posted
Obviously it must have some, otherwise I wouldn't be adicted to it. Actualy, strike that, most adictive things arn't good for you.
Seriously, the site is both lacking in itself and shows how painfuly lacking film critics are. Not a mainstream Hollywood release? It may be included, but with only a tiny handful of reviews, and those poorly linked. Didn't make it to cinemas in the U.S.? Not a chance.
The later makes it impossible to use the site to determine which film-festival films one wants to see. Forgive me for thinking that this might come in handy.
I have just discovered the vast talent of Aaron Himelstein as an actor, his IMB profile also says he is a script-writer and cinematographer. He doesn't make the cut for being included in RT at all.
posted
Rotten Tomatoes is more about finding critics whose taste mirrors yours than seeing what films are good. Though, more often than not, the RT percentage comes close to my opinions on a movie. YMMV.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find that the percentage is a better indicator of whether or not I will like a movie than any individual critic is, so yes, for me the site has value. However, it has gotten some things spectacularly wrong in the last couple of months, most notably Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and The Devil Wears Prada.Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Though, more often than not, the RT percentage comes close to my opinions on a movie."
I sometimes find this true, although I am far from sure that "Citizen Kane" is a 5% better film than "The Best of Youth" or a 17% better film than "The Constant Gardener."
However, with any films that might legitimately be considered "family," rather than thoughtless saccharine kiddy-films, it is usually way off. "Dead Poet's Society" is a masterpiece in its genre, not merely an adequate film as is suggested (Roger Ebert, for one, hated it.)
Ditto "The Emperor's Club" which is apparently a rotten film and "A Little Romance," which is just barely an average one.
Of course, Rotten Tomatoes is just a repository of reviews, so we might better ask "do American film critics have any redeeming qualities?"
The answer is, sadly, that the best of them are right more often than they are wrong.
Or, maybe, I simply have no taste. I have seen only a few bad films that critics loved ("A History of Violence" leaps to mind) but many good ones they panned.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Dead Poet's Society is okay, but overrated. I find it a trite and unrealistic portrayal of pedagogical innovation. (I realize that it is beloved to most people, though.)
I would also say, though, that RT is less reliable for old movies--specifically those that came out before the site existed--because they have a much more limited pool of reviews for those. I would agree that RT is not particularly useful for comparing films against each other. But I do find it okay as a general thumbs up or thumbs down thing.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had a long reply typed up but Mozilla croaked. Doh.
Simply put, I think Ebert is a very perceptive film critic. His rebuttal to the director of 'Hostel' as to why some art really is bad for you was, I think, glorious.
Even so, I don't agree with him all the time. I enjoyed Dead Poet's Society. It's a bit much to ask that a critic agree with you all the time, if not a bit silly.
quote: Of course, Rotten Tomatoes is just a repository of reviews, so we might better ask "do American film critics have any redeeming qualities?"
You're just being silly. One of the good things about RT is that it actually uses a lot of non-main stream critics in its percentages. For instance, online critics. Why would American critics not have any redeeming qualities?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I agree that Ebert is one of the better critics."
The best, but this highlights how little competition there is out there. The New Yorker usualy has good critics, too, as does the New York Times, while the Village Voice is unpredictable. And the S.A. Express News Guy is better than many. But are any of them realy that good, except compared to each other. I would expect one who gets paid to see films to be able to say something that I could not, something profound and deeply true. This is extreamly rare, the best that happens is that Mr. Ebert makes me laugh now and again.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why didn't you like History of Violence Pelegius? I thought it was one of the best films I've ever seen, particularly the ending.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Using its tabulation features, I found out that I'm pretty well matched with Keith Phipps, Nathan Rabin, and Scott Tobias from (of all things) the Onion AV club.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
