because they show a more accurate view of how well the movie stands up to time
A very wide range of people reviewing the movies, not people that have the idea that only the most convoluted movies are worthy of a good score.
imdb has wider coverage
It has a simpler user interface.
I think the top list is more accurate
More info is readily available and links flow very well in the same way that wikipedia is set up
In my opinion, IMDb is much more fair. Rotten Tomatoes judges films based on whether or not they're oscar worthy. IMDb won't simply put up a rating. No, they let you vote.
Because it is more accurate and trustworthy
Is a more reliable aggregate of reviews with almost no movies reaching 0 or perfect, which RT does and is often misleading
i like the watchlist concept where users can organize list of do-watch movies ........
just better
IMDB is more forgiving and I believe, reflects the views of the average viewer. RT seems a bit harsh on movies, following the old thumbs up or thumbs down approach. Movies are much more than that and any given film has it's strength's and weaknesses so I vote IMDB.
Kind Regards,
Former RT fan
bla bla
more reviewers
IMDB seems bigger and better , the ratings on imdb seem more realistic , i mean for example harry potter got 96% on rotten tomato while it got 8.2/10 on imdb , even though imdb has less users voting it seems more realistic .. personally i prefer imdb
Because are more critics well detailled and smarts
Because there is a wider range of opinions on the website and I find it far easier to use. It also provides age ratings.
IMDB has a better and more realistic way of ranking and reviewing movies. It allows the people to have a say aswell
From personal experience, the movies that are rated on IMDB on many times i will give them the same rating that is given. On the other hand, on rottentomatoes, so ratings for many movies are off and when i see a movie that has a very low rating, i see it and many of my friends see it as a high rated movie!
Rotten is, do you like the movie or not.Imdb is ,what would you rate this movie on a scale from 1 to 10.I like the latter because of the more specific answer.
bcuz i grew up wid it u suck.
I think IMDB more trustworthy rating than RT
because it shows ratings of viewers who dont have a tomato shoved up their ****
Critics are overly critical about even those movies which are worth a lifetime. Some of the best cinema experiences are rated below, say Toy
Story. Well I'm not saying Toy Story is not great, but just saying. In my opinion, rottentomatoes just purely suck because the critics with their "specialised expertise" think they are Gods and all those mortals below them have absolutely no taste whatsoever in appreciating cinematic brilliance. I know RT has user ratings too, but biased towards the critics, for a good reason obviously.
JUst overall a better site. Period.
for the very reason you said... it's reviews are from users - people that look in the movie as whole and not in details like critics do (even though this sometimes is wrong)
because it is.
Formulae.
i believe that their informatio is more accurate and it is easy to comprehend!
The problem with RT is that it classifies reviews as either "fresh" or "rotten," without distinguishing further as 4/4 (masterpiece), 3/4 (good), 2/4 (mediocre), or 1/4 (awful). IMDb lets you rate on a full 10-point scale and uses statistical techniques (e.g. Bayesian estimate) to calculate a weighted average. RT also allows you to rate on a 10-point scale (5 stars with 1/2-star step size), but again it counts everything at least 3.5 stars as "liked it" and everything below as not.
Best rated rotten tomatoes movies I never heard of, and after watching thought that most of them are "****"
IMDB, simply because IMDB gives us the opinion of regular people, people like you and me. Rotten Tomatoes gives us the opinion of movie critics which I don't really care about.
Because imdb offers a much wider and more realistic range of opinions.
It allows all kinds of people to review movies, not just critics who I
think give bad review most of the time.
IMDB is not as harsh on movies that I think are not bad at all.
Regular people reviews are just fine.
more accurate
Idk.
Personal preference, but Rotten Tomatoes is about equal. You say tomato, I say potato!
Because unlike rotten tomatoes it also reviews shows and also unlike rt it has WAY more then just reviews.
It is intuitive and reliable...
my preferences coincide more with imdb ratings than rotten tomatoes.
common people reviews for common people.
Because people don't get paid to write IMBD reviews
It is simply better in every aspect
Imdb has more features and not as harsh movie ratings
I find IMDb easier to use and I like having normal users opinions as well as the critics opinions! :)
F
because the ratings.
Just look at Boondock Saints on both sites. Rotten Tomatoes is 17% while users there have it in the 90s. IMDB is reviewd by people and when you get a movie rated by over 100,000 people, you are going to get a good idea if it's good or not.
More attractive look, and ratings seem to be more accurate.
Because they are more consistent.
The views just seem more realistic. Their data for rating is much more accurate to my own. When I look at Rotten Tomatoes all time ratings it doesn't even make sense to me. The top 100 contain barely any movies I consider the best off all time where as on IMDB almost all are listed.
Place more trust in public opinion that professional film critics
Imdb uses an audience rating system which is way better than critics reviews. In addition, they have way more facts to offer. Rotten Tomatoes gives too much power to critics. People only really care about what audience members think, that's how we will think of the movie. Nobody in the 21 century really cares what the critics think
because it has better information and it never lies
rotten tomatoes have rotten critics.
experience. Rotten T jes wants to put u dwn evn if its decent content
Just because...
lord of the rings
Better information s
More exact, complete ratings. More stricter and more efficient. Has history and summary.
bigger community. I don't really care about "approved critics" from rottentomatoes.
IDK
Imdb has SOOO much better reviews
More reviews, reviews from public
Cause it's just better. I mean, Interstellar didn't make it to the list of top 100 movies of 2014... that's just wrong.
6/10 is considered a positive on RT whereas you can make that decision yourself on IMDb yourself.
s
fizz u
Gsghshshs
IMDB ratings correspond better to mass perception. Ironically match the "audience" score on rotten tomatoes
Rotten tomatoes ratings is way too binary
their reviews are close to how I would rate movies. reviews seem to be more in-depth.
It seems to have more info.
Hhhhhhŷgfdßáaśłütrë
love it
