Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings • Hacker News Board

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#41

Post by Sukotto » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 5:00 AM UTC

I really like the hobby(?) project http://www.phi-phenomenon.org/ which attempts to create a definitive weighted-aggregate of movie rankings using:

  many different types of lists to measure film quality
  ... polls of the general public, of academics, of critics,
  and of filmmakers.  Some of these polls ask respondents to
  list their favorite films. Others ask respondents to rate a
  large number of films. There are single author lists by
  critics, academics, and filmmakers. There are lists that
  focus on how films are rated by video guides or on how many
  awards the films received. Some lists try to call attention
  to obscure films. Others stick to the obvious choices. Some
  attempt to measure film quality directly. Others include
  factors such as the historical importance of the film.
  
  The use of different types of lists and the statistical
  methods used help to minimize the effect of factors other
  than quality in order to create a purer measure of a film's
  greatness.

  It is not perfect, but it is closer to perfect than any
  other method is.

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#42

Post by copperx » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 5:08 AM UTC

eridius wrote: post #40

abruzzi wrote: post #32

I never trust any online reviews, especially aggregate reviews, because I have never found any to hew remotely closely to my taste (the best example is on RT, the worst movie I've seen in the last two decades is rated 95% fresh). The only approach I've found that works is to pick a professional reviewer that is marginally close to my taste, read a lot of their reviews, so I know where I tend to agree and where I disa…

I'm curious, what was the 95% fresh movie that you thought was the worst movie in 2 decades?

I'm going to guess Snowpiercer.

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#43

Post by bmelton » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 5:08 AM UTC

eridius wrote: post #40

abruzzi wrote: post #32

I never trust any online reviews, especially aggregate reviews, because I have never found any to hew remotely closely to my taste (the best example is on RT, the worst movie I've seen in the last two decades is rated 95% fresh). The only approach I've found that works is to pick a professional reviewer that is marginally close to my taste, read a lot of their reviews, so I know where I tend to agree and where I disa…

I'm curious, what was the 95% fresh movie that you thought was the worst movie in 2 decades?

I'm not the OP, so this is just a guess, but my money's on "The Room". If not, I'm guessing it's because the OP hasn't yet seen it. ;-)

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/room_2015/

Edit: Ooops. The wrong "The Room" altogether. Nod to abruzzi for the correction. The actual Room is only 35% fresh, which I must say is either way too high, or way too low, depending on one's take of the film.

The correct link is here: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_room_1998/

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#44

Post by abruzzi » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 5:09 AM UTC

eridius wrote: post #40

abruzzi wrote: post #32

I never trust any online reviews, especially aggregate reviews, because I have never found any to hew remotely closely to my taste (the best example is on RT, the worst movie I've seen in the last two decades is rated 95% fresh). The only approach I've found that works is to pick a professional reviewer that is marginally close to my taste, read a lot of their reviews, so I know where I tend to agree and where I disa…

I'm curious, what was the 95% fresh movie that you thought was the worst movie in 2 decades?

Snowpiercer. I'm sure some people love it, but I could not think of a single redeeming thing after I got done. I honestly preferred "The Room", (though that ones 'quality' was unintentional.)

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#45

Post by abruzzi » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 5:11 AM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #43

eridius wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious, what was the 95% fresh movie that you thought was the worst movie in 2 decades?

I'm not the OP, so this is just a guess, but my money's on "The Room". If not, I'm guessing it's because the OP hasn't yet seen it. ;-) http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/room_2015/ Edit: Ooops. The wrong "The Room" altogether. Nod to abruzzi for the correction. The actual Room is only 35% fresh, which I must say is either way too high, or way too low, depending on one's take of the film. The correct link is here: http:…

Sadly that's the wrong Room:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_room_1998/

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#46

Post by bmelton » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 5:13 AM UTC

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #15

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only way Rotten Tomatoes is useful is if you look only at the negative ratings. All kinds of horrible schlock that has mass appeal gets "certified fresh." But isolating negative reviews: If idiots dislike it then it's probably good; If the negative reviews sound cogent then it's probably bad.

I usually go for a metric along the lines of Chesterton's Fence: do the negative critiques seem like they're dismissing the film out-of-hand, or do they seem to show an understanding what it was going for and still think it failed to do it well? Roger Ebert was usually pretty good about this, which gives his truly scathing reviews that much more bite [1]. [1]: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/battlefield-earth-2000…

I generally feel the same, but was woefully misled by a detailed, thorough, but overall negative review of "Spring[1]", which I found to be a delightful genre-bending tale that really surprised me.

I'm not suggesting it was the best movie of the year, by any stretch, but where the reviewer kept insisting that the alleged plot holes were completely unexplainable, I found that perhaps she just didn't "Get It", because not only were the holes absent from my viewing, but where she found holes, I found explanations that actually made sense (y'know, within the context of a film anyway).

[1] - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3395184/

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#47

Post by bmelton » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 5:15 AM UTC

abruzzi wrote: post #45

bmelton wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the OP, so this is just a guess, but my money's on "The Room". If not, I'm guessing it's because the OP hasn't yet seen it. ;-) http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/room_2015/ Edit: Ooops. The wrong "The Room" altogether. Nod to abruzzi for the correction. The actual Room is only 35% fresh, which I must say is either way too high, or way too low, depending on one's take of the film. The correct link is here: http:…

Sadly that's the wrong Room: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_room_1998/

Thank you for the correction. Gigantic oops moment there.

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#48

Post by bmelton » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 5:17 AM UTC

abruzzi wrote: post #44

eridius wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious, what was the 95% fresh movie that you thought was the worst movie in 2 decades?

Snowpiercer. I'm sure some people love it, but I could not think of a single redeeming thing after I got done. I honestly preferred "The Room", (though that ones 'quality' was unintentional.)

Snowpiercer was indeed sad, but I always assumed my negativity towards it was a result of having already read Hugh Howey's (rather good) Silo Saga, which it seemed to rip off at every turn, only having shifted the X and Y axes.

I came away from it thinking that if I hadn't read the Silo Saga, I might possibly have actually enjoyed Snowpiercer, though definitely nowhere near 95%'s worth.

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#49

Post by bhaumik » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 5:18 AM UTC

Sukotto wrote: post #41

I really like the hobby(?) project http://www.phi-phenomenon.org/ which attempts to create a definitive weighted-aggregate of movie rankings using: many different types of lists to measure film quality ... polls of the general public, of academics, of critics, and of filmmakers. Some of these polls ask respondents to list their favorite films. Others ask respondents to rate a large number of films. There are single a…

Looks interesting, too bad they stopped after 2012.

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#50

Post by Demiurge » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 5:19 AM UTC

abruzzi wrote: post #32

I never trust any online reviews, especially aggregate reviews, because I have never found any to hew remotely closely to my taste (the best example is on RT, the worst movie I've seen in the last two decades is rated 95% fresh). The only approach I've found that works is to pick a professional reviewer that is marginally close to my taste, read a lot of their reviews, so I know where I tend to agree and where I disa…

This very reasonable. Movies, music, art, can't be reduced to a single numerical score. In this sense no rating 'should' be trusted, but instead we need to make choices based on entirety of context. Seems trivial, yet we always want an easy answer.