Nolan's Oppenheimer

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

18 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Chris Stuckmann loved it, but he also said the soundmix drowned the dialogue and he only understood 70% of the lines. At some point somebody's got to have a word with Nolan about that.

WOHOOOOOOO!!!

Never compromise. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

25 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Idk. I almost never check RT. The reviews are bias and typically have the level of writing you'd expect from a freshman who just took their first film class. 

Oh, I check it; I just look at it with a jaundiced eye. Gotta keep a finger on the pulse normie.

I’m assuming those critics are just being contrarian or their score reflects their displeasure at not being invited to a press screening or IMAX premiere. 

 

[Padraig]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Idk. I almost never check RT. The reviews are bias and typically have the level of writing you'd expect from a freshman who just took their first film class. 

I'd be less cynical about Oppenheimer reviews than the latest Marvel/DCU flick.  If only because the proper critics are more likely to care about seeing the former.

[IFR]

1 hour ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

WOHOOOOOOO!!!

Never compromise. 

Oppenheimer: "Here are all the components, their configuration, and the exact dimensions of the atomic bomb. Hopefully no one overhears this conversation, because then we'd be in trouble. It starts with -" BRRRRRUUUUUMMMM

Oppenheimer: "-and that's how you make an atomic bomb."

Clever Nolan.

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Oh, I check it; I just look at it with a jaundiced eye. Gotta keep a finger on the pulse normie.

I’m assuming those critics are just being contrarian or their score reflects their displeasure at not being invited to a press screening or IMAX premiere. 

 

The site itself isn't useless, I just think it's better to use it to gauge older movies. The first reviews for new movies can easily be bought and/or influenced. It's a dirty game. 

1 hour ago, Padraig said:

I'd be less cynical about Oppenheimer reviews than the latest Marvel/DCU flick.  If only because the proper critics are more likely to care about seeing the former.

There's a bit of merit to that, but they still don't want to upset the big studios. Everything is about access these days. It's why the news media is going to shit, for example. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

The site itself isn't useless, I just think it's better to use it to gauge older movies. The first reviews for new movies can easily be bought and/or influenced. It's a dirty game. 

There's a bit of merit to that, but they still don't want to upset the big studios. Everything is about access these days. It's why the news media is going to shit, for example. 

Except those early, “generous” reviews remain a part of the aggregate forever. And yeah, access definitely influences things. Herd mentality as well.

I’d bet dollars to doughnuts, any film with an aggregate more than say, 100 reviews, there are probably a few “critics” who never even saw the film.

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Except those early, “generous” reviews remain a part of the aggregate forever. And yeah, access definitely influences things. Herd mentality as well.

I’d bet dollars to doughnuts, any film with an aggregate more than say, 100 reviews, there are probably a few “critics” who never even saw the film.

I've mentioned this before. My great uncle was a voting member for the Academy Awards. Whenever I'd visit him he'd let me take whatever DVDs I wanted. They were mostly screeners that were still in their plastic wrapping. He barely watched shit by that point and just voted for the things he liked and/or were made by people he had done business with. I only really talked to him about this once and he said it's pretty common. You vote for your friend's stuff or maybe someone you're friendly with buys you a nice new set of golf clubs and then you vote for them. I'm sure there are some truly ethical critics, but like with most industries these days, the person who pays for your meal gets what they want more often than not. 

[Mladen]

18 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'll always remind you guys, ignore positive reviews on things like RT right before the release. Movies, and especially big ones, are shown to friendly critics first. 

Well, I understand that, but in my experience, I doubt it will fall more than 10%. Currently, with 153 reviews, it has 92%. Which is more than good. Also, metacritic score is on 90%. Overall, the movie is not a flop with critics. We'll see about the audience. 

That said, at the end of the day, until I see it, I can't comment on it

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II]

I predict a final, solid 87%

[Tywin et al.]

4 hours ago, Mladen said:

Well, I understand that, but in my experience, I doubt it will fall more than 10%. Currently, with 153 reviews, it has 92%. Which is more than good. Also, metacritic score is on 90%. Overall, the movie is not a flop with critics. We'll see about the audience. 

That said, at the end of the day, until I see it, I can't comment on it

For me the good sign is a number of reviewers I trust are giving it the thumbs up. Everyone says it's too long and some are complaining about the typical sound issues with Nolan, but overall they like it. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Critiques aside, I don’t think RT has the shine it once did. There was a time when that RT score could make or break a film, especially on opening weekend. That score was gospel. For some, it might still be.

Now, nearly everyone who pays attention to that site has had the experience of seeing a piece of shit with sky high RT scores, or, loving something the majority of critics shat on, or seeing a movie with mixed reviews get Oscar nominations. 

The balance seems to have shifted to word of mouth more than critical consensus. 

[polishgenius]

8 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

or seeing a movie with mixed reviews get Oscar nominations. 

 

To be fair the Oscars are no more reliable a mark of quality than a good RT score.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

 

To be fair the Oscars are no more reliable a mark of quality than a good RT score.

When it comes to winners I’d tend to agree. But they have a much better track record when it comes to nominations. Still, they do tend to reflect the passions of the day.

Edited July 20 by Deadlines? What Deadlines?

[Zorral]

I, for one, have never ever even visited the RT site.  In fact, it took me a while to realize what the 'RT' was, to which you all were referring.  

I do read reviews in All the Places like the NYT Arts section, etc., though, and both these films have gotten very high marks from the pros.

[Mladen]

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

I do read reviews in All the Places like the NYT Arts section, etc., though, and both these films have gotten very high marks from the pros.

Well, Rotten Tomatoes is just aggregator of professional critics, including top critics from American most influential medias. As far as I know, NYT writers do post their ratings on Rotten tomatoes and Metacritic. 

The problem with the RT score became when every blogger was given  the chance to impact the critics' score. 

[Zorral]

8 minutes ago, Mladen said:

aggregator of professional critics

It is?  I always had the impression it was the general public.  But as I said, I've never gone there.

[Mladen]

36 minutes ago, Zorral said:

It is?  I always had the impression it was the general public.  But as I said, I've never gone there.

RT has two scores - the tomatometer (critics) and the audience score. The audience score is for general public (the viewers), the tomatometer is based on the reviews of professional critics (Top Critics being the reviewers for major publications). Lately, with so many film blogs, the tomatometer score is a bit generic, but still is a relatively good source. Especially, when they gather several hundreds of critics.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

5 hours ago, Mladen said:

RT has two scores - the tomatometer (critics) and the audience score. The audience score is for general public (the viewers), the tomatometer is based on the reviews of professional critics (Top Critics being the reviewers for major publications). Lately, with so many film blogs, the tomatometer score is a bit generic, but still is a relatively good source. Especially, when they gather several hundreds of critics.

Six scores:

Audience and critics tomatometer, which is just a ratio of positive reviews to total reviews, expressed as a percentage.

And

Audience and critics average review scores, which is an x/10.

And

The critics scores can be filtered to only show “Top Critics”, who’s critical kung fu is strong I guess.

Edited July 21 by Deadlines? What Deadlines?

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Kermode just said he’ll eat his hat if Cillian Murphy doesn’t get a best actor nom.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Sunday matinee, IMAX 70mm, front row center, bitches. Hit me with your best shot No-lan. 

In hindsight, I probably should have purchased my tickets when they went on sale. Literally the only seats left for the IMAX showings at the theater I’m going to are in the front row. On the plus side, we’ll have the row to ourselves and I’ll be able to stretch out.