[untog]

IMO IMDB has a big problem with recency. #3 in their top movies list is The Dark Knight, which is frankly absurd (it's a great movie, but #3 of all time? Come on)

> Or voting some awful art house movie a 10/10 to signal that they, too, understood the high brow nuances that the groundlings could not.

I think this just speaks to a divide in movie reviews. Those critics are reviewing the movies as art, whereas many user reviews are reviewing movies as a consumer product. Neither approach is incorrect, but they have very different outcomes.

[selflesssieve]

RT has Black Panther as their #1 movie of all time. The fact is, people have learned to inherently train themselves to use certain review websites. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/

My current rules - Anything over an 8 on imbd is a must watch if over a year old. If a comedy/action movie over a 7 is fine. For less than a year old I read reviews, and decide how invested I am in watching it. Fantastic Beasts 2 tanked, but I watched it anyway and enjoyed it.

[eythian]

Similar for me, but more forgiving. Especially for horror which I enjoy but IMDb raters don't seem to the same. In general, anything below a 6 I'll maybe reconsider, or 5 or so for horror.

[darkpuma]

It's not so much a question of who is correct or incorrect, but rather which will be more relevant to consumers. Probably the "consumer product" reviews. Not always, but for the most part.