How do you know a movie is good before watching?

[Utisz]

Saw this infographic on the interwebs:



Do y'all agree more with the critics or the popular score?

(See poll.)

[Utisz]

I don't use Rotten Tomatoes myself, but often use both IMDb (popular vote) and Metacritic (scores from critics) to scope out a movie.

If the scores for both are good (>8.0 and >80), it's bound to be a good movie (e.g., The Father: 8.3 on IMDb, 88 on Metacritic).

If the score for IMDb is good (>8.0) but Metacritic is poor (<70), it tends to be a popcorn movie, or something perceived as "not PC", so depends on mood (e.g., Joker: 8.4 on IMDb, 59 on Metacritic).

If the score for Metacritic is good (>80) but IMDb score is poor (<7.0), it tends to be some sort of art-house movie, a circle-jerk movie (a movie relating to movies), a movie that was shown this one time on a screen in Bucharest, or a movie that somehow connects with some sort of liberal theme, so depends on mood (e.g., Da 5 Bloods: 6.5 on IMDb, 84 on Metacritic).


I'd say overall (not always) I would prefer movies with good IMDb scores and poor Metacritic scores rather than the other way around. (For example, I did not like Da 5 Bloods at all, but thought Joker was good.)

IMDb has its own pitfalls though, like superhero movies are way overrated in general (though for me they are watchable), and certain "blockbuster" movies fall into the same trap. Also movies from certain countries (India and Turkey mainly) that wouldn't be my cup of tea tend to sometimes get very high IMDb ratings.

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I tend to go more with the critic ratings, although not always. Sometimes I place importance on different things than the critics will. If the movie is interesting visually, I'll probably rate it higher than critics might even if the plot is either rote or convoluted or the characters uninteresting (like the original Tron..I don't care for the sequel).

(I think the attitude towards the Star Wars films above sums up the way I feel pretty well. I agree with TLJ critic ratings, by the way. It's a shame there was so much whining about it that they retconned the movie because people couldn't handle things like the idea that everyone in the galaxy wasn't related to each other. Also, ironically, Luke came out looking way worse in the sequel, which showed that not only did they miss the point of the last movie, but the entire OT, as well. Episode IX didn't happen in my headcanon; I dislike the second half of that movie so much. It was bad enough that I wouldn't mind retconning the entire ST even though I found the first film decent and the second film pretty good. And yes, Rian Johnson referenced things like Kurosawa which were part of the DNA of the original series rather than just referencing vapid shit like Luke's X-wing... the guy understood what the heart of the series was about way more than people gave him credit for.

Also, if we'd had an awesome space battle in IX I might have been able to forgive the movie because it would have given me something cool to look at. But it was just a massive cocktease so they could rip off a comic book from the 90s. Meh.

But, yeah, given that there are a lot of people who think the rushed pandering mess that was Rise of Skywalker was a better movie than its predecessor illustrates why I value critic scores more than audience scores.)

I think Joker made a certain kind of "progressive" really uncomfortable because they couldn't handle the idea that some people that the concept of "privileged" and "unprivileged" might also be a thing that exists in the realm of class. They expected to be able the write the movie as one thing, and when it turned out to be something else, they couldn't deal with it.

Some reviews have more to do with the politics of the current moment than anything regarding the movie itself, and that's pretty annoying. Like for instance, the Richard Jewel movie (which I have yet to see)... people had problems with it because they painted the FBI as bad and showed this white guy as being persecuted by them (which he was). This was supposed to be some kind of statement about the Trump administration because the Mueller investigation was going on at the time, so it was evidently not ok for the movie to do that even though the FBI really did railroad this guy. (There's also the fact FBI has done lots of other stuff that is not "progressive", but it's something some folks either didn't know about or wanted to sweep under the rug at that particular point.)

Also, the Master was a good movie. Captain Marvel was fine for it was and definitely a better film than Batman Vs. Superman. I haven't seen any of the others in the first list.

[Madrigal]

I voted critics (rotten tomatoes, specifically), but honestly, I just decide on the plot description or word of mouth. And I like to think that I know from the first take whether the movie is going to be good. :p I remember when I'd watch movies with my crazy ex I met in film school, and the first take was really good, even if it was just the take of an empty sidewalk in some weirdass country, we'd just look at each other like but not say anything, lol.

[Ferrus]

I tend only to watch films more than 10 or 20 years after they are released and their reputation stably attested.

[last_caress]

I've only really used imdb for movies. I find it correlates well enough to be useful. I probably side more with audiences than critics.

[Madrigal]

I think Joker made a certain kind of "progressive" really uncomfortable because they couldn't handle the idea that some people that the concept of "privileged" and "unprivileged" might also be a thing that exists in the realm of class. They expected to be able the write the movie as one thing, and when it turned out to be something else, they couldn't deal with it.

The Joker had a class message that went so far beyond what I think anyone in charge of the Batman franchise intended, in fact I think it single-handedly put a traditionally right-wing franchise on its head, which is fucking awesome, and that's not even the best part - it was cinematographically beautiful. I clearly remember the frustration of having to read reductionist, unimaginative, and frankly idiotic reviews by the left and center-left.

It's also a pity that the culture wars have gotten so tribalistic and codified that critics will often positivey rate a movie solely due to its politics. So you kind of know that even if a movie sort of sucks, critics will feel they need to praise it. Da 5 Bloods was shit. I feel bad saying that but it should never have gotten a thumbs up from critics. I'm sure there are other examples. I might see a movie getting rave reviews and then feel suspicious if it features something overtly feministic/girl powerish, for example.

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The Joker had a class message that went so far beyond what I think anyone in charge of the Batman franchise intended, in fact I think it single-handedly put a traditionally right-wing franchise on its head, which is fucking awesome, and that's not even the best part - it was cinematographically beautiful. I clearly remember the frustration of having to read reductionist, unimaginative, and frankly idiotic reviews by the left and center-left.

It's interesting to me that he went on his crime spree only after his social worker visits were cancelled because of budget cuts, denying him the care he needed, and apparently the main takeaway some people got from that movie was that it was praising white male entitlement, even though a lot of his victims were white males. As though cuts in social services and the like (which weren't adequate to begin with in the movie) were irrelevant details not worth paying attention to. Are they not aware of the fact that in the real world, a lot of people of color suffer because of cuts to services like the one depicted in the movie? (I would imagine that they aren't and that they live in some kind of ideologically constrained bubble generated by a narrow range of experiences.)

Thomas Wayne was obviously meant to be a sort of Donald Trump/Michael Bloomberg stand-in, which I guess flew by a lot of reviewer's heads or something? Meanwhile there was a lot of bad takes comparing Richard Jewell to Donald Trump and creating all this subtext to the movie, when the only thing those two figures really had in common was that they were white males. I guess it's funny how much hay got made about some imagined subtext to that movie, while how much of the actual text of Joker was ignored just to fit an ideological narrative. It almost seems like these reviewers don't actually have much of a problem with the Donald Trump/Michael Bloombergs of the world (as long as they have the proper decorum, the lack of which was Trump's major sin), and have much more of an issue with the Richard Jewell/Arthur Flecks (even pre-spree) of the world.

[Senseye]

I can usually use my own judgement (I know what type of movies I generally like) but I still vet my first impression with reviews.

As others have mentioned, critics over rate art house flicks or 'progressive' movies - which I generally don't like anyways, so I take their opinions with a grain of salt. OTOH, if critics give an above average rating to an action movie it probably means it's good.

Audience ratings are somewhat useful too, but ratings can get skewed high for kids movies or teenage boy action flicks (e.g. those godawful Transformers movies), so those factors have to be taken into account as well. But if audiences really hate a movie it's generally a good sign it's junk.

But if I *think* I'm going to like a particular movies, and the critics and the audience reviews don't trash it (mediocre reviews are still OK in this case) I'm generally confident I won't hate the movie, although disappointments are still possible.

[Buttrock as zen]

I read the reviews at rotten tomatoes, decide if I think it's gonna be fun. I think Lanthimos and Greenaway are fun tho.