Do you trust this website, /tv/?
>trusting internet critics
>2016
Reminder Max confirmed that most of them are shills.
>>64430972
>trusting a """"""review"""""" site run by SJWs
Not in the slightest
Not at all. That site's only worth comes from the fact that you can find out real quick which film critics aren't really critics at all and are actually just movie-goers.
A glib facsimile of 20th century movie review aggregators.
No. They are pretentious as fuck.
Imdb has much more accurate ratings
>there are people on this board who think consensus=rating
>>64430972
>trust
It's just an aggregation of reviews
>>64431068
>run by SJWs
Go complain about the ethics of journalism somewhere else
>>64431339
>Leftist leaning """"""reviews"""""" are considered journalism
Go back to your hugbox, faget
>>64431425
>film industry
>not leftist as fuck since the 1920s
You don't belong here.
After they gave Star wars 95%, no.
I don't trust any review site, really.
That being said: I HATE how people still give a shit about the Tomatometer when the Avg. Rating is right fucking below it.
>41%
Shit website.
>>64430972
More than IMDb, that's for sure.
>>64431533
Did you ever consider that it's you, the partially retarded neckbeard manchild who is wrong, and not the professional reviewers who can think and write eloquently? When critical praise is that unanimous, it's not even slightly a question whether or not the movie was great.
>Rotten tomatoes
>Paid shills
Pick 2
>>64431068
>he's a goober
>>64431781
Even worse if they're shilling for free.
>>64431494
>being an upboating faggot
>thinking you're opinion means shit
Neither do you
>>64431803
>he's a male feminist cuck
lol
I trust it when it agrees with me.
I only trust a man
>>64430997
God damn it I have no idea if I like or hate that hipster faggot.
>>64431874
>/pol/ thinks masculinity means literally crying and whining on the internet as a full time job
>they believe this so fervently that anyone who doesn't do this is a "male feminist cuck"
There is literally nothing more beta than a /pol/ shill. You are the whiniest, most deluded, impotent subhuman failures that human civilization has ever seen.
TFA pretty much confirmed this site is a corporate PR stunt.
Remember when the manchild neckbeards of /pol/ said Annie would be critically successful because it was an "SJW remake" but then it was panned and the neckbeard manchildren from /pol/ ignored that their entire shill agenda was disproved and went out to cry that the next critically well-received movie that triggered them was only well-received because of SJWs?
I trust RT's aggregation to an extent. If a movie is really, really low it's always terrible and if it's really, really high it's always great, without exception. Middling percentages are naturally less reliable.
>>64431961
>>/pol/ thinks masculinity means literally crying and whining on the internet as a full time job
That's exactly what you SJWs do. In fact your entire ideology is based off whining.
Right wingers actually have jobs.
You're projecting pretty hard right now.
>You are the whiniest, most deluded, impotent subhuman failures that human civilization has ever seen.
Top kek the projection intensifies.
These people are you. pic related
>>64432079
No. I don't remember that.
Why the fuck are you even here if you hate this place so much?
Go back to tumblr.
>>64432021
Who do you think you're fooling? If someone recognizes that people like you will never admit to being wrong about anything (despite literally always being wrong about everything), then the possibilities of what you'll do when critical consensus contradicts your neckbeard manchild agenda are very limited. Since admitting you're wrong is never an option, you're obviously going to attempt to invalidate the review consensus in some way.
The way you overweight lunatics type it almost sounds like you think people are surprised by your "*opinions," that they carry any weight.
>>64431961
>>64432195
You keep insisting on the weight and obesity in all your posts.
Judging from the tendency of you people in projecting your problem must be really serious.
You need diet and exercise man.
>>64431961
>I know you are but what am I!!!!
ayyy
>>64432104
>ur an ess jay double u!!!!
"Right wingers" are low IQ mouth breathers who are no better than the blogging feminazis that they whine about. Every single person on /pol/'s best contribution to human civilization would be fertilizing plants. It wouldn't be unreasonable for the actual definition of "homo sapien" to change such that the things inhabiting /pol/ would no longer be considered people. It's difficult to conceive of a whinier group of mentally retarded chimps, let alone actually find one. You make creationists look like astrophysicists.
>>64432139
Well it doesn't matter if you remember it, because Annie was a remake with black characters that got shit on critically. Seeing as how you're from /pol/ though, you're too stupid to even pretend to disguise your shill agenda. You're so worthless and so unintelligent that you take pride in the fact that you ignore all facts which disprove your shilling.
I tend to find the critic consensus more insightful than the percentage meter. I really only use that as "x% chance you will like this movie".
>>64432258
this guy probably has a 700mb 'hello reddit' folder, ironically spending a lot of time on reddit to find these images.
hello reddit
>>64432337
>low IQ
Then why do studies show conservatives are higher educated?
Inb4 you post that jpg showing republican states have lower IQ. That's where all the blacks are.
The rest of your post reeks of reddit and has no argument so I will respond by telling you to kill yourself and get raped plsthx :)
>>64431068
>goobleygate
I hear /v/ is nice this time of year.
>>64432337
>Well it doesn't matter if you remember it, because Annie was a remake with black characters that got shit on critically. Seeing as how you're from /pol/ though, you're too stupid to even pretend to disguise your shill agenda. You're so worthless and so unintelligent that you take pride in the fact that you ignore all facts which disprove your shilling.
lol holy fuck this angry post
>ur stoopid and I h8 u
lmao
>>64432104
>That's exactly what you SJWs do
So I take it you now understand why people are starting to catch on that /pol/kiddies are just right wing lunatic SJWs? Which groups of people throw a temper tantrum when something that triggers their narrow political agenda is positively reviewed? It would be dishonest to claim to know whether I'm referencing /pol/ or tumblr, and that's the point.
>>64432430
>Then why do studies show conservatives are higher educated?
Source?
>>64432433
>>64431803
>angry tumblr samefag desperately wanting us to agree with feminism.
kek I hope you raped
>>64430972
New movies with a lot of seeds in pirate are the ones worth pirating.
RT should host torrents otherwise it's not relevant.
>>64430972
I like it, and I think it's much more useful than a scale of 1-10.
Trying to decide arbitrarily whether a movie is a "8" or "9" just isn't useful or needed.
>>64432430
Fuck, it's really satisfying how frequently posts defending /pol/ are made by obvious 10-13 year olds. I'm laughing so hard right now. Look at this shit.
>>64432524
>mentioning "feminism" when I didn't even bring it up
lel, fuck off back to /v/ kiddo. The adults are talking.
>>64432489
lel nobody even talked about SJWs or /pol/ until you called some poster a gg supporter
SHOWING that you're a raging SJW cuck.
lol get out
>>64432616
>tells us to go back to to /v/
>whining that gamers are RACIST AND SEXIST on a television and film board
lmao get raped tumblr
>>64432672
He's right. This is quite a problem if you're racist and sexist because many films are about women or made by people from different cultures. And most auteur directors are pretty leftist.
It's a property of Warner Bros.
I have zero reason to trust them.
>>64432672
>be from /v/
>can't read
>post diarrhea nobody cares about anyways
>anyone with brain cells scratches their head over what the fuck you are trying to say as you string together random buzzwords into incoherent rants about shit nobody cares about
>repeat
The life of a /v/edditor
>>64430972
>TRUSTING LITERALLY SHILL.COM
YEAH NO, SORRY DISNEYSHILLS
TFA WON'T BEAT AVATAR'S 3 BILLION JUST FYI
GET MAD LMAO
>>64431068
>>64431803
>>64431874
>>64431961
>>64432104
>>64432258
>>64432524
>>64432480
>>64432433
>>64432430
>>64432337
>>64432333
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dbR2JZmlWo
>>64432766
>be from /v/ and tumblr and reddit
>post about gg even though nobody was even talking about it
>continue to shitpost angrily calling everyone else /pol/
I think we're done here.
It's time you went back to your hugbox, babby.
>>64432629
First two replies in the thread are
>muh shills
>muh SJWs
You're a parody of a special help classroom, /pol/. Every containment boarder should be euthanized.
>>64432862
kek, nobody talked about /v/ or gg at all until you got triggered that guy saying the site had a leftist bias.
If you hate this place so much and think it's so horribly sexist and racist, WHY the fuck are you still here?
You people need to be killed, seriously there's no way around this. You're contributing the the downfall of civilization.
>>64430972
Shilling shithole.
Its ratings are useful only for trolling and spamming.
>>64433018
People hate /pol/ because of how unintelligent they are and how much they lower the level of discourse in whichever place they infect. There's no one on 4chan who is bothered by sexism or racism.
>>64430972
>property of the movie studios
Literally zero objectivity.
>>64433133
>people hate /pol/
No, most of us don't mind them.
They're clearly not as annoying as tumblr.
>of how unintelligent they are
Wait? lol did you get triggered by some of their facts and charts?
Did the fact you were unable to refute them anger you so you just call them stupid? kek
>>64433240
>No, most of us don't mind them
>them
/pol/, you literally aren't smart enough to shill subtlety.
>>64433297
Haven't been on /pol/ in like 2 years.
Are you scared of /pol/ or something?
I can't believe /v/ is so afraid of the sjw boogeyman that they see it everywhere. Or maybe we're just becoming racist and sexist for real instead of to troll each other? I can't even tell anymore. GG always felt like trolling basement dwellers to me though.
>>64433328
Are you retarded or something? tumblr and /pol/ are the exact same shit. If you can understand why someone would hate tumblr then there's literally no steps to take to understand why someone would hate /pol/. They're the exact same whiny, beta, discussion-derailing fat wastes of oxygen.
>>64433436
That's because a 90% on RT =/= 9/10 on IMDB you moron.
>>64433436
The percentage on RT is the just the percentage of reviewers that give the movie a positive review. Kill yourself. This is the type of illiterate subhuman moron that not banning /pol/ shills brings.
>>64433459
>tumblr and /pol/ are the exact same shit.
Goodbye.
>>64433602
>that image
>/pol/ and SJWs aren't the same because you're an SJW actually!
Another stunning argument from the mind of a fat cheetoh eating hambeast that cries about SJWs and Jews literally all day every day, getting triggered at the drop of a hat.
/pol/ are SJWs and that's an objective fact. No amount of pathetic .jpg strawmanning can ever change that.
All I care about is the difference between audience and critics
- If the critics rating is WAY higher than audience's rating, it's probably SJW pandering shit critics like because they have to
- If audience rating is WAY higher than critics rating, it's a cult movie critics didn't get
- If audience and critics like it at the same rate above 90% it's an amazing movie.
>>64433786
>attributing more credibility to the audience than to the critics
Jesus, what's it like being part of the general population of double digit IQ tards? Hilarious.
>>64433786
Sorry, but you are completely wrong.
>If the critics rating is WAY higher than audience's rating, it's probably SJW pandering shit critics like because they have to
No. Films are not video games.
This is a perfect example.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/under_the_skin_2013/
>>64430972
The Warner bought the site.
At this point they are corporate shills.
>>64433987
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jauja/?search=jauja
Or this one.
>>64433990
>At this point they are corporate shills.
THEY ALWAYS WERE REALLY
CRITICS HAVE AN INTEREST TO GIVE POSITIVE REVIEWS, THEY GET ACCESS FOR DOING SO
CRITICS ARE JUST CHEERLEADERS FOR THE STUDIOS, PART OF THE STUDIO ADVERTISING BUYS LIKE TV AND RADIO ADS
SHILLING BIASED CUNTS, EXCEPT FOR BASED ARMOND OFC
HE HATED TFA FROM DAY 1
>>64433990
This is irrelevant. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't review movies itself.
>>64430972
no I dont take any reviews that contain numbers seriously. I look for reviews on youtube and listen to what the have to say
>>64434160
are you okay pal?
>>64433786
>it's probably SJW pandering shit critics like because they have to
Your boogeyman has nothing to do with arthouse cinema
>>64434308
SHILL DETECTED!
>>64434225
They pick who gets to make the reviews.
That's not irrelevant at all.
>>64434362
WB films from this year.
Point Break - 7%
In the Heart of the Sea - 43%
Our Brand is Crisis - 32%
Pan - 26%
>>64431903
>He fell for the meme.
Good goy.
>>64433748
see:
>>64433602
Nobody agrees with you, you fat landwhale. You're trying desperately hard to project your triggers onto other people.
>I'm not super sensitive and triggered, you are
lmao
>>64430997
>dressing up like Steve from Blue's Clues
How about this?
I use it just to keep track of my watchlist
>>64435462
I do too it has many functions even if you dont give a fuck about the ratings.
>>64431645
How good was this?
I see Polanski's name as director and was wondering how it compares to his Rosemary's Baby.
>tfw you know how much better you are than most people on this board by just not caring about things in general
internet activists (left or right wing) make me sick
>>64430972
Reddit: the Review Site
No.
>trusting review sites
The only decent site is Metacritic cause it actually shows if its good, meh, or shit.
>>64436999
>The only decent site is Metacritic
Sup metacritic CEO?
''Trust'' might be a bit too much. I do consider the audience scores and since it's percentages the number of people voting. Sample sizes is what I'm checking out most of the time.
>>64430972
I used to trust it a lot more. The last couple years it has become apparent to me that for big tentpole releases reviewers are either paid off or are too big of "fans" to give movies honest reviews. The recent phenomenon of soft-reboots especially has caught them off-guard; toss in great moments from other movies and garnish it up with just enough new stuff to be called a "sequel' rather than a "remake" and they'll eat it right up.
See:
All Marvel movies
Star Wars's 95%
Star Trek Into Darkness 87%
The Dark Knight Rises 87%
etc...
>>64430972
no
I read actual reviews from critics I like, works for me.
>>64431948
If he stopped hamfisting his half-baked scripts into production, only made independent short films, and dressed like a normal fucking human, I'd like him a lot.
