Quantcast
please donate

biast | by maryann johanson

curated: no, Rotten Tomatoes is not killing film criticism

And apparently I’m one of the critics keeping the flame.


  • Bluejay

    “There are lots of terrific and/or highly interesting critics” — So does he consider you one of the terrific ones, or one of the highly interesting ones? :-)

  • LaSargenta

    Both terrific AND interesting.

    Except he put Armond White in there…

    Not terrific nor interesting.

  • RogerBW

    Well, yes, Brett, it’s much harder to buy a high RT score than it was to buy favourable reviews in 20 national newspapers. Gee, what a pity.

    I pay very little attention to an RT score, but I do appreciate their tagging the favourable vs unfavourable reviews, because I like to read some of each. But then, I’ve never really found a critic I always agreed with, still less the mass of critics averaged.

    (Hint to newspaper web sites: if you don’t have an RSS feed for that one specific critic I’ve found through RT, I won’t bother to come back unless that critic is amazing. I don’t want to read all your reviews, and I’m certainly not going to load a page every day to see if there’s anything new. What is this, 1998?)

  • Danielm80

    From Serenity:

    Mal: Define “interesting”?
    Wash: [deadpan] “Oh, God, oh, God, we’re all gonna die”?

  • Dale Snow

    Congratulations, Mary Ann. Rotten Tomatoes as useful or useless as the person who consults it allows it to be. Lots of links to reviews all in the same place? Yes, please. Ultimately meaningless numerical ‘score’? No, thanks.

  • Either or both is good!

  • People do *talk* about White, though. No such thing as bad publicity, right?

  • Bluejay

Pin It on Pinterest