Nah. The audience score is vulnerable to being manipulated by both bots, coordinated hate campaigns and diehard fans that loose objectivity. I understand why some people will prefer a general population consensus but I always put more weight with the well written columnists over the flippant audience reviews.
It’s considered good, it means at least generally positive reviews … of course, that’s not always a useful metric because some films that review badly can be a lot of fun
I don’t know if “certified fresh” or “rotten” is good on the website rotten tomatoes, and at this point I’m scared to ask.
Fresh means most critics liked it, certified fresh means the majority of critics liked it.
But those are just critics, pay attention to the audience score (popcorn bucket) instead.
Nah. The audience score is vulnerable to being manipulated by both bots, coordinated hate campaigns and diehard fans that loose objectivity. I understand why some people will prefer a general population consensus but I always put more weight with the well written columnists over the flippant audience reviews.
Edit: exactly what I’m talking about lol
Rotten Tomatoes having both scores is exactly why it’s more reliable than IMDB.
I usually pay most attention to the critics score. If there is a massive disparity between the critics score and the audience score, it might be sus.
IMDb also has both.
lose* 🙇🏽♂️
Ty! Without your correction my comment would loose all mean, I write fast and lose. Their needs to be standards for those who choose too post.
It’s considered good, it means at least generally positive reviews … of course, that’s not always a useful metric because some films that review badly can be a lot of fun