Neither.
Neither but most reviewers are cucks so imdb
Well one thing is for sure, never trust /tv/.
>>67284993
this
>>67284928
RT, and only top critics.
>>67284928
This isn't something scientific, you fucking waste of a fixed area in quantum reality.
It's all art or film or movies or whatever the fuck you call it.
Make your own god damned opinions about a movie based upon it's plotline and then watch it.
Or don't.
>>67286300
Well, you've fallen for the bait. I guess I should point at laugh at you now.
Disregard aggregate scores, watch whatever looks interesting to you.
>>67286335
Literary (and by extension film) criticism is fairly objective desu
>>67284928
Which has the better top ten?
>>67286350
he's right tho
>>67286460
IMDb
>>67284928
Armond White and Walter Chaw
>>67286512
>>67286541
That's not the real top 10 senpai
The real one has Bane and Fight Club
Also just use Letterboxd.com
>>67284928
RT aint too shabby but it aint 100%. It told me Gone Baby Gone was great, it wasn't
>>67286638
DUDE TRANSGENDER LMAO
shit >>>> RT > IMDb >> Letterboxd
>>67286541
>Shawshank had 0 fucking Oscars
further proof Oscars are meaningless garbage.
>>67286638
Letterboxd doesn't offer anything that those do
I use IMDb to keep track of my ratings for movies. The user ratings for movies aren't even that bad
>>67287360
This
i like it because its simple and it looks organized
Neither.
RLM seems to be on the ball with what's good and what isn't so i just listen to them.
>>67284928
Disregard any prior post in this thread. Most of them are from uneducated fucks like this >>67288165 and >>67287471 that only respond to aesthetics, personality, and what "seems" right. Trust the professionals that have many more years and more knowledge than you, but also have your own individual voice. So use RT and disregard anything else.
I mean who the fuck are you going to trust?
This
http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/
or
this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x1YuvUQFJ0
>>67288476
RLM are literally Nostalgia Critic pointing out plotholes.
>>67284928
You're a fool for trusting either
RT: biased bloggers
imdb: normies that abuse 1 and 10s just to troll
>>67286460
the fucking cabinet of dr caligari
like god damn, people actually like that piece of shit?
I know it was the first "horror" movie but that doesn't change the fact it's fucking awful
Does Disney buy rotten tomato reviews cause a lot of their movies have gotten undeserved high scores
>>67284928
IMDB.
RT has burned me before, 100% my ass.
>>67288381
- sent from my MPAA-funded cuckshed
>>67291108
That means 100% of the critics that reviewed it, gave it a "positive" review
It doesn't mean it has a 100/100 rating
>>67284928
Just hit up Lettrboxd or whatever it is. Far more insightful and honest. Plus, no IMDB babbies would ever dare attempt to string a coherent sentence over there.
>>67291149
It means 100% of critics thought it was good, it was not good. In fact, it was awful apart from a few redeeming elements.
rt for ratings and imdb for watchlists
>>67291108
It only has 5 reviews and the average rating is a 6.6/10. This fucking site is really lowering my opinion of humanity. It's unreal how fucking stupid you /pol/ shills are and the way you speak your stupidity with such confidence is unforgivable. Go die.
The fact that The Dark Knight and Big Guy Rises and most of Nolan's films are rated so high on IMDB is disgusting and should speak for itself.
>>67284928
Neither. They're both made out of consensus and that's just smoke.
At the most you should trust two or three critics that have a taste like yours
>>67291249
Don't fucking post an aggregate if you only have 5 reviews.
I'm not going to do intensive research on an RT score, and neither are you. If I see it listed as 100% on VOD or on the sidebar of google, I'm going to take that as a seal of quality.
The basis of your argument is that every RT score requires user research. Also, back to your cuckshed.
>>67284928
metacritic
>>67288884
and who are you again?
because I doubt you're entitled to saying you're better than someone like David Bordwell or Matt Atchity.
Rotten Tomatoes is nearly always spot-on. Far more than whatever random person on imdb says.
>>67292136
meant for >>67291142
>>67284928
Most IMDB voters are men in their teens and twenties. Most /tv/ users are men in their teens and twenties.
