| World of KJ http://worldofkj.com/forum/ |
|
| Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings http://worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=79228 |
Page 1 of 4 |
| Author: | stuffp [ Sun Jan 03, 2016 5:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
Forrest Gump: 72% It's universally loved, won best picture, kind of low rating for such a film. What others have you come across? |
|
| Author: | Shack [ Sun Jan 03, 2016 6:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
Spider-Man 3 being fresh (63%) is a champ Crash at 75%, I feel like in both quality and race card it's the type of films critics pop for Star Trek Into Darkness 87% is just, please |
|
| Author: | stuffp [ Sun Jan 03, 2016 10:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines at 70% is also incredible. You wonder what kind of film the critics were watching to get it so fresh. I've heard, but for the time the action was kick-ass. Nowadays critics don't go for that anymore, and still find it weird if at the time they did. |
|
| Author: | The Dark Shape [ Sun Jan 03, 2016 12:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
stuffp wrote: Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines at 70% is also incredible. You wonder what kind of film the critics were watching to get it so fresh Critics tend to walk into films with clearer heads than fans do. They're not looking to be pissed off by a movie. |
|
| Author: | neo_wolf [ Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
I like T3, i would give it 3 stars out of 4. Spider-Man 3 at 63% is laughable, today it would get 10%. |
|
| Author: | thompsoncory [ Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
The Godzilla reboot getting a 74%. |
|
| Author: | zwackerm [ Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
Please, Spider Man 3 is entertaining if nothing else. |
|
| Author: | Flava'd vs The World [ Sun Jan 03, 2016 2:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
Gump would get 90% today but I guess the grungey 90s critics were turned off by its heart warmig earnestness. Life is only about pain. |
|
| Author: | zwackerm [ Sun Jan 03, 2016 2:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
Home Alone is fucking Rotten. I think it should at least be in the 70's like Mrs. Doubtfire I wonder how the first two HP movies are in the 80's when everyone seems to think they are not very good. |
|
| Author: | _axiom [ Sun Jan 03, 2016 3:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
neo_wolf wrote: I like T3, i would give it 3 stars out of 4. Spider-Man 3 at 63% is laughable, today it would get 10%. Good will from 2 saved it. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Lecter [ Sun Jan 03, 2016 6:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
zwackerm wrote: Home Alone is fucking Rotten. Whaa?? Now this one geniunely surprised me. |
|
| Author: | Algren [ Sun Jan 03, 2016 10:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
Home Alone is just a victim of the pre-Internet era. Not all reviews were online. |
|
| Author: | stuffp [ Mon Jan 04, 2016 1:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
Home Alone rotten is definitely a surprise. |
|
| Author: | Groucho [ Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
Algren wrote: Home Alone is just a victim of the pre-Internet era. Not all reviews were online. I actually agree with Algren for once.  RT is kind of useless for any pre-internet film. It's not like they go back and search old newspapers to get the reviews from, say, 1940. |
|
| Author: | Libs [ Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
Yeah, Home Alone would be fresh in today's day and age. |
|
| Author: | Jmart [ Sun Jan 10, 2016 12:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
stuffp wrote: Forrest Gump: 72% It's universally loved, won best picture, kind of low rating for such a film. What others have you come across? How many reviews came after 1994? |
|
| Author: | stuffp [ Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
Jmart wrote: stuffp wrote: Forrest Gump: 72% It's universally loved, won best picture, kind of low rating for such a film. What others have you come across? How many reviews came after 1994? All but 2 of them... |
|
| Author: | stuffp [ Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
Groucho wrote: Algren wrote: Home Alone is just a victim of the pre-Internet era. Not all reviews were online. I actually agree with Algren for once. RT is kind of useless for any pre-internet film. It's not like they go back and search old newspapers to get the reviews from, say, 1940. Seems like it. The only reviews recorded pre-2000 were those from Entertainment weekly at the time of the film's release. All others seems to be taken from post-2000 online reviews. |
|
| Author: | Jmart [ Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
stuffp wrote: Jmart wrote: stuffp wrote: Forrest Gump: 72% It's universally loved, won best picture, kind of low rating for such a film. What others have you come across? How many reviews came after 1994? All but 2 of them... Yikes. I expected it to be low, but not that low. For some reason, I think there's been some sort of backlash against the film's corniness as time has gone on. I don't get it. The movie works for me as well now as it ever did. And Zemeckis has always been corny. |
|
| Author: | Thegun [ Sun Jan 10, 2016 7:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
I think people are just mad that both shawshank and pulp fiction lost to it. What a fucking year! |
|
| Author: | stuffp [ Fri Mar 04, 2016 1:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
Equilibrium 38% Crazy, action film wise I would compare it to John Wick, and that got an 85% score. Maybe an 80's score would be too high, but Equilibrium should at least be fresh. |
|
| Author: | zwackerm [ Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
Beauty and the Beast is just at 92%, the same score as A Bug's Life. Really good, but it's not on par with a Pixar score. |
|
| Author: | Mau [ Sun Mar 06, 2016 5:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
ZWACKERM |
|
| Author: | zwackerm [ Sun Jul 17, 2016 12:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
Not RT, but ROTJ has a 53 at Metacritic, lower than AOTC's 54 and RoTS's 68. |
|
| Author: | Algren [ Sun Jul 17, 2016 12:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inexplicable Rotten Tomato Ratings |
That was quite a long time ago. |
|
| Page 1 of 4 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|