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

>>joenot+Ee5
It's this. This is why TLJ got the high critics score. It was politically correct (all the men are wrong, all the women are correct and proper, none of the women characters need a man, all of the men need a woman to tell them what to do, and the male hero from the past is now a bozo that can only redeem himself by dying and getting out of the way).