Are Rotten Tomatoes reviews completely innacurate?

I usually look up a film on wikipedia for reference of it... It seems 90 percent of rotten tomatoes reception to movies are "rotten".
At first I thought it to be accurate, but seeing the film for myself proves it to be accurate. I'm not some action junkie that loves action movies, I mean any movie. They must be comparing the films to really excellent past releases to give new films such bad reviews. Perhaps the reviewers are just morons or idiots ;D

(I'm glad they don't review games officially)

 

Do you mean inaccurate? It can't be 'inaccurate' though, as Rotten Tomatoes is a review aggregator, they can't be 'inaccurate' in that sense.

Just because all those reviews averaged out to a score below what you would have given does not mean anything.
And they don't have to collect gaming reviews, other sites already do that.

 

Aren't reviews opinions? How can an opinion be accurate?

 

That's because 90% of new releases are absolute garbage.

Don't use the site then, perhaps you'd be better off reading the film column in The Sun or Nuts.

No, people are idiots. Which is why there is THREE shitty transformers films and a sequel planned for Avatar.

 

Is this serious? Like, actually?

As of now, there's 6/10 fresh for recent releases in theatres.

And imo, RT does a better job than Metacritic for the most part. Having it as a 1 point score system makes it feel like it's much more based on opinion of the viewer versus metacritic where they have an average where it can be skewed by several scores giving it a very high rating or very low.

 

When reviewing a movie you take into consideration for the most part the writing and acting. Action movies get low scores because they really have shallow stories and convoluted plots with some exceptions like (some Marvel movies and Christopher Nolan's Batman series). Comparing to older movies is a big no no in reviewing and the reviewers don't do that.

Also do you even read the reviews in RT or do you just look at the meter? It would be idiotic to assume the reviewers are morons. There are crueler people in the world. Also Reviews are there to guide you into your decision of either watching it or not.

 

Screw sites like RT and Metracritic, i hate how everyone just rushes to them to try and prove or disprove if a game is good or bad, its all based on peoples opinions. Just because the stupid assed Metacritic or RT sites will hate a movie or gate, doesn't mean you will. Just because they like one, doesn't mean you will.

It's always better to base your own opinion on YOUR OWN OPINION. Stop letting shitty websites influence you, but idiots seem to forget that in the age of technology.

 

Obviously one shouldn't base a decision solely on a aggregate score, but if I see a movie has an awful 25% rating on RT, I'd honestly be hard pressed to watch unless it's (oh no) relevant to my interests.

 

Like i said, everyone's opinions are different, i'm sure i liked movies that had horrible scores on RT, and i'm sure i hated movies that got what people consider good scores

 

I actually never visit review sites, I just see the ratings on Wiki like I said. I just check them out for information, and the critical reception is on the page too, so I was wondering.