What is wrong with this site?

What is wrong with this site?

Critics are easily influenced by companies or if something is PC and audiences rate based on if it lives up to their expectations

Critics have no chill.

Critics aren't #LITTY

It highlights tomatometer instead of average rating, which is much more reliable.

>Jumanji 77/90

... why are either one of the Spider-Man movies in that pic?

People like hipster spider man better than the Toby McGuire one? What the actual fuck

OUT OF TOUCH critics just can't COPE with the fact that AUDIENCES LOVE the RAUNCHIEST little comedy this winter!

People rated movies more accurately back then and didn't call everything a 10/10 or 0/10

Because Spider-Twink and His Diverse Friends has a higher score than Raimi.

Anything before 2000 is inaccurate because there are so few legitimate online reviews.

The rating system Modern critics work off is

This movie might bring comfort to white men 0/10

This movie does not shit on white men enough 5/10

This movie really shits on white men 11/10

The audience score uses a different system.

ROMP
O
M
P

>Jumanji remake higher than original Jumanji
How?

>Hook at 29
WTF

How does the score work? Some of the critic scores are like 2/5, but it still counts as certified fresh.

>Spiderman Audience Score 67%
>Homecoming Audience Score 88%
Times when the audience was completely and utterly wrong?

The audiences were probably shocked by Raimi's handling of the Uncle Ben scene, which as I recall involved a weird 10 minute long tangent where he ranted about how the USA "fought on the wrong side" in WW2.

I see what you mean. The general public often has trouble appreciating art.

...

You forgot Ghostbusters 2016.

>Hook 29%

WHAT THE FUCK? FUCK YOU, YOU CAN'T FLY YOU CAN'T CROW YOU CAN'T EVEN FIGHT!

RU-FI-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

fpbp

Honestly don't even look at ratings for films that were made before RT was founded

critics see the world through different eyes. they don't just enjoy and let the work of art interact with their personality and their individual history but only look at the craftmanship and for things that could have been done better. critics are a useless bunch of losers. the world would be better off if there weren't any critics at all. people would just watch and listen to anything that hooked them and they could like or hate it without having to compare their taste to someone who claims to have taste professionally. judging something without being able to produce at all is the lowest form of existence.

It's really easy to rig user reviews, for good or for bad. Basically the site has no credibility.

Critics are pretentious.

Home Alone 2 is fucking great

Original Jumanji is pretty bad honestly, only good part is Robin Williams

Hook isn't that good, but not 29%

Crystal Skull isn't as bad as eveyryone says

Homecoming is better than Spider-Man. Spider-Man 2 is better than Homecoming though.

Home Alone 2 and Hook are both movies I loved as a kid, but I can definitely see why critics hated both back in the day.
Home Alone 2, minus Tim Curry, is a shallow retread of the original. Hook came out in a time when big movies were starting to look a lot better and more realistic. Hook, by constrast, feels very much like an older movie, and not in a way that appealed to critics of the time.

Of course, I could just be pulling that all out of my ass.

RT is an aggregate site that weighs every critics opinion the same, whether hack or glorified blogger basement dweller. the audience rating is easily compromised and doesn't give a true rating in any case, only that of people who visit the site. the best thing you can do is NOT VISIT THE SITE and ignore it.

>Jumanaji is the fucking Citizen Kane of the 21st century

pottery

i've always heard how og Jumanji wasn't all that and people here always sperg out with the shitty cgi
it wasn't until the remake/sequel/reimagination got announced that everyone started treating it like a sacred cow