[Frannyies]

For me the critic score is a 'is this valuable as a cultural enrichment of movies' vs 'do people like it'.

What you do with information is than your decision.

Best case you know and trust your critics because you align to a certain degree with their experience and movie taste.

For example "now you see me" is a shit movie. Magic in a movie doesn't work and the main hidden character basically breaks the whole movie but apparently the audience loved it.

[willcipriano]

> is this valuable as a cultural enrichment of movies

The Last Jedi is apparently the cultural enrichment film of the decade.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_last_jedi

[rrrrrrrrrrrryan]

Rotten tomatoes scores aren't an average of a bunch of vectors, they're an aggregation of binary data points. Each individual review is distilled down to "good" (100%) or "rotten" (0%), then they're all averaged up.

A better way to view the critic score is, "X% of film critics think this film is worth watching."

And the audience score is: "Y% of moviegoers who leave movie reviews on Rotten Tomatoes think this film is worth watching."

This is why Toy Story can get 99% (it's a crowd pleaser), and why daring, impactful films can sometimes get lower scores (they can be polarizing).

[smsm42]

Worth watching for whom though? The critics have no idea what my tastes are. But I am pretty sure they are different from a film critic - I don't even know anyone who is a film critic or who knows anyone who is a film critic (and is not afraid to admit it). And from all evidence available, those critics by now are mostly into the business of shilling for studios, virtue signalling and sniffing their own farts. Why would I care what this bunch thinks is worth watching? If they want to watch it, let them, but it has nothing to do with me.

[rrrrrrrrrrrryan]

If you're not terribly interested in the opinions of critics, then a website that attempts to aggregate critical opinions probably isn't for you.