IGN | Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire After PR Firm's Scheme to Pay Critics for Positive Reviews Uncovered

I really loved IMDb back in the day. While the user ratings weren't perfect, there used to be a formula you could use to figure out the worthiness of a movie to watch. Now (10 years or so), IMDb user ratings are inundated with conservatives and older generations who tend to rate based on their fragile feelings rather than on how watchable a movie is.

I miss the IMDb message boards so much. It was so neat to be able to ask a question about a movie or read a post someone made three years before explaining the ending.

Letterboxd has been slowly filling that void for me

Oof. THAT must have royally sucked

not from the start, it wasn't no. after they sold out, it became a corrupted willing tool of the studios. i made the move to metacritic 10 years ago.

After End Game was that shift. It felt like they told all there was to tell, and the stakes were gone. It peaked.

The peak is at whatever point you realized you had seen the same movie before.

Which is why RT scores were usually good. Because a RT percentage is just the percentage of critics that thought the film was good or better.

Too many people treat RT scores as a single "this is a film that has a quality rating of 90%" whereas it's "90% of critics think it's not shit".

Really, this is RTs fault for picking a metric so often used in a different way.

However entertaining and fun the MCU has been at times, I'd say they've clearly gotten away with a lot when it comes to movie making. Like there are plenty of films in that franchise/cinematic-universe that just wouldn't have cut it and would have died on the scrap heap as stand alone films. But the MCU glow kept them alive and folded them into the giant stream of MCU content.

Beyond that, I'd bet that the post-endgame stuff has been done objectively badly ... like you could break it down into a number of poor movie/franchise making choices (like you can't simply build a story out of "a multiverse", it isn't a character or plot idea, you need more). Love and Thunder was an awful film. Can anyone tell which characters are part of the story and which are being written out any more? Etc etc.

It's all still popular though. Beyond that, your argument is a strawman ... the MCU can be a give away (because, IMO, it has clearly made a number of missteps) without the question of popularity v quality being an issue.

Didn't they actively and very publicly suppresse reviews on a few movies because they called it brigading? I think one was girl Ghostbusters?

Check out Letterboxd. But the star rating system is used a bit differently than you might be used to, like an average move will get a 3/5 stars, and that’s not a “bad” score. Just took me a bit getting used to

Forget aggregators. Find a couple critics you usually agree with. People have different tastes.

The issue is that every site uses the same critics to aggregate scores from. That being said I like using metacritic since you can view it by audience rating, and excluding the anti-woke, incel brigades on some media it usually aligns pretty well with what score I'd personally give a movie.

Yeah I definitely assign more value to the audience reviews. Critics are mostly useless, unless you identify ones that align with your personal taste.

As silly as applying review scores to art? Take a moment to really think about how dumb that is.

This person is the opposite of a lemmygrad loony

Integrity means if you take money from somebody you do your best to write an excellent review. Also, be equal and fair, charge the same price to write a good review for Oppenheimer as you do to write a good review for Barbie. Take pride in your work and write good compelling reviews, people will pay you what you are worth.

I’ve never even been to Leningrad, I only know it from the Billy Joel tune.