So, in looking for a possible film to see tomorrow I was considering Cyrus.
I go to Rotten Tomatoes and look at the Top Critics section the reviews.
There is Michael Phillips’ review on At The Movies - a rotten tomato June 21.
Three days later, there is his newspaper reviews - a ripe tomato June 24.
Is this normal to have two reviews, by the same reviewer, within three days - and rated differently?
Did he see it again after his recorded review and rethink it for his written review?
How do his star ratings usually skew?
He’s fairly tepid in the televised review - he didn’t like it, but seemed to think there was something worthwhile there.
The actual written part of the newspaper review also feels a bit lukewarm - until the 3-star rating.
If his star ratings skew high, which would explain the 3-star rating, it seems consistent with being in a different mood when he wrote each review to have a lukewarm ‘skip it’ and a mild ‘yeah, it’s entertaining’.
I am not a fan of movie critics anyway <as in “I don’t consult them for their opinions on a movie”> but if I were, I would certainly not be a fan of one with varying opinions in varying mediums. I mean, wth, how can I tell what I should be watching if the person telling me keeps changing his mind, arghh!@!
It’s less his review than Rotten Tomatoes concept of only two options. If you like a film but have some reservations – and especially if you articulate the issues carefully and thoughtfully – RT makes a judgment call of one or the other. In this case, he was saying he was generally ambivalent about how he felt about the movie, only in the televised review, RT concentrated on the ambivalence and in the written review – where you can take the time to reread the comments – they noted the positive things.
Rotten Tomatoes is a very very crude measurement able only to reach a rough consensus. For many films, that’s enough, but it cannot deal with individual reviews that point out both strengths and weaknesses.