So, which one is closest to being somewhat accurate?

...

...

Metacritic.

A mediocre film can have a 90% rating on Rotten Tomatoes because people "Sort of liked it"

Imdb is just fanboys.

Metacritic is definitely the best way to gauge a film's quality, and you can also easily see any major discrepancies in user and critic scoring.

Top Critics on RT

imdb as long as nolantino are not involved in the movie

You know there's Average Ratings on Rotten tomatoes too, right?

I'm sure that's what brain dead fa/tv/irgins looks at when they make RT threads.

Besides, Metacritic has a critic filter, as only sources that have written credible reviews for several years are chosen to contribute to scores. RT allows several hundred sources, including YouTube critics, that widely inflate and deflate movies of certain types.

Imdb

neither
amazon has the most kino reviews

Metacritic, though using any of aggregate or average rating system is inherently flawed because people are dumb

Scour the internet for critics who have tastes similar to your own and just listen to them

Amazon has the most biased reviews because the majority of people reviewing them have already paid money for the product, and it's unlikely they would have bought it if they didn't already have a positive opinion of it

>scour the internet for people that agree with you and listen to them
Sounds about right for Sup Forums

>subjective media
>consensus websites

I think he was baiting buddy

IMDB


if it's a 6 or higher, it might be worth watching

anything lower, not including parody and stupid comedies, is not worth watching ever

RT and Metacritic are essentially the same, when looked at average rating
IMDb is fine for non-mainstream films.

ROTTEN TOMATOES unless you're a Sup Forumsedditor
*** for patricians
LETTERBOXD for plebs that believe they're above imdb

very simple stuff

Metacritics obviously

Pretty much this

>scour the internet for people that agree with you and listen to them
when it comes to taste in movies, you're damn right this is the best option

You think I want to read reviews of classic films from someone who thinks The Dark Knight is the greatest movie ever made? Would I want to read reviews of foreign films from someone who hates subtitles? Of course not

Critics with similar interests are the critics you should be listening to, after all the whole point is deciding if you should watch it or not

I don't base movies on review websites. I think if something looks interesting you should see it with an open mind regardless of what people online say. There is a loophole to where if you and a reviewers mentality line up then I guess it would be ok to see what movies they recommend. All in all I think websites like these promote the drone mind mentality. It is nice to watch a movie and see what others have thought about it though, so there's that. This is all opinion based though so I could be full of shit

metacritic

What if there are many things that look interesting, and you don't have the time/urge to watch them all? How do you decide which ones to watch?

not him, but I download a slew of movies, then choose the one that seems like I'd be most in the mood for at that particular time. I can't decide, I pick at random.

Yeah that's a factor that bypasses my thoughts. I do agree with you. I was just voicing my opinion on the medium that is Sup Forums. So people with a lot of time on there hands. But yes the average person doesn't have the luxury to the extent that the Sup Forums crowd has.

I got a lot time, mind you. I just find movies too long(yeeey adhd ecks dee) , and find it hard to watch them. So if I'm gonna watch one, it should really be one that I'm gonna have fun watching. My will to watch movies diminish every time I get bored/annoyed watching a movie.

that's why I always drink booze while I watch movies, makes me relax and sit still and not get distracted.

Ok that's fine if you base what media you consume by reviewers you trust. That's completely fine. Personally I like to give everything that even has a hint of being interesting a chance because I'm that type of person to do so. For me even if I happen upon a disappointing movie, it just reinforces what I believe to be good qualities of a movie.

But rotten tomatoes includes loads of sites that are essentially blogs and reviews written by fanboys and people that have no idea how to actually write film criticism. Metacritic isn't perfect, but is generally limited to well known publications that have a history of professional criticism.

Also, rotten tomatoes does a poor job converting scores to contribute to its rating. A lot of respectable reviewers don't provide a score, and rotten tomatoes simply doesn't include it in the average. Metacritic will convert every review, scored or not, to its scale

In general, metacritic is simply much more controlled and a better and more accurate representation of the critical consensus

Anyone who was a legit critic would have a vast appreciation for classics and not be bothered by subtitles in the slightest