Take a movie like Maniac (which works to highlight Rotten Tomatoes’ critical issue with horror movies as well). At first glance, you’ll notice a rotten 49%. Sure. But why? There’s more to a Tomatometer’s story than simple mathematics, especially for genre movies. You’ll notice a certain type of reviewer attacking Franck Khalfoun’s unnerving remake, typically with the words “Chronicle” or “Times” in their publication line. Those who jest “Frodo Baggins as a psycho-killer? Why not?” like that’s all Maniac has to offer, because horror will always be the bastard genre “high-class” reviewers won’t give a chance (re: a certain V/H/S 2 review where the writer walked out 10 minutes into an anthology feature and still negatively rated the segments he didn’t watch).
If you scroll farther down on Maniac’s Rotten Tomatoes page, you’ll start to see positive reviews written by horror-appreciating critics who sing Maniac’s praises. Critic names like Scott Weinberg, Staci Layne Wilson and *tightens necktie egotistically* myself. Rotten Tomatoes suffers from a lack of genre representation that paints so many titles with an undeserving green splatter, but by looking at WHO is writing the reviews, further evaluation can occur.
Many horror sites deservingly heralded Manic as one of the best horror films of 2013. The Tomatometer surely wouldn’t agree, but that’s because it’s not weighed accurately for every genre, audience or reader. Horror fans *especially* should know to account for who is saying what, and note which critics are more in-tune with true horror fans. It’s extra work, yes – but why pass on a glistening gem because twenty critics who hate horror happen to drown out the few RT accredited reviewers who dig all things terrifying? Rotten Tomatoes offers more than a percentage bar, and we need to get back to acknowledging that.
This mentality should be applied to all movies, not just horror. Rotten Tomatoes needs to be about finding critics who align with your cinematic profile, and using them to help guide decisions. Not just a number or tomato graphic. Even the critical blurbs only offer bite-sized summations, which might be masking bigger points made in actual reviews. No one wants to click on links and read full write-ups anymore, but that has to change in order to use Rotten Tomatoes correctly.
Maybe you’re trying to decide whether xXx: The Return of Xander Cage is worth your Friday night efforts. You see a 43% Tomatometer. Do you immediately nix a dosage of Diesel-fuel? Or do you then notice, “It looks like Matt Donato gave this a 7/10, and I’ve agreed with almost all of his reviews lately. Let’s give it a try anyway because this review positions xXx 3 as the exact movie I want tonight.” Going against the Tomatometer is OK! It’s no final word. Reviews themselves are opinions, and should never be treated as fact. Tell me all you want how Monster Trucks is a bad movie – won’t lessen my Creech love one lick. Don’t let a Tomatometer number ruin your night, and know what goes into the formula of this “magic” numeral (it’s math, the answer is math).
Discussions about Rotten Tomatoes are always strange because I’m not sure the general public knows how it works anymore. When first explaining Rotten Tomatoes to people outside the industry – say a family member or friend – they always asked “So do you write for Rotten Tomatoes now and just post those little bubbles?” Even worse, this assumption popped-up that I’m simply “voting” on Rotten Tomatoes for the Tomatometer score, without necessary wordsmithery.
This plays into Ratner’s comment of “Now it’s about a number,” because film criticism is still – without argument – about flowing thoughts and cinematic discussion. People need to understand there’s more to Rotten Tomatoes than the actual meter, and that reviewers all have bodies of work behind each vote. I’m not sure if this is an interface issue or whatnot, but the usability of Rotten Tomatoes needs to be reiterated. It’s a website that should be enacted to help seek film critics who you enjoy reading in full. Not a homepage with numbers, or a colored-in bar.
Rotten Tomatoes once had a great feature that helped you find critics who align with your movie preferences, based on answers to a few questions. After glancing the current site a few times over, said function seems to have vanished – but I’d love to see this quiz come back. Or maybe if users were easily able to bookmark their “favorite” critics? If we’re going to get away from this Tomatometer-first culture, Rotten Tomatoes has to make it a bit easier for users to access those critics whose work they repeatedly search for.
As is, when I post a review on a certain title, it just gets pushed further down as newer reviews are updated. If you’re hunting for my review, you’ve got to dig through a hundred-or-so other blurbs before recognizing my avatar. Maybe if account-holders were able to have their favorite critics pinned to movie pages, they’d be more receptive to clicking on a link or two? Whatever gets readers away from stopping at the Tomatometer score and moving on is a step in the right direction.
That said, there’s a larger issue here the ties back into Ratner’s commentary. Film criticism is shifting, because readership is dropping. I’m constantly told I write reviews that are “too long,” and that’s on average totals of 650-ish words. Bigger-thinking, long-form criticism sites are dying out (The Dissolve, Movie Mezzanine, ect.), and while multiple factors may be at play, it’s because the audience for written criticism is dwindling. There are a million different thinkpieces that can stem from this belief alone, but the main takeaway is that our consumption of information is ever-evolving.
Right now we’re in the “fingertips phase,” where we only want straight-forward answers directly at our – yes – fingertips. 24/7. Click into an app, nibble a morsel and move on. Interactivity on the basest level, in-and-out in under 30 seconds. This is the overarching “Why” as to the Tomatometer’s rise, but the “How” is so much more involved than just “Rotten Tomatoes is evil.” It’s true that the nastiest wrongs are birthed from the purest of intentions, but we have a chance to right the ship of Rotten Tomatoes while it’s still afloat. By fighting a cultural oppression brought on by digital brain rot.
But I digress. I’ll save my apocalyptic outlook on society’s numbing technology obsession for another day. Back to the whole movies/Ratner/Tomatometer thing.
Consider this my plea for advancing film criticism and defending Rotten Tomatoes from future attacks of this nature. The Tomatometer is not the enemy here. It’s our own inability to put proper time into mapping thoughtful assessments. Film criticism is in a weird place, but I assure you writers are just as passionate as the Kael’s and Ebert’s of yesteryear. Worldwide internet connectivity grants everyone a voice (and megaphone) nowadays, but Rotten Tomatoes plays watchdog by finding the best of the best for hungry movie fans. We can’t blame them for our own laziness. Movies are a unique experience for each and every one of us, and cannot be judged by a silly red bar. Simple is easy, but knowledge is freedom (and so much more enriching). It’s time we get back to using Rotten Tomatoes for the links being shared, instead of an aggregation that should be nothing but an introduction into the meatier discussions that cinema deserves.
