|
I don't personally trust rottentomatoes - it's like they assign a pass or a fail to each critic's review. Clearly nothing is that black and white.
I find that metacritic.com is a much better resource for a movie's full potential. Each critic's review is assigned a number that reflects how good they thought the movie was. So when a critic doesn't think a movie is all that great but it's better than, say, The Love Guru, it can get a 52%. But when a movie is super-brilliant, it can get a 98%, reflecting that a critic thought it was wonderful but, say, had a small problem with the ending. If you average all of those scores, you get a much better idea of how good the movie may be. If you average the rotten tomato ratings, you're just averaging whether the critics thought it was good or bad - no matter if good is 52% and bad is 48%.
For instance, a movie like Up might have a 98% on metacritic (based on the average of the critics' reviews) and it might have a 98% on rottentomatoes (based on how many of the critics gave it a fresh tomato instead of a rotten tomato.) But then a movie like The Brothers Bloom might have a 49% on average on metacritic, but they'd have a 61% on rotten tomatoes because many more critics felt moderately positive about the film, despite having problems with it. rottentomatoes is telling you it's fresh, when the majority of the critics think it's not actually a good film.
But, no, I don't expect Land of the Lost to be very good, no matter how much I love Anna Friel.
|