Who to trust?

IMDB

>>138913647>Always trust the movie critics

Attached: 20200906_121937.jpg (1080x1206, 245.98K)

>>138913595trust your instincts

>>138913595the critics. we rely on the expertise of such people to navigate our increasingly complex world.

Attached: 1563025032527.png (2260x3576, 531.59K)

>>138913757it's not negative, it's divisive tho

believe critics goyim

Attached: screenshot-2020.09.06-13_29_23.png (507x254, 33.14K)

>>138914105lost faith in the system after this.

>>138913595(((critics)))

>>138914105"Honors the saga" LMAO american movie critis literally aren't people

>>138914146it took you this long?

>>138913595>professional film reviewers who have seen literally thousands of movies, have years of experience watching movies and writing reviews, and who have the necessary vocabulary and diction to express themselves properly>or audience members who write poorly written reviews based entirely on their feelings and who are easily swayed by the opinions of othershmmm what a difficult choice

>>138914146>>138914214believe the fr*aking critics you chuds

Attached: screenshot-2020.09.06-13_33_28.png (496x272, 32.18K)

>>138913647>Always trust the movie critics.

Attached: uh no sweetie.jpg (746x381, 69.87K)

>>138914257>>professional film reviewers who have seen literally thousands of movies,So have I. So has some of the audience. Doesn't make us professional film reviewers.

Always have your own opinion.Critics score is directly proportional to the amount of pocs, trannies and other social groups that nobody wanted to look at or asked about because they feel obliged to give it a good score otherwise they risk being called out on variety of -phobia and -cisms.Audience score are manchildren, incel Holla Forumsedditors and other mouthbreathers who are ready to give an otherwise good movie a 1/10 movie because it had one element they did not like or that they got overcharged for snacks at the theatre.

Movie critics are the most useless humans. I only trust you 4chan niggas

>>138913595Rather than look at Rotten tomatoes you should find a few critics you respect and listen to them.

>>138913757Passion of the Christ is a terrible movie you NPC

Times when the critics won?

Attached: do5gp6s3b4b41.png (472x708, 184.29K)

>>138914523Why do you talk like a fag>muuh Holla Forums>muuh incelkys, otherwise yes formulate ur own opinion.

Attached: 1595435678248.jpg (3712x1008, 779.97K)

>>138913757how come this is always the example? it’s not a good movie and I guarantee most of that audience score is Christian astroturfers reviewing it positively because muh jesus. This is actually a great example of how critics are more reliable.

>>138914214how to spot a manchild: wants fanservice in every movie, thinks the story is good if it pleases him, has to be something he can coom to, etc

>>138914105Anon said the only time you shouldn’t trust the critics is when it involves a PC obligation to give a movie a good review though

>>138914996The rating for Dolittle looks like it set a cross on fire in someone's garden though.

>>138914811>how come this is always the examplebecause these threads are pretty much pol shill threads where they pretend critics are joos and persecuting whites

Do you think RDJ knows that he's not a real actor? I thought when he left marvel he'd be in real movies, not more kiddie slop

>>138913678I have never met a single person who doesn’t like Home Alone, wtf

>>138915064the average critic rating for Doolittle is 3.85/10. they agreed it wasn’t good but also not the worst movie ever

>>138913757You're just proving the point. This movie was trash

>>138915170All movies with kids in prominent roles are bad.

>>138914732seething /po/cel

>>138913595yourself, but usually the people imo, but there have been times when critics were correct

If you're too trust anything, the least of all should be the Tomatometer which is NOT an aggregate of movie score, but rather the nebulous "rotten or fresh" rating.

>>138913595always depends on the movie... if its for example speed racer you trust the audience..

>>138914661>>138914811>>138915203>filtered

Attached: 20200906_130111.jpg (1080x1651, 291.42K)

>>138915268tomato meter is actually a really smart invention. shut up.

>>138913688letterbox is way better

>>138915296it’s interesting that you’re complaining about bias, but defending Passion of the Christ which only received positive reviews (critic and audience) from biased Jesus freaks. Hypocrite.

>>138915086>they pretend critics are joos

Attached: 20200906_130253.jpg (1080x927, 135.08K)

>>138915349>i-it's only bias when it's pro-Christian!>j-jews can't astroturf!!

Attached: 20200906_130453.jpg (1080x1399, 252.48K)

>>138915268Because the tomato meter is meant to be an indicator of whether the movie is worth watching rather than an exact specification of quality.It's more or less a thumbs up/down comparison.

>>138915364You realize people can scroll through those 35 critics to see most of em aren’t Jewish right? even if you were stupid enough to think they would be in the first place Holla Forums deserves prison for lying, but also the low quality of your lies is embarrassing

>>138915247>seething /po/cel

Attached: 1598875361173.jpg (256x200, 15.08K)

>>138915364Have you even seen Shoah? It’s a damn masterpiece

>>138915439there aren’t enough jewish critics on RT to have much of an effect on the ratings anyway. there are many times more Christian astroturfers in everything

>>138913595Talking animal movies: cringePeople who like them: cringeMe: based

>>138915364>>138915439by posting this are you implying appreciation for a holocaust movie has anything to do with being jewish? lolit’s easy to forget how brainwashed the shut-ins on this site are

I enjoyed it. Although I think a 76 is a little high. I would go with a 65-70 of i was rating it.

>>138914908>It was good because it wasn't fanserviceHang the rope around your neck tranny

>Holla Forums shill gets trashed and abandons thread>probably spamming somewhere else as we speakthey truly are the worst insects

>>138915349A movie appealing to the target demographic means it did what it was supposed to do. If the critics can't look past their own biases and judge a movie based on what the movie is trying to accomplish there's no point in critics. Which is why audience scores are more accurate (but not perfect) because they are a reflection of if a movie was successful at satisfying the audience it was made for or at least marketed towards, not people paid to watch it.

>>138913595My mom almost always ends up hating movies that get critical praise and enjoying those that get terrible reviews.

>>Holla Forums shill gets trashed and abandons thread>>probably spamming somewhere else as we speak>>they truly are the worst insects

Attached: 1595265617370.png (925x900, 718.45K)

Don't follow rotten tomatoes but find specific people who's opinion you tend to line up with

>>138916521buttbusted Holla Forumsyp spotted. what was the moment you had a mental breakdown? when you confirmed the Shoah critics weren’t jewish? eat some junk food and you’ll feel better soon tubby

>buttbusted Holla Forumsyp spotted. what was the moment you had a mental breakdown? when you confirmed the Shoah critics weren’t jewish? eat some junk food and you’ll feel better soon tubby

Attached: 1579700012105.jpg (680x940, 64.31K)

Go watch the scores of every shitty female reboot like ghostbusters or terminator and tell me to my face that critics won't shill a movie just to satisfy an agenda

>>138913595/>Do I trust pseuds or bugmen?

>>138916926it’s true they aren’t perfect, but audiences are even less perfect. and if a movie has no current event political implications critics are pretty reliable

>>138916521>>138916879>argument for abortiondon’t cry user

>>138915439does anyone genuinely believe schindlers list is a bad movie?

>>138917224>neo-nazis>muslimsthis site has a huge astroturfer problem with those two groups so they’re way over represented here

>>138915591you cant be this stupid i refuse to believe anyone is

>>138917425did you just learn what astro turf means you brainlet lmfao? say it again bro come on

>>138917499I noticed a long ass time ago if you actually scroll through the hundreds of critics reviewing any given movie almost none of them are jewish, which is to be expected logically. what do you mean anyway? or are you just another Holla Forums SJW that believes nonsense

>>138915364Do you really think all 35 of those critics are Jews? What percentage of the audience?

>>138915439That’s like saying rotten tomatoes critics are all black because black panther has a high score

>>138917499how is he wrong? because Holla Forums pretends/lies movie critics are joos? actual retard

Critics are zog agents trying to cultivate +good acceptable media. They should all be executed save for Honorary Armond.

>>138915450That's fine, but it's not a movie rating ala 1-10/10, which is what people mistake it as. Why it's compared against viewer rating, which is 1-10/10, is what bothers me since it's apples and oranges.

>>argument for abortion>>don’t cry user

Attached: 1575693184437.png (760x792, 59.09K)

>>138917117No they, I assume you either are or aspire to be one or agree with the agenda, are completely unreliable because they straight up lie constantly. Audiences aren't lying if they enjoyed something bad, they just enjoyed something bad.

>>138913678weird that the audience score is so low, is it the "woke" crowd hating on white upper class people?

>>138918344>an 8/10 average rating is lowwhat are you some kind of moron

>>138918445it is under 8/10 though and its a very beloved classic so i expected a 90+

>>138918344you can click the audience score to read some of the reviews. some people gave it 2/5 or 3/5 for reasons like that it’s silly, stupid, contrived, kids are bad actors, it’s overrated, etc. I didn’t see any that mentioned what you said. Weird how your first idea was some random white persecution complex fantasy. You guys really are like social justice warriors of the right.

>>138918560thats a lot of assumptions by just one quick guess.Why do you feel the need to ally yourself with those people?

>>138915349seething sodomite/kike, lmao

>>138918661>sodomiteNobody that has had sex still uses this boomer-tier word

>>138918601>one quick guessa movie has some bad reviews and your first thought was a victim complex, it says a lot about your thought process. I bet you’re a Holla Forumsyp dude

>>138918738well your bet is wrong, its just experience but you on the other hand seem pretty touchy on the subject somehow afraid someone might think the wrong way about these types.Once again: why?

>>138913595If you really want to decide to watch a movie based on other people's opinions don't look at the numbers, read the reviews, then you can decide who to thrust.

>>138918445>>8/10 rating is lowThat's not an 8/10 rating; that's a 3.3/5 rating or 6.6/10.

>>138913595>Who to trust?Neither

Attached: Screenshot_20190830-144020_Samsung Internet.jpg (1434x1584, 703.83K)

>>138918712according to who, you and your AIDS riddled friends?

>>138913757not even top 20 fantasy gore

>>138918857when I go to the home alone page it says the audience rating is 80% or 3.97/5I don’t get it

>>138913595for someone who don't care about critics's opinion you seem to care a lot.

>>138915268but under the tomatometer you have an average score.

>>138918923Thanks for proving my point, you pathetic lonely virgin lol

>>138919000I was just reading off the picture; on the site it says 3.97. Still, 80% is not a rating; it's a measure of what proportion of the audience liked it.

Attached: Screenshot_2019-12-05 Willow (1988).png (743x608, 877.25K)

>>138919241wrong actually. 80% is the average rating for the audience. they only do tomatometer (what percent liked it) for the critics.

>>138914343That movie was crap.

>>138913647>Always trust the movie critics

Attached: Screenshot_20200907-002627~2.jpg (1440x1593, 162.86K)

>>138914732Lol a couple of uggos said incel, therefore, all people who say incel are ugly.

>>138916451By that logic then marvel movies should be the highest rated films ever, because they set out to do exactly what they intended. Print mountains of cash.

>>138919241nope, one can forgive you for making that mistake though. as long as you’re not a Holla Forumsesmoker

Looking at reviews is a fairly nuanced thing nowadays, but the fact that this is a silly kids movie about talking animals, I would be much more inclined to believe the critic score.

>>138913595>>138913662>>138913685>>138915260>>138918344Audience score is much easier to bot/buy. Rather than having to deal with a couple dozen Shabbos, they can make an Indian company do it.

>>138913757Yeah, he already said do not trust the critics when a movie has an agenda.

>>138919671this film was terrible

>>138914105Where's the lie with this one though? Last Jedi was great, but the pants-on-head audiences haven't stopped REEEEing.

>>13891428368% is a pretty solid objective rating for Joker as a film. We all just liked it a lot more because we resonated so strongly with the protagonist.

>>138919884>Last Jedi was great>>138919921>We

>>138919969Yikes, you just blatantly admitted you don't belong here.

>critics are shit>critics are shills>zero value>faken jews>only like pc movies and leftist propaganda>they're absolutely worthless>no point in reading them>WAAAAAAHHHH WHY DIDN'T THEY LIKE MY MOOOOOOOVIEevery time

>>138919921>68% is a pretty solid objective rating for Joker as a filmit's not an objective ranking. It says that 68% of critics liked it. It doesn't mean it's a 68/100 movie.

>>138920018>no uFuck off shill

>>138915296>elevates superhero cinema to thrilling new heightsLiterally what did it do differently than all the other boring MCU films?

both are pretty shit, although critics' opinions tend to be less shit than audience's

>>138920072Ok, but isn't that functionally the same? I mean, if you give a movie a 68% what are you saying? Are you saying that everyone who sees it will like 68% of it, or are you saying 68% of people will like it?

>>138920072>68% of critics liked it>percent - "out of one hundred"Literally you are saying it got 68 out of 100.

>>138920209>if you give a movie a 68%No one is giving the movie 68%, 68% of critics are giving the movie over 50%.

>>138920209a movie can have a 0% rotten tomatoes rating if every single critic agreed it was a 5/10. a movie can have a 100% rotten tomatoes rating if every single critic agrees it was a 6/10. I’m not sure why people have such a hard time understanding the tomatometer. it’s a smart tool and not complicated.

>>138920303so out of 100 critics it got a favorable rating from 68. so it is 68% favorable. So it got a 68/100.

>>138913595*whom

>>138919599t.seething libtard who actually believes diversity is our strength

Depends. Theres movies that were overlooked at the time that have become cult classics, and theres "lol this is so bad its epic" shit

>>138913595Yourself

>>138920209>>138920261>>138920359based mentally impaired posters

>>138920349I never knew how Rotten Tomatoes worked, thanks.

>>138920349It's because Holla Forums-posters are legitimately retarded.

>>138920349That seems like a horrible way to aggregate reviews. Didn't Metacritic actually do an aggregate of individual scores? That is much better.

>>138920592In my case I just never knew that. You see screen shots of Rotten Tomato scores and you assume it's the rating for a film.

>>138920209if 1 critic says it was the best movie ever 10/10, and another critic says it was meh 5/10, the rotten tomatoes score would be 5/10

>>138913757the person you responded to literally said:>The only time you shouldn’t trust the critics is when it involves a PC obligation to give a movie a good reviewdumb Holla Forumstard

>>138913678Absolutely disgusting. Does kevin insult some religion or belief or make fun of a tranny?

>>138920643>That seems like a horrible way to aggregate reviews.it's much better than metacritic if you're not 80iq who can't understand simple as fuck concept.

>>138913595Audience is usually right.I rarely if ever have anything in common with "critics" especially with horror movies.Considering my job is writing and consulting with horror movies i've found critics to be the absolute worst trash.

>>138920643it seems flawed in extreme examples like that but in practice it works really well if the question is “how likely am I to enjoy this movie?” Also the actual average rating is RIGHT BELOW the tomato meter so there’s really no excuse to claim you were confused by it. just take the 10 seconds to learn what you’re actually seeing

>>138920704it would be 7,5/10. 50% fresh. You are legitimately retarded.

>>138913757This film was good purely because it led to the south park episode.

>>138920819>Also the actual average rating is RIGHT BELOW the tomato meter so there’s really no excuse to claim you were confused by it.Was never confused about anything, I just never read that. I don't really care about review scores so I never looked into it.

>>138920921no, he’s right. fresh/rotten is binary. the average of 1 and 0 is .5. The tomatometer measures what percentage of critics liked it. Only starts working well when you have at least a few dozen data points.

>>138920921>50% freshyes, and that was what his question was about, asking how the rotten tomatoes score is different from just an averaged score

>>138920996actually I misread your post, but the argument was stupid to begin with. just a semantical misunderstanding

>>138920996that's why 50%. It doesn't mean that RT rated the movie 5/10 you fucking morons. It means 50% of the critics liked it. Average score would've been 7,5/10. And even that is not the exact score, just a general indicator of trends.

>>138920817I’ve noticed that about horror too. I don’t agree though that in general audiences are better. only with certain genres with niche appeal, like horror

>>138921015it's the percentage of critics who liked it. As was said many times itt.

>>138921118honestly dude, you are the moron because you don’t realize what you’re even arguing against. You’re just flipping out over terminology without bothering to understand the context

>>138921187and what is the context? You sliding of your mama's blanket while you were a kid and hitting the floor with your head?

>>138921278context is that the first person you insulted was agreeing with you, you were just calling the same thing by two different names. calm your tits psycho

>>138919875It was kino anonMaybe you should watch less marvel movies

Attached: Chad Pajeet.jpg (1080x1085, 100.65K)

Who do people act like the Tomatometer is a score? Like a 50% isn’t a 5/10, it means half the people who watched the movie liked or even loved it.

>>138913595Yourself. Reviews and scores are pointless nowadays, because normies and tastelets are everywhere.

>>138919884>Where's the liego back to twitter

>>138914105one of the very few examples where combination of good critics score and bad audience score delivered shitty movie. I use that method for quite long time and saw at least 500 movies that way and it would've been hard to name 10 bad ones

>>138921132If I can speculate a bit for you,As I mentioned I work with consultations for horror movies (mostly B movies).This includes documenting older movies, analyzing them, and moving themes/practical effects/camera shots to new movies without blatantly ripping off something.Horror by nature is not mainstream, it's counterculture. So a mainstream horror movie that the average critic reviews won't be able to understand that it's garbage.Meanwhile they see a real horror movie, built with blood and sweat with a low budget and they review it badly because they can't understand it's a form of artistic expression.Comedy movies I've noticed the same problem.