Do (film) critics really speak for the people

[pc747]

After all the drama from the poor critically reviewed Batman V Superman film, which did score high on other video metrics like IMDB, there is the question of how much critic scores should effect number of viewers or viewer opinion.

Personally I liked BvS and like BvS UE even better, but will admit there were areas I felt kept it from being as great as it could have been. With that said I often question how a movie like BvS can get a rotten tomato score of 27% with a 70% IMDB score while Ghostbusters (2016) got a 73% rotten tomato score with a 49% IMDB.

So do you look at critical scores before going to the box office, and if so what source do you prefer?

 

[pc747]

Personally I prefer IMDB, though I know critcs prefer RT because it is based on honest critical reviews vs fan reviews. I know that when I go to a movie I want to know if I am going to have a good time. Going to a movie because it is an Oscar potential is not what is a deciding factor of whether or not I will watch it on the big screen or wait for it to hit VOD or Netflix. Though you have to take IMDB scores with a grain of salt, I personally find that movies that score 65% and above I end up liking where as movies that scored around the middle area ended up being good enough to only be watch via Netflix. But there are many movies I have liked that did not fair well on RT as well as movies that scored high on RT that I did not bother seeing.

 

[Jonny Kansas]

I take everything I see a critic or reviewer write or say with a grain of salt. Ultimately, we've all got our own opinions and background that completely changes how we see things. I don't put much stock into what they say. If previews and other things make me want to see a movie, I see it, no matter what the critics say. I've seen MANY movies that got bad reviews that I thoroughly enjoyed.

 

[Mustang02]

I don't look at reviews. Everyone has their own taste.

 

[thunderbolt_nick]

A thousand times yes to what @Mustang02 and @Jonny Kansas stated.

Unless you have a critic who aligns with your tastes...what is the point of listening to them? So many times I got flack while working at my theater about liking movies that everyone says 'got bad reviews.' I'd literally say the same thing each time, "Those reviewers are not me. So I don't really care what they have to say. They get paid to provide their opinion. Good for them." So many times my friends would never watch a movie cause it got bad reviews. I end up showing it to them at my house and they kick themselves for not seeing it sooner. Deadpool was the most recent one I can recall where that occurred.

I also didn't understand why people came to the theater and ask me, "Well what do the reviews say?" Can't you all think for yourself? I get you're paying money and you don't want to take a huge risk but if you're excited about the movie: GO FOR IT! Worse thing that happens is that you didn't like the movie.

 

[mountainbikermark]

I don't look at reviews. Everyone has their own taste.

Back in the day of video rental stores, whether we agreed or even listened to critics affected us anyway. If the critics liked a film, your local Blockbuster, or other, would get a gazillion copies to rent out but sleepers that were well embraced by the public might get 3 copies, if that many. Beverly Hills Cop is an example of a huge ticket seller at the box office that didn't get a whole lot of rental vhs copies at the local outlets because when deciding how many to purchase in advance the most popular critics at the time said it was going to tank.
Today's market allows buyers to decide for themselves whether a film is a hit or not.
I'm with you in that I've never given professional critics and reviewers of anything much credence. Again back in the day, a review was usually better in a magazine that had ads for the product. The more ads the better the review.

Support Our Troops!!!
Beast Mode 4

<><