserve scores in the 60s.Spielberg's War of the Worlds deserves a score in the 20s.More will come as I think of them.TF1/2 were awesome, TF3 was shit. The Witwicky plot grew out its welcome, the human characters became even more caricature like and the action was honestly underwhelming, besides the building skating, it was boring like Terminator Salvation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 TF2 is an abomination to cinema. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jawa Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I actually absolutely adore War of the Worlds. I appreciate what Spielberg was trying to do with the post-9/11 themes present. In the end, I just can't stand Tom Cruise and HATED Dakota Fanning in that movie. At least the good thing with any Spielberg film (even a bad one) is that you can analyze it on multiple levels and someone can appreciate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
