No, Transformers 4 proved that.

oh, wow, my bad, i completely misinterpreted your 'im done' statement.

but i agree with your sentiments - I will reserve judgement until i see the film this Thursday.

my apologies i jumped bc im tired of reading the same argument in EVERY thread:

- when the trailer released, the posters released, the promo images, the second trailer, the wave of tv spots, the bits we see on twitter, and instragram, etc. all invoked the SAME arguements OVER AND OVER again, and now with the 'pro' critics giving their two cents...all im seeing is:

stoked: see, the critics are saying this is a good time

leery: see, the critics are saying this is terrible.

if im done with anything, its this tired argument. the thread has been ongoing for pages, and there are barely any actual reviews compared to the amount of back and forth.

sorry for the rage post so early in the morning, its out of my system now. :D

Actually, Man of Steel kind of got kicked in the nuts by critics, and I remember the RT score being discussed repeatedly. Yes MOS made some good scratch at the box office, but it should have made a ton more. The critic's were at about 52% and the fans were at 80%. But they only give credence to the critics...

But still, the critics are more like a guideline. I've seen some movies with over 90% ratings and found them completely terrible and boring. Some of the best, most entertaining movies do horrible to mediocre with critics.

It'll be interesting to see the Audience rating, Those are typically higher then the critics rating.

Yeah, Sometimes a film with a huge critics rating, Can do poorly at the Boxoffice, Guardians of the Galaxy is the only exception.

The only exception?

Guardians of the Galaxy has a 93% and it did huge at the boxoffice this weekend, How often do you see a film with a high rating do well financially? it's a rare occurrence.

Um, Captain America 2?

I mean, critics tend to favor films that are able to take risks and be surprising, and those same qualities can also scare off audiences and lead to a weak performance, but critics don't hate blockbusters by any means, they just hate safe, repetitive movies. It just so happens that that's also the same formula that will most easily secure a big budget from a film studio.

Here's another Video Review. It's positive, Giving it a 7.5 out of 10.

teehee shout out


toy story 3


i have a friend who swears by reviews, if a movie isnt above 60 on RT he doesnt watch it...and i hate to say it he sucks at forming his own opinion on films alot of the time repeating what he already heard a review say

or he just yeas "yea it was good"

Off the top of my head? Basically every Marvel Studios movie over the past six years, especially Captain America 2 and Guardians of the Galaxy this year, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Gravity, the Hunger Games movies, animated films like Frozen and The LEGO Movie. Monsters University and Despicable Me 2 had overall good reviews last year and they were in the top 10 at the box office as well.

In fact, of the ten top-grossing movies this year, only three got overall mixed-to-negative ratings.

In Rotten Tomatoes Standards, Anything at 60% or higher is good.

What is the deal with every "positive" review saying "It's not perfect"? What movie is? These critics need to find some creativity...oh wait that's why they're critics...they have none.

Check the scores for this year to date:

1. Captain America: The Winter Soldier - 92%
2. The LEGO Movie - 96%
3. Transformers: Age of Extinction - 18%
4. Maleficent - 48%
5. X-Men: Days of Future Past - 91%
6. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - 53%
7. Godzilla - 73%
8. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes - 91%
9. 22 Jump Street - 84%
10. How to Train Your Dragon 2: 92%

Half of the list have scores above 90%. And GotG is bound to score high on this list as well, with 93%.

It's a little bit different in the worldwide gross charts, but it's still more positively-rated movies than negatively-rated movies.

the ratings get really interesting when a Score sometimes end up at 59%

Josh Hammonds review

Josh Hammond ‏@JoshHammond124 · 5m
My Review of #TMNTMovie Verdict: 7.8/10

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BuNOZv6CAAA5elY.jpg

Saw that moments ago, Glad he liked it. :)

Who the heck is Josh Hammond?

Hes a TMNT fan, and very vocal about all the stuff that's been going on, So its nice to see that he liked the film.

honestly i cant tell if he liked or not based off that


attacking peoples opinions now?

Early days yet with only 5 reviews (3 rotten, 2 fresh) but it's 40% so far

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/teen..._turtles_2013/

It's weird that the CraveOnline review they count as "fresh" gives it a 5.5/10. That's a score that would earn a "rotten" by their own overall rating system.

Best to ignore it. It's the same troll schtick we've seen already. Just trying to bait you.

A couple of my favorite examples of how divided the critics and the regular audience can be, look at Rotten Tomatoes vs Metascore for Drive and The American. Critics were actually blasting the regular public for placing those critical darlings so low on the ratings scale. It was actually funny to see the those elite snobs getting their panties in a bunch.

And X-Men, DOFP. Dawn of the Apes also opened up huge.

This always happens on RT

Says the people that get moist over bad reviews.. Thanks for proving my point.

Usually MetaCritic is more accurate than RT.

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/teen...-ninja-turtles

This is nothing new. I have seen the same critic give a movie a 3.5 to two different movies on the same weekend, and one movie will be fresh and the other one rotten. This is why I really can't take that site seriously.

MOVIECLIPS Trailers' review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO7TsK8nwKM

Here's the Meta critic, 39 for TMNT so far.

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/teen...-ninja-turtles

Fixed it for you.

This review is very positive, The guy on the right even liked Next Mutation.

Maybe they don't take the number rating into account as much as the content in the review?

Metacritic is a good "counterpoint" for sure. I find they generally tend to average scores a bit lower/more critical if they're highly-rated elsewhere, and a bit higher if they're especially low-rated elsewhere. Different system. The inclusion of a "mixed" rating instead of just "fresh" and "rotten" can skew things toward the middle. Still pretty reliable overall, though.

They gave a 3.5/10 review a "fresh" rating?

...what?

When can we expect a metascore, the one that actually polls the audience members? This weekend I suppose? They tend to give an idea if a movie is going to take off or not.

ok, thanks

No, the reviewer gets to decide if the movie is rotten or fresh, the site itself has nothing to do with it (not that we know of yet, the site is owned by WB, so I'm waiting for them to start fudging numbers like crazy in the future to fit their own needs)

RT doesn't determine the "fresh" or "rotten" ratings. When the review is submitted to RT, the submitter selects whether the review is fresh or rotten. Some reviewers consider anything above a 5 to be good, and therefore count it as fresh despite RT's tomatometer standards. Sometimes they just select the wrong rating altogether out of carelessness or by accident.

You do know the first live action movie has a 44% rating on RT?

The film now has a 40% on Rotten Tomatoes.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/teen..._turtles_2013/

Currently the 1990 film has a 45%