Mister Tee wrote
Am I wrong, or is the Rotten Tomatoes thing basically a thumbs-up/thumbs-down scale? Meaning, most of us here who've weighed in here would count in the 92% -- "not bad" translating to approval. The Metacritic thing measures intensity of approval, which is kind of important when it comes to choosing a best picture.
Yes, I'm sure this conversation has been had on this board as well.
Rotten Tomatoes sucks. It no barometer for enthusiasm. Something that has 50% mildly negative reviews and 50% wildly positive reviews, will end up being 50% "rotten." I Heart Huckabees sits at a 63% "fresh" while Shrek 2 has a 89% "fresh." There are also "Top Critics" who weigh in more closely as well as an audience score of users who weigh in, which is usually beset by toxic trolls. Occasionally, we see some intriguing splits between Critics and Audiences, in particular The Last Jedi got a 91% from critics and a 42% from audiences. It's a very flawed system. Metacritic, to contrast, feels a bit like a too-exclusive club, which speaking for myself is preferable to the binary "It's mass satisfying" vs. "It's not mass satisfying" system of Rotten Tomatoes, although the latter certainly feels like it's where the industry is headed.
All of which said, yes, Metacritic should be a better gauge for what is going to win Best Picture. After this chat, I'm intrigued to learn that The Power of the Dog has a 88 and Belfast has a 77. Those both seem low (and for Belfast, it is) but the upper 80s isn't a bad place to be for a Best Picture winner:
- The King's Speech (88)
- The Artist (89)
- Argo (86)
- Birdman (87)
- The Shape of Water (87)
Five films have risen above this mark (12 Years a Slave, Spotlight, Moonlight, Parasite, Nomadland) and one has fallen below (dare I say its name?).
Mister Tee wrote
I have to say, I'm fascinated to see Licorice Pizza for myself -- for many reasons, but keenly because, while there have been a flood of "it reminds me I love movies" tweets (and not just from the PTA hive; Anne Thompson, for Christ's sake, loved it), the dissenters (a minority, but they exist in some numbers) keep saying the movie is in Punchdrunk Love/Inherent Vice territory, which would be almost no one's favorite Anderson movies, and certainly the least Oscar-friendly. I won't get to the movie till a week or two after Thanksgiving, so I'm for now tantalized with trying to square that seeming contradiction.
I look forward to your assessment almost as much as I am looking forward to my reassessment.
I'll just share this anecdote: last week, I was in Chicago with my critic buddy. We went up to Traverse City to hang out with some of his friends. He had to cut his vacation short because another screening was made available for him to see a day early on Monday. He couldn't get me into that one but he said he would go to see the Monday screening and then go to the Tuesday screening for a second viewing before writing his review. I didn't see him after the Monday screening but asked him what he thought of the film. He said "I'll... just let you check it out." Tuesday rolled around. I saw the film. We left the screening. Took off our masks. Walked for a while in silence. He turned to me and said, "Yup, that's Licorice Pizza."
Later, he tweeted while under embargo: "That lonely feeling when the whole world is losing their shit about a new movie, and you're like, "Yeah, that was... good."" Owen Gleiberman responded by saying "Or even: "Really? That was...middling.""
Anyway, my buddy ended up giving the film a "B+" and I think he's in line with a lot of critics. If you see 100-200 movies a year, a Paul Thomas Anderson movie is a treat because it's not going to be crap. It's going to be interesting and different. It's not content. It's a film. I do think in no small part that the raves for Licorice Pizza are in some small part in praise of its film qualities, which are real and enjoyable. I just didn't find it very satisfying.