lab276 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 They look repetitive in the context of Harry Potter, but they were written two years apart. Obviously they don't go back and check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Every John Hughes teen film that a critic tore apart. John Hughes could write films like no one else. Shame some of the 40 year old film critics couldn't see that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Bad boys 2IdentityLaw abiding citizen Haywire All harry potter moviesTrue grit (2010) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 The village ( take away the false advertising and it would have been received much better. It's frustratingly disapointing on a first viewing though if you saw the awesome trailers.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Sorcerer's Stone: 80%. It deserved 85%.Chamber of Secrets: 83%. It deserved 70%.Prisoner of Azkaban: 91%. It deserved 95%.Goblet of Fire: 87%. It deserved 65-70%.Order of the Phoenix: 78%. Deserves what it got.Half-Blood Prince: 83%. Deserved what it got.Deathly Hallows 1: 79%. Deserved 95%.Deathly Hallows 2: 96%. Deserved what it got.Noctis, this doesn't make much sense. Are you suggesting that a handful of critics should have liked/disliked a certain movie more?This is sort of what I hate about RT. It's too black and white. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 The percentage in RT is black and white, but the average rating isn't. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiccup Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 The Village should have gotten a higher rating. 75% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vc2002 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) If we are talking about critics on rottemtomatoes, well I'm surprised none of you mentioned Titanic yet. It got the most Oscars, and made the most money. But it wasn't so loved by the critics.But of cause it's not even a fair comparison in thr 1st place, cause we're talking about 5000 judges vs. 100 critics LOL Edited February 14, 2012 by vc2002 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 The percentage in RT is black and white, but the average rating isn't.That's bullshit, in that case why does DH2 have an average rating of 8.6 while Fellowship of the ring only have 8.1 yet FOTR is arguably better.A critic review can still give a film 9 out of 10 for being extremely entertaining then give another 9 out of 10 for being a masterpiece. I don't remember the word masterpiece being used much by critics to describe any Potter film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4815162342 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 The percentage in RT is black and white, but the average rating isn't.That's why we have metacritic, which provides a more effective depiction of what major film critics feel about a film. Going on Jessie's point, the LOTR films are rated 92, 88, and 94 respectively on metacritic. By comparison the Potter movies are respectively rated 64, 63, 82, 81, 71, 78, 65, 87. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lab276 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) DH1 is way too low. Why it was received so poorly in comparison to DH2 is bizarre. Edited February 14, 2012 by lab276 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Metacritic isn't flawless. Besides, if we're going to include the major critics, then using the Top Critics is also fine. DH2 has an 8.7 rating there (and using that system, it actually excluded some of the A's it got). I never understood DH1 getting 65 on Metacritic. Also, pity about HBP. It was two points away from getting universal acclaim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 That's why we have metacritic, which provides a more effective depiction of what major film critics feel about a film. Going on Jessie's point, the LOTR films are rated 92, 88, and 94 respectively on metacritic. By comparison the Potter movies are respectively rated 64, 63, 82, 81, 71, 78, 65, 87.Metacritic's sample size is usually far lower than RT's even discounting the reviews without a rating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4815162342 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Metacritic's sample size is usually far lower than RT's even discounting the reviews without a rating.Because metacritic throws out the bloggers and small-time reviewers who populate a lot of RT's base. Their sample size has a higher proportion of credible reviewers and writers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) Because metacritic throws out the bloggers and small-time reviewers who populate a lot of RT's base. Their sample size has a higher proportion of credible reviewers and writers.Any reviewer who writes well enough to get on RT is credible. And they're usually more in line with public opinion.I mean, Inglourious Basterds only has a 69 on Metacritic but a 7.6 on RT. Edited February 14, 2012 by tribefan695 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Because metacritic throws out the bloggers and small-time reviewers who populate a lot of RT's base. Their sample size has a higher proportion of credible reviewers and writers.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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichWS Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I spent many, many years reading RT but I don't anymore. I go to Metacritic. I don't need 150 reviews and an ugly layout. Metacritic condenses it down to the best writers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) Metacritic also only pulls from American sources. That's why I don't pay attention to the "Top Critics" on RT either. Edited February 14, 2012 by tribefan695 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Metacritic also only pulls from American sources. That's also why I don't pay attention to the "Top Critics" on RT.Why? Because they're not American? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
