Or just consider those sources as fodder but don’t use it as a substitute for critical thought.
RT tends to favor novel story telling, directing, and acting performances. It tends to give neutral (fair) feedback to movies that coast on good writing.
It tends to pan movies that do not break new ground or that rely heavily on comedy.
So I just keep those quirks in mind and don’t really let the RT rating actually represent any sort of “final” opinion. It’s more a number I can apply to the context of a film to let me know whether to expect it to be good, bad, or neutral.
I still watch and form my own opinion, but a little curation never hurt anyone. There’s lots of stuff to watch, and these review sites can help sift the options.
I use it as a resource in much the same way as you. Sometimes it’s a useful tiebreaker, but if I’ve got some reason to watch something other than “it’s one of several films I can watch at this moment”, that’d usually trump the rating.
I think it’s important to distinguish between cinematically valuable movies and enjoyable movies with no substance.
I like marvel movies. They don’t teach you anything, they don’t challenge any ideas, they don’t increase you as a person at all. They have zero substance, but they’re pretty and fun
They’re often good, but I’d never tell someone “you have to watch this marvel movie” the way I would tell someone to watch a Tarantino movie. Same general kind of movie, same great action sequences, but a Tarantino film has substance, it leaves an impact where a marvel movie leaves you just entertained
And that’s fine… But ratings for a cinematically valuable movie are worth digging into - for one that’s just entertaining, the ratings only matter when deciding if it’s worth watching
It’s a pure matter of taste vs maybe you were missing something on a deeper level
Or just consider those sources as fodder but don’t use it as a substitute for critical thought.
RT tends to favor novel story telling, directing, and acting performances. It tends to give neutral (fair) feedback to movies that coast on good writing.
It tends to pan movies that do not break new ground or that rely heavily on comedy.
So I just keep those quirks in mind and don’t really let the RT rating actually represent any sort of “final” opinion. It’s more a number I can apply to the context of a film to let me know whether to expect it to be good, bad, or neutral.
I still watch and form my own opinion, but a little curation never hurt anyone. There’s lots of stuff to watch, and these review sites can help sift the options.
I use it as a resource in much the same way as you. Sometimes it’s a useful tiebreaker, but if I’ve got some reason to watch something other than “it’s one of several films I can watch at this moment”, that’d usually trump the rating.
I think it’s important to distinguish between cinematically valuable movies and enjoyable movies with no substance.
I like marvel movies. They don’t teach you anything, they don’t challenge any ideas, they don’t increase you as a person at all. They have zero substance, but they’re pretty and fun
They’re often good, but I’d never tell someone “you have to watch this marvel movie” the way I would tell someone to watch a Tarantino movie. Same general kind of movie, same great action sequences, but a Tarantino film has substance, it leaves an impact where a marvel movie leaves you just entertained
And that’s fine… But ratings for a cinematically valuable movie are worth digging into - for one that’s just entertaining, the ratings only matter when deciding if it’s worth watching
It’s a pure matter of taste vs maybe you were missing something on a deeper level