A third of Americans consult review aggregators such as Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic or IMDb before going to see a film at the cinema. I also have this reflex when Son invites me to go see a Hollywood blockbuster recently released or on a digital platform. I like to know if the tomato he offers me is considered fresh or rotten by the critics.
I’m a typical critic myself. Most of the time, without having read, heard or consulted them in advance, I agree with most of my colleagues. This must be due to a more or less consensual idea of what constitutes a “great film” for critics at a given time, with its common references.
I don’t agree with all the reviews, taken individually, but my tastes do not differ greatly from those expressed by a majority of reviews, viewed as a whole. This is why I tended to trust – notice the use of the imperfect tense – the ratings of the aggregators’ reviews. Not to be confused with audience ratings, which are sometimes manipulated by misogynistic or racist trolls intent on torpedoing a superhero or black mermaid film.
There has always been a gap between critics and the general public in their appreciation of films. But it seems that they have never gotten along so poorly.
Bloomberg compared critics’ and audiences’ ratings on major aggregators last year. On average, since the turn of the millennium, the difference between the ratings given to the ten biggest blockbusters of the year has been five points. In 2022, it was almost 20 points.
Uncharted, a turnip starring Tom Holland and Mark Wahlberg that I saw at the invitation of Son, received an average rating of 43% on aggregators from critics, while the audience rating was 77% . If only I had checked Rotten Tomatoes before buying my ticket…
“Rotten Tomatoes?” ! Let’s see, dad! Don’t you know it’s nonsense? », Said Fiston to me at the start of the week, in an amused, reproachful tone. I didn’t know about it, no.
For several years, almost systematically, when I am invited to the press screening of an American film, I am asked if my review will be counted by Rotten Tomatoes (the answer is no). This shows how much this tomato rating matters to the studios and the public relations people they employ. It can absolutely make or break the career of a film.
“The Tomatometer is perhaps the most important indicator in show business, even though it is erratic, reductive and can easily be hacked,” wrote recently New York Magazinecasting doubt on the validity of the famous aggregator’s critical ratings.
Borrowing from the famous thumbs up or down formula of the late critic duo Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, Rotten Tomatoes has for 25 years been counting the number of reviews favorable or unfavorable to a film (or a series or a TV show).
When a film proudly displays that it is “certified fresh” at 85%, this is not the average rating it received, but rather the percentage of reviews that are (more or less) favorable to it . That is to say that 85% of the reviews recorded may have judged the film “correct, nothing more”. Whereas a film that has an overall rating of 70% is perhaps more daring, having won over a majority of critics who cry genius while having repelled a minority.
“Each review has the same weight, whether it is published in a major newspaper or in a Substack newsletter that has a dozen subscribers,” recalls the New York Magazine. However, his investigation tells us, critics from obscure media or confidential podcast shows trade their support for certain films or agree to publish their unfavorable reviews away from the gaze of Rotten Tomatoes (in newsletters, for example) at the request for public relations specialists. Which, inevitably, changes the situation… and the famous score of the film on the platform.
These critics are no more ethical than the former members of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the controversial organization that awards the Golden Globes awards.
They are only a handful, it seems, but numerous enough to damage the credibility of a profession whose reputation is already damaged.
Also, some studios are rushing to show their film to a hand-picked and already won over audience – superhero movie buffs who run specialized blogs, for example – in the hope of quickly increasing its rating on Rotten. Tomatoes before it hits the stage. Just another way to encourage ticket sales and influence audiences to mistake an average film for a potential masterpiece.
Rotten Tomatoes refuses to participate in any way in these methods of deception. The fact remains that the company agrees to publish the freshness rating of a film after having identified only five reviews, it does not matter which ones. From the Venerable Richard Brody of New Yorker like Ricky Brodeur (fictitious name), paid $50 per review by a publicist to say good things about a film, live from his basement in Poughkeepsie. Which is not without consequences on the distribution of a film or on its festival career.
According to New York Magazine, the 1,000 new reviewers that Rotten Tomatoes has added to its 2,500 accredited members over the past five years, with the intention of diversifying the voices it amplifies (the vast majority of reviews it lists come from white men), seem to offer a more accommodating picture towards Hollywood films, to the detriment of so-called more demanding films. The ratings given to films have also increased from an average of around 50% in 2016 to 60% in 2021. If the trend continues, within 20 years, no film will be considered rotten.
Son is right. The numbers are misleading. Especially when arranged with the views guy. To find out the real opinions of honest, honest and credible critics, the best thing is to read their articles.