Which movie review site is better, Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB?
IMDB
>>63751788
Both are Cancer, but r/t and it's users are way more pretentious
I prefer metacritic.
IMDB is literally more cancerous than /b/. God forbid you use that site for anything other than knowing who was in what movie.
>>63751930
How are the threads there?
Metacritic
It's the only major site that entirely separates user reviews from critic reviews.
IMDB once you adjust for the fanboy factor
>>63751957
Terrible. You can't have discussions because everyone is an angry faggot, but you also can't shitpost because people think you're serious.It's like the worst parts of reddit and 4chan had a disgusting cancer baby.
Google shows the ratings of IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic
Youtube if I want to see the trailer
IMDB if I want more details
National Review
>>63751788
RT collects written opinions.
IMDb collects votes of kids.
which one
do you
think
is
better
you
gay
retard
?
>>63752107
So...IMDB is your answer. No need to write all that shit you retarded faggot. Just get to the point.
>>63752170
lol
>>63752170
The ratings seperate by age and gender once you click on them, and let's be honest not many people read the RT reviews
>>63752040
Welcome to the Internet faggot. Now go back to reddit.
>>63752213
I lol'd hard at this for some reason
>>63751788
IMDB
RT is full of shills.
>>63751788
RT. At least film critics know something about films.
>>63752429
hahaha!
haha!
RT is full of ignorant swines and tumblrinas (even the so-called "top critics" can be shit) and imdb loves recent plebshit such as Jurassic World or Southpaw. However, many old lesser-known movies have little to no reviews on RT, while you can find a decent number of voters on imdb for those films.
Forget the imdb top 250 and famous shit directors having inflated ratings (Nolan, Tarantino, Fincher, Kubrick) and imdb becomes decent, at least more than RT.
http://rogersmovienation.com/
>>63752540
There is nothing decent about imdb.
