Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

fivethirtyeight.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 214 posts

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#91

Post by raverbashing »

nathancahill wrote: post #27
vidoc wrote: post #12

I'm even more cautious about yelp ratings!

A friend of mine suggested what I think is a very good idea for starting to fix the Yelp ratings problem: Rotten Tomatoes style ratings, where you're given both food critics and audience ratings.

Or, you know, just read the reviews and see the distribution

A review of one star that has 'tis place sux' is much less relevant than one star review that says "ok, service took one hour, even after asking the server multiple times, the food was undercooked and tasteless"

Though my favourite Yelp complaint is that the food tastes "bland". I'm pretty sure that 90% of people that complain about this have absolutely no idea what that dish should actually taste like (or maybe is accustomed to commercial MSG pumped dishes)

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#92

Post by ZeroGravitas »

bmelton wrote: post #48
abruzzi wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Snowpiercer is adapted from a French graphic novel written in 1982, so the copying may be the other way round (I've not seen/read any of them so can't comment persoanlly).

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#93

Post by [deleted] »

cooper12 wrote: post #53
qrendel wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the critic (and user) reviews are what I think of as "easy mode" ones. They don't really teach you anything about the film, just say whether they liked it or not, using the most colorful language they can possibly muster. The FF quote seems like a typical example. Alternatively there are some that really dig deep into the meaning and execution of the film and analyze it in ways I would never think of, not hav…

The site you linked is unreadable because they write everything in all-caps. Unfortunate considering that the titles sound interesting and that there's lively discussion in the comments.

[deleted]

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#94

Post by mrob »

mindcrime wrote: post #6

I've never seen much point in caring about movie ratings. I find very little correlation between my own perception of a movie and the ratings; whether from "professional" critics, or the generic crowd-sourced ones. I just watch stuff that sounds interesting to me. Sure, you hit some stinkers here and there, but I find that acceptable.

I find the same thing. For example, the funniest movie I've ever seen is "Freddy Got Fingered". This is currently rated 11% on Rotten Tomatoes. And the most boring movie I've seen is "Lost In Translation", which is rated 95% there. In both cases I watched them because I liked the lead actor's previous work, and that's had a better success rate than trusting reviews.

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#95

Post by kpmah »

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 love RT, but I think people misinterpret the percentage. It doesn't mean that the film was 95% 'good', it means there was a 95% chance you'd like the film and a 5% chance you'd dislike it based on a sampling of professional reviews.

Something to bear in mind is that a slight above mediocre film can have a 100% rating if it has wide appeal.

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#96

Post by aceofpack »

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…

Finding people that rate in the same way as you is an interesting concept at https://www.mov3y.com

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#97

Post by saiya-jin »

makeitsuckless wrote: post #75

Of all the ratings, IMDB are the most useless of all. Especially for quality movies that have gathered enough of a reputation to be watched by the masses of tv or netflex, who then proceed to rate them low for being "boring". Pretty much all of those converge on a rating of around 6.2, including some great classics, whilst lots of Hollywood lightweight entertainment has 7+ ratings. The only good cinema to escape this…

for me personally, IMDB works damn well for almost all movies (except family/sport stuff which ain't my cup of tea). probably the attitude "I am above all the stupid masses" tells a bit about you...

hollywood "classics" that have rating around 6.2 are mostly piece of cr*p IMHO, unwatchable/boring these days except if you have some strong bias towards it due to special childhood memories or something. the true classics, be it from 40s, 50s or 60s (that are in top 250 for example) are damn fine movies that stood the test of time with flying flags. only last week I found my way& time to watch Citizen Kane. what a movie and performance! Too bad Wells didn't get well deserved regognition in US for his work, that's US public voting with their cash at their worst...

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#99

Post by mtarnovan »

I generally use this settings when looking for a movie on movieo.me: http://imgur.com/X4xsXaX. When I'm extra bored, lazy or uninspired and just want some mindless entertainment, I might filter by movies with decent (70+) IMDB ratings, and allow lower RT and Metacritic scores, although I have regretted this a number of times.

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#100

Post by rconti »

johnchristopher wrote: post #65
mangeletti wrote: post #56

The author might be mistaken. I think there's a pretty chance this is simply a demographical difference between the sites' visitors, and I'm pretty disappointed this wasn't brought up early on. Rotten Tomatoes is a hipstometer (if you don't believe me, look at the artsy film festival movies that rank highest there, or read some of the pedantic reviews). Fandango is what a lot of the RT fans would call a "low brow" ve…

> If the rank is lower on Fandango and higher on Rotten Tomatoes, it's usually a bit too artsy and pretentious for me (I go watch a movie to be entertained, not to stoke my ego). Crass anti-intellectualism. I like the Sundance Festival, Movies from all over the world and wouldn't got see 2012 on screen but I don't go pissing online on fans of Transformers. Your definition of `artsy and pretentious' is just `things I…

Your usage of the phrase "crass anti-intellectualism" is far more absolute, dismissive, and disparaging than anything the parent said.
Post reply on HN