zlacker

>>tortil+(OP)
Rotten tomatoes is actually very useful if you know the magic formula:

* If tomatometer & audience score are within 5% of each other, you can trust the ratings to give you a decent indiciation of movie quality.

* If tomatometer is more than 15%+ higher than audience score, it means it's an artsy fartsy movie that critics like and movies don't.

* If audience score is 15%+ higher than tomatometer, it's a fun movie even if it's not oscar worthy. (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/old_school is a perfect example)

>>ernest+d93
I don't necessarily disagree with this as a rule of thumb, but I thought it would be fun to come up with a few counter-examples. Most of these I would consider "artsy-fartsy" or "artsy-fartsy lite" movies that are popular with audiences but less so with critics.

Lost Highway (1997) - 68% Tomatometer - 87% Audience Score

Fight Club (1999) - 79% Tomatometer - 96% Audience Score

American Psycho (2000) - 68% Tomatometer - 85% Audience Score

Requiem for a Dream (2000) - 78% Tomatometer - 93% Audience Score

Dancer in the Dark (2000) - 69% Tomatometer - 91% Audience Score

Oldboy (2003) - 82% Tomatometer - 94% Audience Score

The Prestige (2006) - 77% Tomatometer - 92% Audience Score

Joker (2019) - 69% Tomatometer - 88% Audience Score

>>faster+tz3
I find in the last decade or so, movies with a big disparity between Audience/Critics are often that way because of culture war silliness unrelated to the content of the actual film.

See -

Sound of Freedom (2023) - 60% Tomoatometer - 99% Audience Score