Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Contact Music)   According to Rotten Tomatoes, Zac Efron and Seth Rogen's 'Bad Neighbors' is a perfect movie   (contactmusic.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, Seth Rogen, Zac Efron, Rotten Tomatoes, neighbors, slapstick comedy, off-color humor, Nicholas Stoller, Superbad  
•       •       •

3560 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 30 Apr 2014 at 9:06 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



30 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2014-04-30 06:02:23 AM  
I'm  not picky about movies.  I believe they all have something to offer at some level and I often don't understand the criticisms of others regarding films which simply were not bad at all.  However, there is one thing I've noticed about Rotten Tomatoes is that if a movie has a 100% rating it's almost always awful.  Apparently the critics become almost orgasmic with some movies which provide nearly no entertainment or story telling value and become enamored with a topic.  For example the movie Hugo was simply dreadful as a form of entertainment but it glorified a movie maker so in their minds it warranted a 100% rating.  A 50% rating would have been much, much more accurate.
 
2014-04-30 07:20:52 AM  
Im tired of his stoner comedies.
 
2014-04-30 08:51:19 AM  

BalugaJoe: Im tired of his stoner comedies.


It helps if you're stoned.
 
2014-04-30 09:13:22 AM  

NFA: For example the movie Hugo was simply dreadful as a form of entertainment but it glorified a movie maker so in their minds it warranted a 100% rating.


I got that movie for free from Apple, and I thought it was an ok movie. It wasn't 100%, though.
 
2014-04-30 09:20:58 AM  
Rotten Tomatoes ratings seems to become skewed right around the time they integrated with other platforms i.e. "certified fresh" from rotten tomatoes became a marketing ploy
 
2014-04-30 09:30:31 AM  
www.springfieldfiles.com
 
2014-04-30 09:34:00 AM  

NFA: However, there is one thing I've noticed about Rotten Tomatoes is that if a movie has a 100% rating it's almost always awful. Apparently the critics become almost orgasmic with some movies which provide nearly no entertainment or story telling value and become enamored with a topic. For example the movie Hugo was simply dreadful as a form of entertainment but it glorified a movie maker so in their minds it warranted a 100% rating.


Hugo is at 94%.

I'm looking at the list of movies that actually do have 100 percent ratings on Rotten Tomatoes (too stupid to link - keep getting unfetchable url edits for the Wikipedia page) and they're almost all fantastic.  Can you give any examples that actually meet your criteria?
 
2014-04-30 09:46:57 AM  

NFA: I'm  not picky about movies.  I believe they all have something to offer at some level and I often don't understand the criticisms of others regarding films which simply were not bad at all.  However, there is one thing I've noticed about Rotten Tomatoes is that if a movie has a 100% rating it's almost always awful.  Apparently the critics become almost orgasmic with some movies which provide nearly no entertainment or story telling value and become enamored with a topic.  For example the movie Hugo was simply dreadful as a form of entertainment but it glorified a movie maker so in their minds it warranted a 100% rating.  A 50% rating would have been much, much more accurate.


No, no, you get oscars for making movies about making movies. The critical acclaim is a side effect. The flick could've been good if the countless CGI shots looked better than Melies's camera tricks and the story wasn't ineptly centered around the kid.
 
2014-04-30 09:49:38 AM  
I've been noticing RT ratings being about 15-20% higher than imdb during premieres. Rt is highly untrustworthy at this point IMO
 
2014-04-30 10:20:42 AM  
moothemagiccow:
No, no, you get oscars for making movies about making movies. The critical acclaim is a side effect. The flick could've been good if the countless CGI shots looked better than Melies's camera tricks and the story wasn't ineptly centered around the kid.

Nah, you get Oscars for making movies about the Holocaust.

/"Shindler's bloody list"
 
2014-04-30 10:26:29 AM  

OldManDownDRoad: moothemagiccow:
No, no, you get oscars for making movies about making movies. The critical acclaim is a side effect. The flick could've been good if the countless CGI shots looked better than Melies's camera tricks and the story wasn't ineptly centered around the kid.

Nah, you get Oscars for making movies about the Holocaust.

/"Shindler's bloody list"


You get acclaim and awards for making movies targeted at winning such. How many people watch all the movies on the Oscars list, or whatever it is, just because they are on there, therefore must be good?

I pretty much avoid anything a critic calls good, inevitably it's some tedious pablum about 'the human condition' or other self serious dreck which ends up boring me to death. I don't enjoy dramas. I enjoy action, mystery, and comedy. And none of those win critical acclaim or awards.
 
2014-04-30 10:39:29 AM  

thecpt: I've been noticing RT ratings being about 15-20% higher than imdb during premieres. Rt is highly untrustworthy at this point IMO


I agree. I don't know why people overly rely on RT. IMDB definitely seems to be the more reliable aggregator. I think it's because most of its reviewers are everyday people, not out-of-touch movie critics.
 
2014-04-30 11:10:27 AM  
MacGruber had a 100% RT score at one point. There was even a thread about it.
 
2014-04-30 11:13:25 AM  

The Banana Thug: thecpt: I've been noticing RT ratings being about 15-20% higher than imdb during premieres. Rt is highly untrustworthy at this point IMO

I agree. I don't know why people overly rely on RT. IMDB definitely seems to be the more reliable aggregator. I think it's because most of its reviewers are everyday people, not out-of-touch movie critics.


The key is to use the percent positive but also the average rating. Some movies are just ever so slightly good in a lot of people's minds that they'll end up with an 80+ rating but an average reviewer score of like 6.5-7. If a movie is over 80 percent positive reviews and the average review is almost a 8, it's going to be a great film. Beyond that, it'll probably come down to the genre and personal preferences.
 
2014-04-30 11:38:45 AM  
FTFA...

"While Mr. Braff is certainly trying to mould his career towards serous dramatic roles..."

Someone's mixing up their Zachs/Zacs.
 
2014-04-30 12:11:57 PM  

NFA: if a movie has a 100% rating it's almost always awful


"Almost always"? Really? On rare occasions a movie north of 90% on RT is maybe "meh" instead of "good," but I can't think of any that were "awful." Hugo wasn't my cup of tea, but I wouldn't call it an "awful" movie. And that's just one example out of a dozen or more films per year that get 90% or better. You're saying that like 4 out of 5 of those films are awful? Please.

RT starts giving a % when a film gets its 5th review, I believe, so occasionally a bad film will get lucky with a few good reviews at the beginning, but it almost always settles in to a more accurate score once the other reviews come in. In cases like Neighbors where there are only 14 reviews so far, I look at who those reviews are from to see if they're from reputable sources. Well, Variety and Hollywood Reporter both love it, so that's a pretty good start.
 
2014-04-30 12:22:17 PM  
I saw a preview screening a few weeks ago -- it's not perfect (nor does a 100% RT rating imply it is -- when you can only pick between "Favorable" and "Unfavorable," ratings kind of lose their meaning) but it is fun.  I was hoping it would be a little darker, though.
 
2014-04-30 12:22:46 PM  
People don't seem to understand how rotten tomatoes works.

100% doesn't mean it's perfect. It means all of the reviews have been positive. 20 people giving a movie 3 out of 5 stars will give it 100% on RT.

Imdb on the other hand is, I believe, an aggregate rating, so 20 people giving it 3 of 5 means it will have an Imdb score of 6/10.
 
2014-04-30 01:01:59 PM  

Quasar: People don't seem to understand how rotten tomatoes works.

100% doesn't mean it's perfect. It means all of the reviews have been positive. 20 people giving a movie 3 out of 5 stars will give it 100% on RT.

Imdb on the other hand is, I believe, an aggregate rating, so 20 people giving it 3 of 5 means it will have an Imdb score of 6/10.

 
2014-04-30 01:15:32 PM  
Bigger question: have they got Effron's coke problem under control or is he still getting into fights with dealers on weekends down under the freeway?
 
2014-04-30 01:18:55 PM  
The commercial they keep running for it is stupid and annoying, so I won't pay to see the film.

/in a couple of years I'll watch in on Netflix when I'm drunk
 
2014-04-30 01:19:05 PM  
form my reviews i go to wikipedia and click "reception" it gives a decent general overview of positive and negative critiques
 
2014-04-30 01:23:40 PM  

EddieFC: MacGruber had a 100% RT score at one point. There was even a thread about it.


And it damn well should've.  I hated the sketch with a passion.  But the movie was brilliant.  Dumb as can be (intentionally so) but comedic gold.
 
2014-04-30 02:21:50 PM  

kroonermanblack: I pretty much avoid anything a critic calls good


That's... not a good system.

I enjoy action, mystery, and comedy. And none of those win critical acclaim or awards.

That's... not true.
 
2014-04-30 02:28:21 PM  

GameSprocket: NFA: For example the movie Hugo was simply dreadful as a form of entertainment but it glorified a movie maker so in their minds it warranted a 100% rating.

I got that movie for free from Apple, and I thought it was an ok movie. It wasn't 100%, though.


I got it as well, thats a movie I enjoyed a whole lot on second viewing. I probably thought it was a 6 at best on first viewing but seeing it again in the oscar-bait movie mode I enjoyed it a lot more would rate it a 9/10. Same thing happened with Benjamin Button, loved it to death after the 2nd viewing. Then again I'm a Fincher and Scorsese slave whore.
 
2014-04-30 06:38:55 PM  

OldManDownDRoad: moothemagiccow:
No, no, you get oscars for making movies about making movies. The critical acclaim is a side effect. The flick could've been good if the countless CGI shots looked better than Melies's camera tricks and the story wasn't ineptly centered around the kid.

Nah, you get Oscars for making movies about the Holocaust.

/"Shindler's bloody list"


You won't get away with this Tearjerker!

In a world torn apart by war and intolerance,
one voice stood out.
A voice that was strong.
A voice that was inspiring.
A voice that was sometimes hard to understand.
I wanna drive the truck!
Oscar, no, be quiet.
As if it wasn't enough that he was Jewish.
I am sorry to say that your son is mentally retarded.
What does that mean, Doctor?
It means... he'll never not be retarded.
No! Oh, no! Why?! Why?!
And as if it wasn't enough that he was Jewish
and mentally retarded...
Borei pre hagafen.
Where is the wine?
...he was an alcoholic.
Oscar, no. You can't have that.
I want more dizzy water.
- I want to playmore, puppy. - Oscar, I...
I have some bad news for you.
Your puppy has cancer.
And it took the death of his best friend to realize
sometimes strength comes to us all.
This holiday season,
go for strength,
go for inspiration,
go for... Oscar Gold.
 
2014-04-30 07:48:55 PM  

Car_Ramrod: kroonermanblack: I pretty much avoid anything a critic calls good

That's... not a good system.

I enjoy action, mystery, and comedy. And none of those win critical acclaim or awards.

That's... not true.


Hasn't failed me yet.  Anything I've watched which achieved mass critical acclaim was dreadfully boring and a waste of my time.  Your tastes might mesh well with critics, but frankly, I've never once read a review of a movie I saw and agreed.

I'm sure there's someone out there reviewing movies who has similar taste to me, but who the fark cares? If a movie looks interesting to me, I'll watch it. If it looks REALLY good, I might go see it in a theater, but mostly I'll just torrent it or netflix it as appropriate, and if it turns out to be uninteresting, I just turn it off.
 
2014-04-30 09:14:06 PM  

Diogenes: BalugaJoe: Im tired of his stoner comedies.

It helps if you're stoned.


lh3.ggpht.com
 
2014-04-30 09:30:26 PM  
Um, the movie is named Neighbors not Bad Neighbors
 
2014-05-01 12:19:22 PM  
People forget RT works on a binary system - Fresh or Rotten. Each review counted can only either be fresh or rotten. Reviewed are aggregated and weighed and the score is given. If a reviewer says a movie is pretty good, scores it a 6/10, well their review counts as 100% Fresh.

Metacritic, however, takes into account the content of a review and generates a score against it (0-100). Those scores are then weighted and average to come up with an overall score that is much more reflective of the quality of the film.
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report