Anyone want to explain/defend Superman II's 99 metarating?


Maybe they’re comparing it to Superman III?

It’s based off of only 7 reviews, 4 of which are 100% scores. It’s worth noting that the scores are based on contemporary reviews, not ones today. The special effects don’t hold up, and there’s a few hokey bits that might turn off some viewers, but Superman II is generally regarded as being darned good, and one of the best sequels ever.

Rottentomatoes, for comparison, has similar sentiment, with an 87% rating counting all their critics (34 liked it, 5 didn’t, avg rating 7.4/10), and 100% rating for their “top critics” rating (with all 5 liking it, avg rating 8.4/10.) I don’t remember seeing it, but I’ve always heard it cast in a positive light.

I don’t know how Metacritic does it, but Rottentomatoes calculates it’s Tomatometer rating by assigning each review a straight up-or-down value. It also gives you the “average rating” that takes into account how much each critic liked the movie, but for the Tomatometer, a movie that every critic thought was ok will get a 100%, just like a movie that every critic thought was phenomenal.

And Superman II was pretty undeniably an ok (or better) movie.