Rate the latest movie you've seen.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I lived in The House of Five Strangers until I was 18. No where near as bat shit as that dude.

[Hydra009]

Rotten Tomatoes' top 100 movies: left is by audience score, right is by critics' score.

While I have some quibbles with the audience top 100 (various snubs and the bizarre inclusion of Toy Story 3&4 without Toy Story 1&2) it's a pretty solid list for general audiences, with picks from a variety of genres and decades.

Now look at the critics' top 100.  While I appreciate its inclusion of Mad Max Fury Road and Black Panther, I dunno about some picks (were Paddington 2 and Shazam and the recent Mission Impossible *that* good?) also The Last Jedi sticks out like a sore thumb with a noticeably vast gulf between fan and critic perception.

Also note that the majority of the critics' list are movies that came out in the past 5 years, compared to the much more mixed audience list.  Recency bias, much?  No wonder the oscar-bait movies come out in December.

And finally, it's interesting that both audiences and critics picked a few superhero movies in their lists, but entirely different ones:
Audiences: Spider-Man Far From Home, The Dark Knight, Spider-Man Into the Spiderverse, Logan, Avengers Endgame
Critics: Spider-Man Homecoming, Thor Ragnarok, Incredibles 2, Wonder Woman, Shazam, Black Panther

Imho, the audience generally picked better superhero films here.  Sure, Thor Ragnarok is good, but it's hardly top 100 movies of all time good.  To paraphrase a dubious and possibly apocryphal quote from John Lennon, "Ringo's not even the best drummer in The Beatles!"

To sum up: beware critics' ratings, you're generally better served by audience ratings.

[Baruch]

Any list that doesn't include Yellow Submarine is bogus ;-)

[SGOS]

And finally, it's interesting that both audiences and critics picked a few superhero movies in their lists, but entirely different ones:

Rotten Tomatoes gets it wrong so much of the time, that they even started up an on site video series called "Rotten Tomatoes is Wrong."  I haven't watched it, and I don't know if it's a way for them to justify their picks, or just having fun recognizing the critics/audience disparity.  At one time I gave up on the critics and started to go by audience only, but I disagreed with that, so I decided, I'd only rent a film if both the critics and the audience gave it high marks, but there seemed to be just as many turds there too.  And some movies I think are great get crapped on by both critics and audiences.  I have fun reading the critics reviews.  Sometimes I read them after I've seen the film, but I doubt how useful they are as an indication of how much I'll enjoy the film.  Currently, I'm back to reading the movie description to decide if I should see it.  So I've come full circle now.

Siskel and Ebert had a neat gimmick, which should have explained the whole thing to me clearly 30 years ago:  Two of the best know national experts disagreeing on movies.  Whatrugonnado?

[Cassia]

Rotten Tomatoes' top 100 movies: left is by audience score, right is by critics' score.

While I have some quibbles with the audience top 100 (various snubs and the bizarre inclusion of Toy Story 3&4 without Toy Story 1&2) it's a pretty solid list for general audiences, with picks from a variety of genres and decades.

Now look at the critics' top 100.  While I appreciate its inclusion of Mad Max Fury Road and Black Panther, I dunno about some picks (were Paddington 2 and Shazam and the recent Mission Impossible *that* good?) also The Last Jedi sticks out like a sore thumb with a noticeably vast gulf between fan and critic perception.

Also note that the majority of the critics' list are movies that came out in the past 5 years, compared to the much more mixed audience list.  Recency bias, much?  No wonder the oscar-bait movies come out in December.

And finally, it's interesting that both audiences and critics picked a few superhero movies in their lists, but entirely different ones:
Audiences: Spider-Man Far From Home, The Dark Knight, Spider-Man Into the Spiderverse, Logan, Avengers Endgame
Critics: Spider-Man Homecoming, Thor Ragnarok, Incredibles 2, Wonder Woman, Shazam, Black Panther

Imho, the audience generally picked better superhero films here.  Sure, Thor Ragnarok is good, but it's hardly top 100 movies of all time good.  To paraphrase a dubious and possibly apocryphal quote from John Lennon, "Ringo's not even the best drummer in The Beatles!"

To sum up: beware critics' ratings, you're generally better served by audience ratings.

I would have voted for LOTR trilogy, Bram Stroker's Dracula, Harry Potter, Jurassic Park, Sideways, Office Space, Beetlejuice, Private Ryan, and Red October over many of those listed. In fact, I have not seen a good many on either list.

[Mike Cl]

Rotten Tomatoes gets it wrong so much of the time, that they even started up an on site video series called "Rotten Tomatoes is Wrong."  I haven't watched it, and I don't know if it's a way for them to justify their picks, or just having fun recognizing the critics/audience disparity.  At one time I gave up on the critics and started to go by audience only, but I disagreed with that, so I decided, I'd only rent a film if both the critics and the audience gave it high marks, but there seemed to be just as many turds there too.  And some movies I think are great get crapped on by both critics and audiences.  I have fun reading the critics reviews.  Sometimes I read them after I've seen the film, but I doubt how useful they are as an indication of how much I'll enjoy the film.  Currently, I'm back to reading the movie description to decide if I should see it.  So I've come full circle now.

Siskel and Ebert had a neat gimmick, which should have explained the whole thing to me clearly 30 years ago:  Two of the best know national experts disagreeing on movies.  Whatrugonnado?

I used to use the critics to determine if I'd like a movie or not.  Then I switched to, if the critics panned it, I'd watch it.  Now, I don't care what the critics say.  I plan movie going (well, I used to, ages and ages ago, back in the day)  by asking a question.  Honey, would you like going to see xxxxxx (no, not porn)?  If the answer is 'yes', then we go. 

[Hydra009]

Ideally, I'd latch onto several trustworthy critics with similar tastes as mine and just use their consensus recommendations.  Absent that, I'll go with audience reactions - those tend to be good early indicators of enjoyable movies, though they aren't flawless or the end-all-be-all.

Critics are a mixed bag and sometimes I wonder if they even watched the same film as me.  I just don't know their methodology.  Are they a fan of arthouse films and automatically give low marks to any director with less than two hypens in their name?  Do they give high scores to films produced by their parent company?  Or films with their favorite actors?  Do they try to anticipate audience reactions and give high scores to movies with a great trailer and a lot of buzz?  Are they sick and tired of the superhero genre and give superhero movies artificially low scores?  Do they fault the film if they don't like the title sequence?

And what do they mean by "fresh" anyway?  Are they trying to quantify some abstract "goodness" quality of a film?  Or are they putting themselves in the audience's shoes and trying to quantify what will entertain them and what won't?

[SGOS]

Critics are a mixed bag and sometimes I wonder if they even watched the same film as me.  I just don't know their methodology.  Are they a fan of arthouse films.

As a group they, tend to rate the artsy fartsy films unusually high.  I think they want to be perceived as having intellectual tastes.  Grand Theft Auto several years back had movie theaters where players could take a break from playing, and attend a film.  And they captured this pseudo intellectual quality of the art house genre.  There would be some guy sitting at a table clutching his head in agony, followed by him spending inordinate amounts of minutes wandering the streets aimlessly.  Then he would be back in his kitchen agonizing about his condition again.  I could honestly not make it through the films, at least not when there were banks to rob, and cars to steal.

[Baruch]

As a group they, tend to rate the artsy fartsy films unusually high.  I think they want to be perceived as having intellectual tastes.  Grand Theft Auto several years back had movie theaters where players could take a break from playing, and attend a film.  And they captured this pseudo intellectual quality of the art house genre.  There would be some guy sitting at a table clutching his head in agony, followed by him spending inordinate amounts of minutes wandering the streets aimlessly.  Then he would be back in his kitchen agonizing about his condition again.  I could honestly not make it through the films, at least not when there were banks to rob, and cars to steal.

Training for BLM members? ;-)

[GSOgymrat]

Just watched Bing Crosby in "A White Xmas" for the 1st time...Silly and sentimental flick with some cool dance numbers. I noticed the actress/dancer Vera-Ellen had a tiny waist. Google came back with 21 inches. Those old school actors could do it all act..dance..sing. I also read that costar Rosemary is George Clooney's Aunt

YouTube suggested this video. It's cute!

https://youtu.be/1caGN5No89w

[the_antithesis]

YouTube suggested this video. It's cute!

https://youtu.be/1caGN5No89w

Wasn't that "high society" segment the inspiration for Madonna's "Material Girl" video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p-lDYPR2P8

[GSOgymrat]

Wasn't that "high society" segment the inspiration for Madonna's "Material Girl" video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p-lDYPR2P8

That was Marilyn Monroe performing "Diamonds Are A Girls Best Friend" from Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.

https://youtu.be/bfsnebJd-BI

[the_antithesis]

How silly of me to not think it was Norma Jean.

It's always Norma fucking Jean

[SGOS]

Cat Woman
I don't know how I missed this.  It may have been before the recent popularity of superheroes, and it kind of has that earlier feel about it.  But it is fun.  There are some clever scenes where her human personality naturally does cat things, like going to a restaurant with her date, but fixating on tropical fish in the restaurant's fish tank.  There's lots of these cat things she does throughout the film that are like little Easter eggs.  I'm surprised that DC didn't take this character further that just a cameo in one of the Batman movies.

[Hydra009]

Cat Woman

The 2004 one with Halle Berry?