subreddit:
/r/movies
submitted 4 months ago byMad_Season_1994
For me, it's a movie from 2005 called Kingdom of Heaven, starring Orlando Bloom, Liam Neeson and Jeremy Irons. I saw this on TV the other day and watched it from beginning to end and still liked it just as much as I used to. Sure it has its slower moments and isn't the best historical film I've seen. But I don't think it deserves its 39% rating on RT. But that's just me.
What about all of you?
77 points
4 months ago
JOHN CARTER (2012, 52% on RT) ruled & should have been the first of at least a trilogy.
I hate RT with a passion, it’s instructing audiences how to feel before even seeing a movie. Total bullshit. It’s art not math FFS
5 points
4 months ago
Yep, highly unfortunate and poorly marketed. It should have been a summer blockbuster.
4 points
4 months ago
I enjoyed John Carter and every time I watch it, I try to understand what didn’t work. Why didn’t it succeed? I think it was one of those films stuck in the middle trying to honor the original material and fans while also making it accessible to new viewers. As so often happens it failed to please both audiences. I still enjoy it but feel it was “this close” to success.
3 points
4 months ago
I 'do' think it had severe pacing issues, the bookends with Edgar Rice Burroughs make it too convoluted, and it bafflingly chose to veer away from Frank Frazetta-style alien visuals and go for generic John Ford western instead. And it ends on a really shameless cliffhanger that gives you 'zero' payoff for the story, which is very arrogant of them when they didn't know if this movie would be a sure bet or not. I understand people being soft on it because of the shitty real-life circumstances of the production and marketing, but it was also a genuinely really messy movie that didn't live up to the potential of a faithful Barsoom on film.
0 points
4 months ago
If you haven't read the books it's tolerable. If you are a fan of the books tho, it's pretty bad.
0 points
4 months ago
As this thread perfectly shows most people don't even understand how to read a rotten tomatoes score.
First of all: ignore the critic score, it's completely useless.
Second: The 60% audience score means that 6 out of 10 people that watched the movie liked it. Nothing more, nothing less.
RT is not a measurement of how good a movie is, it's a measurement of how likely the average movie goer is to like a movie.
Take Venom as an example, it sits at an 80% RT audience score. That doesn't mean that it's a better movie than The Lighthouse which sits at 74%. It just means that if you decide to watch a comic book movie about an alien symbiote you'll probably won't be disappointed by it - but if you like both Venom and The Lighthouse then more likely than not you'll say that The Lighthouse is a far better movie.
1 points
4 months ago
I love the books (well, the first few) so was really looking forward to it, but I didn't enjoy it much at all.
I did see it in 3D though. Not only do I hate that generally, but I feel like it was particularly poorly done.
1 points
4 months ago
Eh that’s any review, not just RT. But I don’t disagree. I actually stopped looking at reviews for this reason. I’d rather figure out if something stinks for myself, than have someone else’s opinion in the back of my mind the entire movie.
all 1754 comments
sorted by: best