Welcome Back
posted by LAGuy @ 12:35 AM
Pajama Guy
"You couldn’t have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of checks and balances [at ‘60 Minutes’] and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing.”
-Jonathan Klein, former CBS Executive
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Off Track
- Does It Work In Theory?
- Making Waves
- Who Will Win? Who Cares?
- Thumb On The Scale Law
- We've Got A Situation
- Always Something There To Remind Me
- House Closing
- Without so much as a tip of the cap to Bill Safire
- Slamming Doors
4 Comments:
Let's take a closer look.
At first glance, Rotten Tomatoes reports a "Fresh" rating of 80%. Not bad...
...and also not exactly true.
"Top Critics" are at 63%. But even though the cutoff for "Fresh" is 60%, "Indy" still qualifies...
...or does it?
Let's look at how many of the "Fresh" reviews by "Top Critics" start out:
"The fourth chapter of the Indiana Jones chronicles feels repetitive and a little gassed..."
"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is probably the worst of the Indiana Jones movies..."
"Indy IV may not entirely be the grand return that everyone had hoped for..."
"Even in its inflated and creaky fourth incarnation..."
And these are the POSITIVE reviews, folks.
"Raiders" is one of my Top 10 favorite movies of all time.
"The Last Crusade" was awful.
"Temple of Doom" was GODawful.
Since they couldn't get a sequel right when the material was "fresh", why did anyone think they would nail it 20 years later?
I'll skip this "Indy". I learned my lesson with "The Matrix" and "Pirates of the Caribbean" sequels...
...and too many "rotten tomatoes" can literally make you sick.
Todd
Thanks for the analysis. The truth is, Rotten Tomatoes has always been quite forgiving in what it judges to be a positive review.
The more discerning metacritic also gives it a thumbs up score of 67, and they only use name reviewers. Glancing over them, the general idea I get is a fun film with some good set pieces that doesn't hold together too well. And since my taste is so poor that I liked the other two sequels, that's good enough for me.
Why do accede power to the status quo name reviewers? Perhaps they are interesting as an advertising phenomena and can influence the gross but as to judgments on quality? These guys sit in dark rooms all day.
I enjoy reading critics as much as the next- similar to reading pundits and columnists on other issues- but I have never found a correlation even with my favorite reviewers with what they like and what I like.
It's not the name reviewers are so good. It's the others are so bad. Some may be good, but many are unreliable fanboys who have enthusiasms (and hatreds) that make their opinions extremely questionable.
Post a Comment
<< Home