The audience got only a handful of laughs out of this. Very disappointing-- especially considering RT critics liked it. Something rotten at Rotten Tomatoes. It has maybe 30 minutes of comedy, the rest was like a Saturday Night live skit gone too long. Why would the movie critics social clic review this so high?
shareCertainly a funny film but nowhere near the 96% the RT suggests.
share[deleted]
Just because I liked it, it doesn't mean I can see more than 9 out of 10 people liking it. The movie is not for everyone.
share[deleted]
Because the Rottentomatoes ratings are flawed. If a film gets a 6/10 it's considered a positive. If 100 people gave it a 6, it would have a perfect percentage but would have an above average score of 6/10 It's like 100 percent of the people saying "yeah, it's okay".
The average rating (not the %) is the real number. Rottentomatoes has decided for us that a 6/10 is positive.
[deleted]
critics themselves decide individually,and not rottentomatoes on their rating,whether their review is positive or not
[deleted]
You make it sound like a bunch of reviewers gathered together and all decided that a 6 is what constitutes a positive. Rottentomatoes decides it. It even says on the site itself that a 60% or a 6/10 is what THEY consider a fresh. 96% of the people feel that this movie ranges from above average to fantastic.
This is what you initially said:
If you liked it, you are among the 96% of
RT gave this a positive rating
[deleted]
You are confusing how rottentomatoes aggregates reviews, with how it classes individual reviews. Rottentomatoes does NOT decide if an individual reviewer classes his review as fresh. The individual reviewer makes the call.
I am saying, is that regardless of the specific rating any individual critic gives it (be it 5 or 6 or 7 or whatever), the individual critic is the one who decides whether he votes it fresh or rotten.
The staff determine for each review whether it is positive ("fresh", marked by a small icon of a red tomato) or negative ("rotten", marked by a small icon of a green splattered tomato). (Staff assessment is needed as some reviews are qualitative rather than numeric in ranking.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Well those are the ones who submitted it then.
All you did was quote something that admittedly says "yeah, some people put fresh or rotten on thier review and others don't." The fact that not everyone does it, means the system is flawed, thus the 96% being inaccurate.
The entire point I'm making is I think this is a good film, but I don't see how 96% of people could like it. Half of the reviewers submitted a fresh or a rotten, there's the flaw. I don't see how 96% of the people can like it because half of them are judged by someone else. I always look at the average rating underneath. I liked it (the 7.8 it had is about right for me) but if it was a 9, I don't think the film is as good as that. That average is fact. The percentage is (half of the time) opinion.
[deleted]
It's more than half, you say and then you give a quote that says "sometimes a critic..." That doesn't sound like more than half to me but continue to bend words in your favour.
Now I won't bend words. You said in your second post:
96% of
RT accepted critics liked it, which properly
represents the facts about professional critics.
There is room for some error, but given all this,
very little room for significant statistical error.
96% of critics polled DO like it
[deleted]
You're like a dog, running in the same circles not realizing you're chasing your own tail. You come up with "facts" and then discredit your own facts on your next post.
share[deleted]
You provided a quote that said not all of the reviewers write fresh or rotten on them. How am I lying?
share[deleted]
You should read what Armand White and many other critics have to say about that. They've heavily criticized the site for misinterpretation of their reviews.
share[deleted]
Armond White is an idiot and commonly regarded as one of the worst critics out there, I wouldn't listen to a word he says.
When lightning strikes the sea, why don't all the fish die?
I agree he is an idiot. But when it comes to submitting a review to Rottentomatoes, I'm sure he would know if he did it or not.
sharewell, I think you completely missed the point. Through gentle and somewhat dark satire, the film is an actually deep exploration about what makes us human, and the ties of friendship, through inhumans. The film is almost a masterpiece, to be honest, and one of the finest comedies of the XXIst century, in my opinion. It's like "The Big Bang Theory" with Vampires, shot in doc style... and way funnier and deeper than the TV Series.
shareBecause it's funny and well done. The audience I saw it with was laughing out loud so maybe try seeing it with a smarter audience.
shareIt was full of wry, off-beat, thoughtful humor, not the mindless repetitive drivel that Hollywood cranks out by way of Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Melissa McCarthy and Kevin Hart. That's why mainstream audiences won't 'get it'. I found it to be fairly original, insightful and frequently hilarious. Those are the qualities that critics have appreciated.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
It was full of wry, off-beat, thoughtful humor, not the mindless repetitive drivel that Hollywood cranks out by way of Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Melissa McCarthy and Kevin Hart. That's why mainstream audiences won't 'get it'.
I take a movie like WWDitS over a piece of crap like The Interview any day, EVERY DAY.
WWDitS was a pure breath of fresh air, subtle, insightful, astute, tongue-in-cheek, offbeat, parodic, witty and smart but above all incredibly FUNNY.
Everything that a movie like The Interview isn't and this is why the perfectly deserved 96% on RT. Without a doubt the funniest movie i've seen in ages.
"If you were to eat a sandwich, you would enjoy it that much more if you knew nobody had *beep* it"
'Nough said.
People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs
WWDitS was a pure breath of fresh air, subtle, insightful, astute, tongue-in-cheek, offbeat, parodic, witty and smart but above all incredibly FUNNY.
I thought it was great.
shareI absolutely loved it, have watched it twice already and plan to buy it! Not sure why you didn't find it funny but everyone I've recommended it to loves it.
shareThere are lots of "dry humor," not meant to be laugh out loud, but for you to sink in and think how ridiculous things are.
share