Live data from Hacker News

Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

fivethirtyeight.com

131–140 of 214 posts

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yea, that's not how it was when I was using it for a few weeks. Seems they must have a recent issue.

Ah no, seems to work now :)

Recommendations are shown now for me, too. Not really movies that I liked, but at least it's working. The "Something wrong?" link at the bottom right is still a 404 though. :(

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#132
post #52
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.)

I think engineering and or technically minded movie goers find Snowpiercer a lot harder to enjoy than maybe a critic who can discount such issues and focus on plot themes and movie making. There is so much that doesn't add up when you try to imagine how the people on the train solved all the problems they would have faced. It can make films harder to enjoy when you can't pretend that technology is just magic. There a…

Agreed. The physical impossibility of the train is what got to me(where did all these soldiers come from? did they march through the nightclub and kindergarden wonderland cars?).

That said, it is very well produced and if you can set aside the technology aspect of it I would say it's among the better sci-fi movies in recent memory.

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#133
post #118
post #63

Oh wow, that's rich. Quoting from the article: Sites like Rotten Tomatoes that aggregate movie reviews into one overall rating are being blamed for poor opening weekends. The best part is that the quote above even provides a link to the reference they are using for the made statement.[0] In effect, the studios are complaining that news of the films' crappiness are spreading too fast . Let that sink in. The studios co…

The problem with Rotten Tomatoes is that - I suspect- the studios are perfectly able to influence the professional reviewers. Or, more probably, professional reviewers adjust their expectations and judgments on the type of movie they're reviewing. The end result is that every recent shiny pile-of-crap produced by Hollywood gets enthusiastic reviews and therefore excellent scores on RT. Gravity: RT score 97% 2001 A Sp…

You select some odd movies to pick on. 2001 was a classic. Sure, for viewing it as a modern audience it has way too many issues to score anywhere near a 90, but for its time the score was more than warranted.

The Martian I haven't seen yet, but according to general consensus it seems to be pretty good.

Blade Runner is another classic, the fact that it didn't score in the 90's is surprising.

Some people didn't like Gravity at all, but I really did. I would easily have given it a 90 myself.

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#134
There are a lot of problems with star ratings in general. I believe they should be normalized to a more sensible distribution. So e.g. exactly 20% of things have 5 stars, and exactly 20% have 3 stars, etc. Or a more gaussian distribution so most things get 3 stars, and truly good or bad things get 1 or 5 stars.

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#135
post #129
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?

"Gravity" wasn't the worst in two decades, but it is a pile of crap, and it does have 97% on RT and 7.9 on IMDB.

"a pile of crap" is a bit harsh, it's fantastically produced and the acting is okay.

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#136
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

#137
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with Rotten Tomatoes is that - I suspect- the studios are perfectly able to influence the professional reviewers. Or, more probably, professional reviewers adjust their expectations and judgments on the type of movie they're reviewing. The end result is that every recent shiny pile-of-crap produced by Hollywood gets enthusiastic reviews and therefore excellent scores on RT. Gravity: RT score 97% 2001 A Sp…

I thought the Martian was excellent. You'll notice that the user-rated % is higher than the critics, at 94%. From the video game aggregation space, you tend to see the type of thing you're suggesting (games that are big-budget-questionably-reviewed) have _much_ lower user-scores than critics. I would be surprised if user-rated movies was different.

De gustibus non est disputandum. At least, not on HN. However, would you put The Martian almost on par with 2001? Would you rate it more than Blade Runner? I wouldn't do either, no way.

As for the video games space, well, I don't know it enough. But I suppose you could argue that video games are different from movies in that they require a much higher level of engagement, both in terms of time and concentration - not to mention the monetary investment. So it is reasonable that they are evaluated more thoroughly by their users and that whatever hype surrounds them has a lower impact of their final rating.

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#138
post #63

Oh wow, that's rich. Quoting from the article: Sites like Rotten Tomatoes that aggregate movie reviews into one overall rating are being blamed for poor opening weekends. The best part is that the quote above even provides a link to the reference they are using for the made statement.[0] In effect, the studios are complaining that news of the films' crappiness are spreading too fast . Let that sink in. The studios co…

Indeed, since may, I try to check Rotten Tomatoes every week, and I end up choosing good movie openings recently. Previously subconsciously, I was basing my opening movie choice to actors/actresses playing, to the trailer or the poster. The last 3 Nicolas Cage movies I've seen, ended up being so bad that I started to check Rotten Tomatoes ratings which were in line with what I've experienced. So review sites are trul…

I've been using Rotten Tomatoes as my primary movie filter for a few years now. Although I don't see a lot of them, I can't think of any movie I've enjoyed all the much over that time that wasn't around or above 60%. There are some highly rated movies that I haven't enjoyed, but not the reverse.

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#139
post #94

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.

I'm appalled that for someone out there, Freddy Got Fingered is the funniest movie they've ever seen. Likewise, that Lost In Translation is the most boring.

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#140
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think engineering and or technically minded movie goers find Snowpiercer a lot harder to enjoy than maybe a critic who can discount such issues and focus on plot themes and movie making. There is so much that doesn't add up when you try to imagine how the people on the train solved all the problems they would have faced. It can make films harder to enjoy when you can't pretend that technology is just magic. There a…

Agreed. The physical impossibility of the train is what got to me(where did all these soldiers come from? did they march through the nightclub and kindergarden wonderland cars?). That said, it is very well produced and if you can set aside the technology aspect of it I would say it's among the better sci-fi movies in recent memory.

Essentially all fiction requires some degree of "suspension of disbelief." We all have different tolerances both in general and in specific genres where we might have more knowledge than the average person. Or we just have trouble buying a particular premise. Certainly there are films I love even though I know they depend on a setting or assumptions that are pure BS. And there are other films or TV shows that I otherwise really like but just can't really get past some particular aspect.
Post reply on HN