love it
Hhhhhhŷgfdßáaśłütrë
It seems to have more info.
their reviews are close to how I would rate movies. reviews seem to be more in-depth.
Rotten tomatoes ratings is way too binary
IMDB ratings correspond better to mass perception. Ironically match the "audience" score on rotten tomatoes
Gsghshshs
fizz u
s
6/10 is considered a positive on RT whereas you can make that decision yourself on IMDb yourself.
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.
More reviews, reviews from public
Imdb has SOOO much better reviews
IDK
bigger community. I don't really care about "approved critics" from rottentomatoes.
More exact, complete ratings. More stricter and more efficient. Has history and summary.
Better information s
lord of the rings
Just because...
experience. Rotten T jes wants to put u dwn evn if its decent content
rotten tomatoes have rotten critics.
because it has better information and it never lies
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
Place more trust in public opinion that professional film critics
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.
Because they are more consistent.
More attractive look, and ratings seem to be more accurate.
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.
because the ratings.
F
I find IMDb easier to use and I like having normal users opinions as well as the critics opinions! :)
Imdb has more features and not as harsh movie ratings
It is simply better in every aspect
Because people don't get paid to write IMBD reviews
common people reviews for common people.
my preferences coincide more with imdb ratings than rotten tomatoes.
It is intuitive and reliable...
Because unlike rotten tomatoes it also reviews shows and also unlike rt it has WAY more then just reviews.
Personal preference, but Rotten Tomatoes is about equal. You say tomato, I say potato!
Idk.
more accurate
Regular people reviews are just fine.
IMDB is not as harsh on movies that I think are not bad at all.
IMDB has a better and more realistic way of ranking and reviewing movies. It allows the people to have a say aswell
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, 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.
Best rated rotten tomatoes movies I never heard of, and after watching thought that most of them are "****"
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.
i believe that their informatio is more accurate and it is easy to comprehend!
Formulae.
because it is.
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)
JUst overall a better site. Period.
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.
because it shows ratings of viewers who dont have a tomato shoved up their ****
I think IMDB more trustworthy rating than RT
bcuz i grew up wid it u suck.
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.
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!
Because there is a wider range of opinions on the website and I find it far easier to use. It also provides age ratings.
Because are more critics well detailled and smarts
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
more reviewers
bla bla
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
just better
i like the watchlist concept where users can organize list of do-watch movies ........
Is a more reliable aggregate of reviews with almost no movies reaching 0 or perfect, which RT does and is often misleading
Because it is more accurate and trustworthy
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.
More info is readily available and links flow very well in the same way that wikipedia is set up
I think the top list is more accurate
It has a simpler user interface.
imdb has wider coverage
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.
because they show a more accurate view of how well the movie stands up to time
