Regarding reviews at Rottentomatoes.com...

[Thwomp]

Now, as I type this, TMNT is at 29% fresh rating. Oh well - at least it's rated better than Wild Hogs :) . I was expecting as much - especially the way that the past films were rated. Anyways, something caught my eye as I skimmed down the snippets of various reviews:

"A throughline of organized violence permeates "TMNT" as a baby step toward preparing youngsters to become soldiers in America's never-ending war on humanity." - colesmithey.com

...wait...what the hell...?

I clicked into his full review, thinking that the guy would possibly back up his claims in a well-thought out report about why he believes that TMNT is war propaganda. But, no. There's five sentences on his blog, three of which are used to summarize the film. He then gives it a rating of C- and Two Stars...which kinda makes my head hurt thinking about how he uses two very different point systems to review a film.

Now, I'm not going to whine and moan and say that TMNT is the best film of the year, and should be receiving universal 9s and 10s from film critics...but tell me, do any of you believe that RottenTomatoes should be taking a closer look at what articles they include in their review section? I've noticed that several of the reveiws for TMNT are roughly three paragraphs long at the most.

[Jester]

yeah, it's reviews like that that make me wonder how credible RT is when it comes to rating movies.

[Leonardo_Warrior_Turtle]

I could give a flying **** about the critics. They wouldn't know a good movie if it slapped them in the ass. Seriously, I think they pretty much like boring movies and hate the ones that people enjoy in the theaters. It's the real fan's reviews that I like to read. Because, those are the types of people that go to movies to see a movie. And not to be paid to write reviews. That's why I completely ignore the critics. Ebert included.

[iris]

yeah, it's reviews like that that make me wonder how credible RT is when it comes to rating movies.
Dude, the name rottentomatoes.com is truth in advertising. They're rotten. Although the name SourGrapes.com would probably fit better.

[VaughnMichael]

Dude, the name rottentomatoes.com is truth in advertising. They're rotten. Although the name SourGrapes.com would probably fit better.
or the2oldguysfromthemuppetshow.com yeah I know it's long so sue me :P

[iris]

LOL... at least Statler and Waldorf are funny.

[Peanut]

They're a sister site to IGN. We all know what that means!

[Rooish]

Now, I'm not going to whine and moan and say that TMNT is the best film of the year, and should be receiving universal 9s and 10s from film critics...but tell me, do any of you believe that RottenTomatoes should be taking a closer look at what articles they include in their review section? I've noticed that several of the reveiws for TMNT are roughly three paragraphs long at the most.

RottenTomatoes should be more careful. I read a "rotten" review that actually was positive on that site.

[Cassidy]

I once read a review on rottentomatoes that more or less said this: "I can't find anything wrong with it, and that's what's wrong with it." I can't remember the movie in question (something from the 90's), but it got a medium-low score from whatever critic said that.

It was crazy.

[VaughnMichael]

LOL... at least Statler and Waldorf are funny.
indeed they are they even gave them their own web show a while back on http://movies.go.com/trailer?cid=738991

[Wes]

...but tell me, do any of you believe that RottenTomatoes should be taking a closer look at what articles they include in their review section? I've noticed that several of the reveiws for TMNT are roughly three paragraphs long at the most.

To be fair, three paragraphs is an acceptable length for a film review... and in any case, the length is usually dependent upon the style of the publication. Some only have single-paragraph reviews; others have full page spreads and whatnot.

[ThemanthatwouldbeRaphael]

yeah, it's reviews like that that make me wonder how credible RT is when it comes to rating movies.

RT's credibility is fine, it's the actual reviewers themselves.

I really wish the people on the sight would read the reviews before they post them, serious, check for een the slightest glimpse of coherence.

[Head Spinnin' Bebop]

I know, its crazy. I can understand some not liking it, but a rating like that doesnt even make sense. Holds no water with me.

[Aignatius]

People will say whatever they want, it doesn't mean they have a solid factual basis for their statements. :p
Besides, I doubt Peter would ever take part in any such propaganda.

[Bry]

Yeah, in fairness, RT just tallies up the notable reviews and gives the movie a score, it doesn't have anything to do with the reviewers themselves.

I'm not especially surprised, though. Critics have never been especially kind to the TMNT, and ultimately their opinions don't really matter. The kids don't care what a stuffy 55-year-old "connoisseur" they've never heard of thinks about the movie, and the 20-something fans aren't likely to be dissuaded from seeing their childhood favourites brought back to life on the big screen.

I was a bit miffed to see so many reviewers criticizing the movie for not following the rubber suit series of the '90s or the old cartoon, however. Nostalgia and ignorance should never be the basis of a professional review. (But whatever, that just makes it easier for me to dismiss most of the reviews entirely.)

[jignat]

I was a bit miffed to see so many reviewers criticizing the movie for not following the rubber suit series of the '90s or the old cartoon, however. Nostalgia and ignorance should never be the basis of a professional review. (But whatever, that just makes it easier for me to dismiss most of the reviews entirely.)

I know. A lot of reviews i read lamented the lack of suits or the cheesy tone.
Its kind of a Catch-22. If they had used animatronics and more cheese, they would have said that goofy humor doesnt fit superhero pics thanks to spidey/batman and that the effects are outdated. Now however, everyone is saying its too dark or not enough pizza/corniness.
Whats hilarious is the user rating is like 80 something compared to th critics 26.
You cant please anybody in this business.

[Bry]

I know. A lot of reviews i read lamented the lack of suits or the cheesy tone.
Its kind of a Catch-22. If they had used animatronics and more cheese, they would have said that goofy humor doesnt fit superhero pics thanks to spidey/batman and that the effects are outdated. Now however, everyone is saying its too dark or not enough pizza/corniness.
Whats hilarious is the user rating is like 80 something compared to th critics 26.
You cant please anybody in this business.
You're completely right, but there's not much that can be done. It's basically a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. I don't think the critics en masse would get behind a TMNT movie, no matter what the content was. It's best to just trust your own feelings and opinions, anyway.

And yeah, the 80% user rating amused me. That's the one that really matters, as it's coming from the "regular people" who are actually interested in seeing the movie, not the critics who simply had to see it in order to do their jobs.

[ThemanthatwouldbeRaphael]

You're completely right, but there's not much that can be done. It's basically a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. I don't think the critics en masse would get behind a TMNT movie, no matter what the content was. It's best to just trust your own feelings and opinions, anyway.

And yeah, the 80% user rating amused me. That's the one that really matters, as it's coming from the "regular people" who are actually interested in seeing the movie, not the critics who simply had to see it in order to do their jobs.

Plus, it's been getting great reviews from internet reviewers like IGN and JoBlo, and they're really the only critics that matter because they relate more ot us.