According to RottenTomatoes, Tomorrowland is rotten (admittedly, it’s on the cusp, but that rating’s been steadily dropping as reviews have come in.)
A rare miss for Brad Bird apparently. Too bad, because the trailer looked intriguing. Although I can’t say I’m surprised because Damon Lindelof is a complete hack. The movie opens wide tomorrow, but has anyone here seen it yet?
I’ve seen it.
It wasn’t awful but definitely not what I’d hoped for from Brad Bird.
Biggest issue is that the main actress just wasn’t up to it (she’s not that good on Under the Dome either but I didn’t know whether that was her fault since everybody is bad on that show). Could have just cut her out of the movie altogether and focused on the other two main characters and I would have been happier.
Much more aimed at kids (with a weird exception in needless, though bloodless, killings on screen) than I expected. Not much of a second layer for more adult sensibilities.
I’ve said it before, but: Damon Lindelof must be *the most charming human being on the face of the planet. *
What else could explain the fact that he continues to be hired to write stuff?
(I haven’t seen the movie. But I’m disappointed that it’s been Lindeloffed; the premise seemed intriguing and likely to provide fun and amusement.)
I was afraid (but fully expected) of that.
And looks like the rating is still dropping, down to 55%. Yikes
I’m still excited for it and plan to see it, but yeah, the fact that it was scripted by Lindelof makes me nervous.
The sad thing is that I was a huge fan of Lost during the entirety of that show’s run; then I saw how it ended and I almost felt like I wasted six years of my life.
I mean, Lindelof is great at raising intriguing ideas, but he has no fucking clue how to pay anything off. I had a similar reaction to Prometheus, which was equally disappointing.
I’m honestly curious how he continues to get consistent work. I guess his Lost pedigree goes a long way. :dubious:
:eek:
I guess the problem is that even his shitty stuff makes lots of money.
I read somewhere that the fact Bird has announced the Incredibles 2 so quickly is a bad sign. It shows that he’s trying to take attention away from this movie.
It’s unusual that a Metacritic score is higher than an RT one, since they weight the reviews and RT is strictly a binary system.
That said, Tomorrowland is at 61, which is in the “green zone” there, which means the bad reviews aren’t that bad and the good ones are just good enough.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Rotten Tomatoes rating above 50% for anything outside of an art film, so unless you tend to agree with RT, I wouldn’t take that rating very seriously.
The participation of Damon Lindelof on the other hand…
There are a lot of non-art films with RT scores above 50%. Right now in the top 10 box office films in the US, Pitch Perfect 2, Mad Max: Fury Road, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Furious 7 all have above 60%, and none of those are art films.
I don’t rely purely on RT ratings, but they give a good indication of a film’s quality. It’s best to read the Critics Consensus, and some of the partial or full reviews for the movie to really get a good idea of whether you should see a movie or not.
For Tomorrowland it doesn’t sound like most of the reviews are saying it’s terrible, it’s more that it’s a disappointment, with some shoddy writing.
Hell, Mad Max is at 98% at RT - must be full of long shots of people having meaningful glances and be in French with that rating, right? ;).
Update: It’s at 60 now and is now “yellow zone.”
I haven’t seen it, but this review is encouraging.
Non-art movies with high Rotten Tomatoes ratings:
98% E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
100% Toy Story 2 (1999)
99% Toy Story 3 (2010)
98% Up (2009)
99% Finding Nemo (2003)
100% Toy Story (1995)
98% The Babadook (2014)
98% Paddington (2015)
98% How to Train Your Dragon (2010)
98% Aliens (1986)
100% Cool Hand Luke (1967)
98% Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
98% Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
98% King Kong (1933)
99% L.A. Confidential (1997)
How far do you want to go back and how do you define art films?
Here’s a list of the first eight movies listed, that I have seen, which are rated between 30-50% on Rotten Tomatoes:
Snow White and the Huntsman - 48%
RoboCop (2014) - 49%
Kick-Ass 2 - 30%
RED 2 - 43%
Pain & Gain - 49%
Beverly Hills Chihuahua - 41%
Hancock - 41%
Rambo (2008) - 37%
Now I’m sorry, RoboCop, Kick-Ass 2, Red 2, Pain & Gain, Hancock, and Rambo might not be classic films but rating them anywhere near to Snow White and the Huntsman and Beverly Hills Chihuahua makes about as much sense as No Soap, Radio. They may be somewhat flawed or largely forgettable, but they’re professionally made and fill time perfectly well.
You’re going to be just as satisfied by RED 2 as if you were to watch:
Die Hard 3 - 51%
Pirates of the Caribbean 1 - 79%
Mr. & Mrs Smith - 59%
Ocean’s Eleven - 82%
I could see those movies being spread over the 65-75% range, maybe, but not 43-82%. RED 2 is not “about as good” as Beverly Hills Chihuahua. Ocean’s Eleven shouldn’t be comparable to Curse of Chucky - 80% nor In Bruges - 84%.
If I go onto the IMDB and look at ratings, other than the obscenely high rankings of Tolkien and comic book movies, they at least make sense. And, even if we return the Tolkien and comic book movies, I can at least say that there is a general consistency to how things get ranked, even where I don’t agree. If something is particularly nerdish, it will get extra love on the IMDB, but otherwise, everything’s sane and I can do some mental math to correct for it.
I’ll go back and revise my statement that RT rankings are pro art film, but they’re certainly arbitrary. Looking at any particular slice of near-rated items, what criteria could possibly have gone into making those items all end up around the same place is completely baffling.
And just to go back to my “spread over the 65-75% range” statement, here are the previously listed movies as found on IMDB:
RED 2 - 6.7
Die Hard 3 - 7.6
Pirates of the Caribbean 1 - 8.1
Mr. & Mrs. Smith - 6.2
Ocean’s Eleven 7.8
Pirates obviously hit it big with the nerd crowd, so I think we can safely crop 0.5-1.0 points off of it. Mr. and Mrs. Smith is still a bit low, but that rating is comparable to This Means War and I think we can safely expect it to drop with time (IMDB ratings generally trend downwards) and will probably end up lower than Smith, so that’s as I would expect. Whereas on RT, This Means War is a 26%. Clearly, a far worse movie than Beverly Hills Chihuahua. :dubious:
You have weird taste in movies.
“Ix-nay on the otten-ray!”
. --Ygor (“EYE-gor”) in Young Frankenstein
Sage Rat writes:
> . . . they’re certainly arbitrary . . .
All ratings come across as a little arbitrary compared with the personal ratings of any individual. I have no idea whether my personal ratings are closer to those of Rotten Tomatoes or the IMDb. I don’t care. There’s no perfect set of ratings out there. The fact that Rotten Tomatoes isn’t very close to your personal ratings tells us nothing interesting.
I’ll still see it once it comes to FIOS on-demand.
50% and still dropping.
The Lindelof factor is strong with this one.