Come anticipate "The Dark Knight Rises" with *BATSPOILERS*

That screencap reminds me how awful the CGI looks in that football scene. I mean, the efx have been generally pretty good in this franchise so far, which makes that clip in the trailers stand out even more.

how could you be that upset about a review of a movie you haven't seen? The trailers don't look that good.

Doesn't look anything like the last cave-in I witnessed.

It just looks like a super obvious greenscree and the players don't blend in at all with what's going on in the background.

I don't know when various cities got it for critics. NYC already had it, I think?

GK: http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie-critic-reviews/the-dark-knight-rises/

this new obsession with rotten tomatoes scores is so fucking weird

I tune out as soon as anyone tells me a) Rotten Tomato scores or b)b) IMDB scores.

YAY THIS MOVIE WINS THE INTERNET. But it sucks. So...

For once a melodrama with pulp origins convinces viewers that it can be the modern equivalent to Greek myths

"for once"

I really don't understand the people who obsess over rotten tomatoes or think that getting a high or perfect score matters in any significant way.

It's a 84% now. I bet Nolan wishes he hadn't bothered

this new obsession with rotten tomatoes scores is so fucking weird

Think of it like the weekly poll updates on the presidential superhero contest, only slightly less trivial.

movies that get in the 95% range are generally boring and average

im not sure if it's "new" or just reaching new depths of triviality: it's like an immunitary (sp?) response to the threat of disappointment. a whole identity wrapped up in this stuff means that these corporate/cultural products have to be the "real thing." it's fascinating though (in its stupidity).

And here come the death threats for the bad reviews.

Does "I hope you die" really constitute a death threat?

No, but hyperbole must be fought with hyperbole. It's the law.

those Michael Haneke fans are the ones really out for blood

a "good review" is pretty relative, I'd imagine some critics see their review blurbed on rotten tomatoes and realize that their words were misconstrued and a positive review was viewed as negative or vice versa.

puzzling: editors who classify 2.5/4 as "rotten." Math?

Like a superhero inadvertantly attracting/creating supervillains, rottentomatoes inadvertently attract/creates idiots.

It's the review aggragator site we deserve, but not the...ah fuck it.

There's always Metacritic, which divines numerals from reviews that don't use any rating scale whatsoever.

I was going to mention that site, but I did not dare speak its name. I wonder if they have a robot or wage slave that translates your words into a numeral, Morbs. Either way, what a job.

I don't think I've used RT more than once. Why does it get more "play" than Metacritic, which is more reliable and easier to navigate?

it got there first i guess

Metacritic lacks a cutesy name and the magic of the Tomatometer.

Agrees with the Tomatometer 71% of the time.

Don't argue with the Tomatometer!

Tomatometer/Retemotamot

Agrees with the Tomatometer 83% of the time.

I regard this stat with the greatest of shame.

i could never be a critic. i have no idea what i just saw most of the time, let alone if i liked it.

not a disqualifier by any means.

all my reviews have a star rating, so it's easy for them. not so much for me.

I don't think I've used RT more than once. Why does it get more "play" than Metacritic, which is more reliable and easier to navigate?

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, July 17, 2012 7:37 AM (28 minutes ago)

i don't get the "reliable" thing. neither is a useful guide to movie quality. they're guides to what people are saying about movie quality. i think they're about equally reliable in that sense, though neither is perfect. i prefer rottentomatoes because i like the "top critics" filter, which allows me to easily focus on the responses of voices i'm familiar with.

oh, I'm not sure anyone mentioned that the RT editor has suspended user comments and they're moving to a non-anonymous system.

rip anonymous commenting

i prefer rottentomatoes because i like the "top critics" filter, which allows me to easily focus on the responses of voices i'm familiar with

yeah but Metacritic does this automatically.

neither is a useful guide to movie quality

is that so

Coping with a Dark Knight Rises negative review

i dunno how anyone can having anything but a 'hope for the best, prepare for the worst' attitude towards sequels, historically speaking it's just a crapshoot. i wanna see this and want to enjoy it, but who knows really.

There's always Metacritic, which divines numerals from reviews that don't use any rating scale whatsoever.

Often with clear bias. Seen lots of mostly positive reviews get scored in the 40 percent range.

it's pretty rare i want to get a sense of consensus, but i prefer the green-to-red scroll-down formatting of metacritic, despite the lunacy of their imposed rating style, to the relative swamp of rotten tomatoes

Viocodin is a helluva drug.

Just incredible the shit that dribbles out of that gaping anal cavity.

you're looking for the tmi thread I think

lol

thank u rush <3

i use metacritic all the time but not to figure out movie quality just to see a list of links to reviews

i mean i don't read reviews to figure out movie quality either

i realize the same could be accomplished by googling "[movie name] review" but leave me alone

the first time i appeared on metacritic btw i screencapped it and posted it on my livejournal

Posting screencaps of your metacritic appearances on your livejournal is the new 'dancing about architecture' is the name of my dog, officer.

(but YOU don't understand /unclesam)

Chase Mitchell ‏@ChaseMit

.@rushlimbaugh You should read up on Bane. He's an oversized drug-addict with anger issues who's been popular since the 90s. You'd love him.

Reply
Retweet
Favorite