If it had been a better film, the first ten reviews probably would have reflected that.
But if the average reviewer nowadays is no different than the average paying moviegoer, why the 23% to 64% Rotten Tomatoes disparity?
The new Shaft has an even larger disparity, but that is a genre film. I haven’t seen so cannot comment sensibly on its merits. But note that genre films like Shaft, Jackass type films, religious or political films, Tyler Perry’s work. etc. are made largely for a target audience, and with the interests of that target audience in mind- and the average reviewer may not be in that target.
Superhero and similar big budget action are one the few type films that cross all boundaries- all ages, sexes, and colors go to these films. So why the disparity?
I wouldn’t call it bad, but it wasn’t spectacular either. Certainly no Infinity War or Black Panther for sure.
But it wasn’t an unmitigated turd either. It was not bad. It wasn’t good either. It was ok. Better than staying home that particular Friday night, but I doubt I’ll rewatch it when it’s out on cable.
I agree with bump. Not bad but not good either. It was a time filler, that didn’t make me regret the money spent.
IMO, superhero movies are totally genre films, as are sci-fi, fantasy, etc. A small number of them may actually be pretty darned good filmmaking, as well (e.g., Wonder Woman), but they’re generally made to appeal primarily to fans of the genre, rather than a broader audience.
Professional reviewers have to review genre films as well as “general audience” films, and some of them may not necessarily enjoy (or really understand) the genre that they’re being asked to review (and that may come across in their reviews). Meanwhile, most theatergoers who go to see genre films are doing so fully knowing what to expect out of the film.
That’s why, I think, many genre films (particularly for established franchises) are pretty much review-proof – their fans are, usually, going to go see those films, even if they get panned by the critics. That said, a truly bad film is going to tank, even if it’s a genre film for a beloved franchise (e.g., the last Fantastic Four film), just as a truly well-done (and critically acclaimed) genre film will attract viewers who might not otherwise go to see a film in that genre.
I agree:), so four people here have actually seen- one didn’t care for it, the other three didn’t love it but found it to be an average, watchable film.
I see what you did there.
Reviewers see lots of stuff. Good and bad.
I rarely see movies that I expect to be bad. Maybe movies my wife cares about more than me. If I bothered to rate on RT, the vast majority of my scores would be fresh, because I’m unlikely to see things I expect to be rotten. Movies cost time and money, so I’d expect the vast majority of audience members to in expecting fresh. I’d expect audience scores to be high (with the exception of things being review bombed).
I see no issue with critics scoring it lower than the audience. FWIW, I don’t expect I would enjoy Dark Phoenix from the trailers and previous XMen movies, so I’m not burning time and money on it. If someone else bought my snacks and I was free, if go see it, but my potential review (which is likely though not guaranteed to be negative) won’t ever show up anywhere.
“My name. Ummm… wow. Okay… It’s…Phoenix… Phoenix Dark… Dirk… Phoenix… Dark Dirk. I was christened Dirk Steel and then I changed it to Phoenix…”
It wasn’t great or even good but it wasn’t even the worst X Men movie let alone the worst movie ever. It was fine.
And critics (and the Internet in general) definitely do pile on to movies. Some movies step out of the gate and the group think is that they suck. That may or may not have happened here but it happens. John Carter is an example or Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
There is no group think among critics. They avoid reading each other’s reviews, talking to each other about movies before they write their reviews, etc.
Many times the other critics’ reviews just are not even available when it’s time to write yours!
I remember an episode of Siskel and Ebert where they showed a behind the scenes thing where they went to a screening at the same time. Afterwards they were waiting for an elevator with a giant awkward pause. They pointed out that they don’t talk about the movie they just saw. They didn’t even know what the other was going to say ahead of filming their show.
And remember how many times they disagreed? E.g., the infamous Blue Velvet debate.
Critic pile-on is just nonsense. It is nowhere close to reality.
Cite that pile-ons both are not done, and not possible, in 2019 not 1989 when that show aired? Also it makes sense S&E wouldn’t talk about something beforehand that they were going to talk about on a TV show- better on air that way perhaps?
Why on earth would an internet reviewer in 2019 purposefully avoid other reviews before writing theirs? What is there to gain by writing in a vacuum?
And this isn’t the ACT, every critic on RT doesn’t gather in a room, watch a film simultaneously, then get shuttled directly into another room to write the review and turn it in- ‘no talking allowed or your review will be thrown out’ :dubious:
And it isn’t, but even if your cite is “I’m a movie reviewer!”, what you do isn’t automatically what everyone else does.
Again, if the average reviewer nowadays is no different than the average paying moviegoer, why the 23% to 64% Rotten Tomatoes disparity?
If there’s any groupthink going on It’s the moviegoers who are looking past a terrible movie to justify buying a ticket or are rabid fans of one or more of the actors that can do no wrong.
I’ve also had coworkers with horrifyingly bad taste in movies that wouldn’t be able to differentiate between Mac & Me and E.T.
Well wrong in at least my case- I had no intention on ever seeing this, not big on superhero film in general, but was invited and dreaded going after reading the reviews. Seen exactly one of the previous X-Men films, barely know any of the characters. Kept sitting there, thinking ok, this is going to start sucking at some point (the critics said so!), but it never did.
And yes IMDB user ratings are not perfect, but the rabid fan theory is not valid with this one- over 50% give it a 5, 6 or 7- meaning the average viewer found it to be an average or slightly above average film. With fan pile-ons, you see tons of tens or ones- not the case here.
In my experience, average moviegoers tend to grade on a curve. They paid money, they’re hoping for a nice time, they wanted to like the film to justify their time and interest, they don’t want to feel like they were scammed by a good preview (and terrible film), etc. I’ve often spent the day after seeing a bad movie thinking “Well… it was okay” before realizing, in retrospect, that it was actually pretty awful.
Reviewers don’t approach their films with the same mindset and are freer to see the film for what it is rather than a $12 investment of time, money and interest.
wrong thread
Again: Fans are fans.
This is why CinemaScores are so high. This is why brand new mediocre “big” movies get instantly voted onto IMDb’s All Time lists.
The True Fans love to vote high scores for the things they are fans of.
Note that this applies to franchise/genre stuff. If you see a good audience score at RT or IMDb for a small time film, it is much more reliable.
As to critic pile ons: Again, how are these critics managing to see a lot of other critics’ reviews before they write their own? Causality does not work that way. Cite.
Are you claiming that the ethics and work procedures of critics are different now than from the 80s? And you’re making this claim because … ?
Critics are a part of a community. They’re friends. They talk. They may not share their reviews in advance, but they certainly share their feelings as they walk out the latest screening. They shake their heads about the latest disappointing blockbuster while they’re out for drinks. They’re not sectioned off into separate panic rooms until release.
They’re also writers and, in some ways, commercial artists. There’s no heat in letting a mediocre movie be mediocre. ‘Meh’ doesn’t get clicks and shares. They’re absolutely going to amp up the negativity towards a movie they weren’t impressed by. Because it sells.
On the other hand, people aren’t going to care about a critic who is consistently wrong (in their opinion) because each review is over the top with complaints that don’t hold up to an actual viewing.
But we are speaking of this particular film, which doesn’t have a large number of tens on IMDB (5-7 predominates) and doesn’t have a great Cinemascore- in this case, all available fan data points to an average to slightly above average film, which is what 5 of the 6 people who posted here, who saw it, also say. This is not the type of film that has masses of people running to post tens or ones- check the imdb scores by percent for proof.
Also, psychology and statistical analysis says there are at least a few people who have read this post who think it was a great movie, but didn’t post that out of concern for the possible insults and scorn that could result.
How could reviewers see other reviews before they post theirs- the internet?
Other than plagiarism, I am not aware of any set of rules for internet movie reviews, so not sure its a matter of ethics, or ever was. And I don’t know what reviewers did then, and don’t know what they do now. Many others here have claimed inside knowledge of the process of the movie reviewer, I do not. The claim I made is that unless you write and post yours first, you have ample opportunity via the internet to get to see what others have written, and there and no laws or rules against it.
In the 80’s with like ten reviewers, very different in that a reviewer like Ebert had much more power- if he liked it and no one else did, everyone else must be wrong then! So he would be less likely to care what others thought, especially if he thought his opinion to be superior. Ebert would love to tell you why that shitty movie he liked (Speed 2!) was actually great, and why everyone else is stupid.
But now, you have at least 500 reviewers, none of which have a fraction of Ebert’s audience. Zero national review shows on TV, and I doubt the average person could name one current reviewer. Many must know each other, and they love film obviously, and film lovers like talking about film with other film lovers, why would the fact they are reviewers keep them from doing so?