Movie Reviews
Does Review Bombing Actually Hurt Movies, TV Shows And Video Games?
In this age of culture wars over various entertainment properties, fans have limited options in making their voices heard. There’s complaining on social media, but there are also the high-profile review sites and services that act as recommendation engines for content.
The New York Times recently published an article about how review bombing on a place like Goodreads harms authors by creating bad buzz, whether or not the reviewers in question have read the book. One book was accused of being “anti-black,” and that social media narrative translated into loads of one-star reviews on Goodreads which directly hurt the novel.
In the wider entertainment industry it’s a bit different, and review bombing is used with such frequency, it’s almost become easy to ignore it most of the time, with a few exceptions. And it works differently across movies, TV shows and video games.
Movies – The end-all be-all for movie reviews is Rotten Tomatoes, which takes into account purely whether a review is positive or negative, and uses that to create a “fresh” or “rotten” rating, with rotten anything below a 60%.
At one point, the issue of review bombing got so bad that Rotten Tomatoes introduced a verification system to prove you’d actually bought a ticket to see a particular film. This was instituted after so-called fans review bombed the MCU’s Captain Marvel with ferocity in response to comments lead actress Brie Larson had made about the movie press being too male-dominated. It remains the lowest fan-scored Marvel movie at a 45%, but after that, we saw fewer extremes for movies like this. And it did not prevent Captain Marvel from making $1.1 billion at the worldwide box office and spawning a sequel out in a few months.
For movies, there’s also a narrative that critics are disconnected from fans and hate big flashy blockbusters, so it’s the user scores you have to listen to. That doesn’t reflect reality. The glut of superhero movies actually showcase that in many instances, critics score these types of movies higher than fans, and least in the MCU.
But often it’s the case that critic or fan reviews just don’t matter, or at the very least, it’s unpredictable. DC’s The Suicide Squad scored a 90% with critics and an 82% from fans, but was a box office failure in part because general audiences thought it was going to be a bad sequel to a bad original with a close to identical name. No one really cared about the positive scores. Top Gun Maverick, meanwhile, with its 96% critical rating and 99% audience score, reflected the hugely positive word of mouth that had the recognizable IP and its huge star make that a rare, non-superhero box office smash. But again, sometimes all the positive fan reviews in the world do nothing. Shazam! Fury of the Gods had an 86% score from fans, but was one of the biggest superhero flops ever. There, the middling critic reviews (a 47%) were correct.
TV – Again, even with TV shows and movies on Metacritic, it’s Rotten Tomatoes that people pay attention to here, though probably less so for TV than movies. There are generally fewer TV critics than movie critics (which makes little sense in this day and age), and scores very much skew higher for shows, so much so that they’re almost always higher for critics than fans.
Review bombing is probably a larger problem with TV, given that unlike movies, there is no verification system for who has watched a show or not. Again, this comes up most often in superhero, sci-fi or fantasy series where fanboys have the most opinions. Marvel’s She-Hulk had an 80% critic score but a 32% audience score mainly based on its “goofy” tone and female-focused narrative examining misogyny in many episodes. We don’t know if it will get a second season or not yet. We can also see this on IMDB with their helpful graphics that often show lots of perfect 10s opposite 1 star reviews as warring camps try to control the narrative over something like Ms. Marvel (seen above).
Absolutely terrible reviews can help sink a series. Netflix’s Resident Evil series made it to #1 on the service, but a 26% audience score, one of Netflix’s lowest ever, certainly didn’t help the argument to renew it, and it was promptly cancelled. But here we have to debate what the definition of “review bombing” even is, given that sometimes a show is just…bad, and the reviews reflect that.
In the streaming era, reviews often simply do not matter at all, and it comes down mainly to watch time and budget, especially on places like Netflix. That can lead to some seemingly baffling decisions, like Netflix cancelling a series like Teenage Bounty Hunters with a 94% critic score and 96% audience score simply because it wasn’t watched enough. The 99% rated Tuca and Bertie was cancelled and had to be picked up by another network. If you make your way through Netflix’s most popular shows ever, almost all of them are somewhere between a 75% and 85% fan rating, with critic scores being all over the place (95% for Squid Game, 71% for Wednesday, 57% for Dahmer, all megahits). Here, all forms of reviews probably matter the least.
Video Games – Now we arrive at the place where fan-based review bombing happens the most often, but is probably the most ignored at this point. Unlike the previous two fields, the video game industry is home to warring factions in the console wars, or extremely reactive fans who respond to technical issues or general game problems with ultra-low scores.
But what happens is that this occurs so often, most people have grown content to ignore user reviews on Metacritic at this point (there are no video game reviews on Rotten Tomatoes for whatever reason). What frequently happens is some new console-exclusive release will come out, and the other side tries to sink it with poor scores without playing it (this recently happened initially with PlayStation-exclusive Final Fantasy XVI, and has happened with Xbox games too). Metacritic does not “verify” user reviews, they simply put a delay on being able to score games until they are out for a day or two, but it does little to deter the practice.
Probably more so than Rotten Tomatoes, and as much as fans would like to say otherwise, it’s the high and low scores by professional critics which make the most impact. Video game studios have been actually offered bonuses at times for 85+ Metascores, and usually anything over 90+ is a Game of the Year contender and will sell extremely well. Two of the highest scoring games in recent memory, Tears of the Kingdom and Elden Ring, set sales records for their respective studios/franchises. Two of the lowest scoring big games, Redfall and Saints Row, were sales disasters. But this has everything to do with critic reviews and almost nothing to do with any kind of review bombing.
A possible exception to this is Steam on PC, where users do have to own a game to rate it, though this mainly affects smaller games rather than large ones in terms of how that might impact sales. One interesting thing about Steam is how reviews can tell you the trajectory of a game over time. Something like Cyberpunk 2077 was thrashed at launch with poor reviews due to its buggy nature and missing features, but over time, recent reviews skewed more and more positive as fixes came in, and you can see that with Steam’s tracking of the most recent positive/negative scores.
Generally speaking, the answer is no, low fan scores or outright review-bombing rarely affects the final outcome of bigger movies, TV shows or video games. Movies succeed or fail for many different reasons. TV shows are mainly considered successes free of critic or fan scores largely based on pure watch time and budgets relative to that watch time. Video games put enormously heavy weight on critic scores while user scores are largely ignored completely, depending on the situation. It’s not exactly the Goodreads situation elsewhere in the entertainment industry.
Follow me on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and Instagram. Subscribe to my free weekly content round-up newsletter, God Rolls.
Pick up my sci-fi novels the Herokiller series and The Earthborn Trilogy.
Movie Reviews
Superb reviews and a good opening for Nazriya’s Malayalam comeback film | Latest Telugu cinema news | Movie reviews | OTT Updates, OTT
Suspense thriller Sookshmadarshini marks Nazriya’s return to Mollywood after a hiatus of four long years. Directed by MC Jithin and starring Basil Joseph as the male protagonist, the movie hit the big screens yesterday. Sookshmadarshini received glorious reviews from critics and is off to a good start at the box office.
In Kerala this Nazriya Nazim starrer collected in the vicinity of Rs. 1.6 crores gross, which can be termed as a promising start. The occupancies picked up in the evening and night shows once the reports started coming in. Even though the film had a limited release in the USA, it raked in over $30K on the opening day. The showcasing is expected to increase in this territory from today. Globally, the movie earned approximately Rs. 4 crores gross.
Riding on the terrific word of mouth, Sookshmardarshini commenced its day two with a bang. The movie is now selling around 7K tickets per hour on the BMS portal. Said to be made on a shoestring budget, the film has a high chance of emerging as a blockbuster. Sooskhmadarshini will have a solid weekend, but its performance on the first Monday will give us an idea about the final numbers.
Sookshmadarshini is bankrolled by cinematographers Shyju Khalid and Sameer Tahir, along with AV Anoop. The movie also stars Deepak Parambol, Sidharth Bharathan, Merin Philip, Akhila Bhargavan, Pooja Mohanraj, and others in pivotal roles. Christo Xavier composed the tunes.
Movie Reviews
‘Flow’ Review: Dogs and Cats … Swimming Together … Moist Hysteria!
There comes a moment in every animal lover’s life where we’re watching a movie with a cat in it, or a dog, or an [insert animal here], and we’re overwhelmed by one singular thought: “I swear to god, if anything happens to this creature, I will never watch a movie again.”
It’s an empty threat — probably — but in the moment nothing could be more sincere. Animals have a way of cutting through our emotional defenses. They can be jerks (my cats are literally punching each other right now) but they don’t screw each other over for money. They don’t pass legislation to deny people access to public bathrooms. In the movies, a human being is able to lose our sympathy completely, to the point that something bad happening to them feels like karmic justice. But a cat doesn’t deserve any of that crap. Ever. Ever.
So a film like “Flow” is about as harrowing as filmmaking gets, especially if you like cats. Or dogs. Or secretarybirds. Or lemurs. Or capybaras. The movie puts all these little guys in peril very quickly and never lets up. Even the quietest moments of “Flow” are tainted by existential threat. It’s suspenseful and pensive and painful in a way few films strive for, and fewer still achieve.
“Flow,” directed by Gints Zilbalodis (“Away”), tells the story of a cat who lives in the woods in a long-abandoned house. A pack of dogs, all domesticated breeds, roams these woods as well, chasing our little guy down because — well, they’re dogs. One day, all of a sudden, with almost no warning, a tidal wave crashes through the trees, and the danger won’t stop there. The water level is slowly rising, every second, until all the land starts to disappear under the rippling surface.
The only salvation is a small wooden sailboat. The cat leaps into it along with a lemur and a capybara, and they float aimlessly, foodlessly, atop the trees, over mountains, through the last sky-scraping vestiges of human civilization. The dogs come back, and the golden retriever — being a golden retriever — makes friends with everybody. A secretarybird takes pity on them and brings fish, and may even be able to protect them from other airborne predators. Whatever these animals’ differences may have been, even though they’re naturally predators and prey, even they can recognize that in the face of climate change the only way to survive is by working together. Humanity, much to our ongoing shame, would apparently never.
It’s not a subtle message, and any movie that relies entirely on placing animals in peril isn’t subtle either. Gints Zilbalodis doesn’t merely earn our sympathy with these creatures, he practically takes it from us at gunpoint. To be perfectly frank, “Flow” is in many ways a cinematic cheap shot. Sure, it’ll knock the wind out of you, but it’s not like we had any choice. Animals are cute. Animals in danger are an emotional nuclear strike.
Of course, nobody ever said movies have to be subtle. At least, nobody credible. But “Flow” does find subtlety in its little moments, as opposed to its big messages. The major plot points — daring rescues, unexpected alliances, spiritual moments that defy any literal interpretation — are heavy-handed, yet effective. The scenes of a cat, despite its harrowing circumstances, reduced to kittenhood by the allure of bopping a lemur’s swishing tail? Now that’s relatable. That’s life going on, whether we realize it or not.
So where are the humans in “Flow?” Long gone by the time the movie begins, apparently. “Flow” floats through the remains of our society, empty towers to infinity, monuments reduced to aquatic tombs. Our conspicuous absence is depressing, but then again, if it weren’t for us, or at least whoever built the boat these animals are clinging to, there would be no hope for any animal’s salvation. Except of course for the fish. They seem to be having a field day. If they could speak you’d probably hear one of them yell “I’m king of the world!’ before getting munched on by, apparently, the world’s very last cat.
“Flow” is animated in a style that suggests that Gints Zilbalodis plays, and loves, a lot of video games. The simplistic character designs, the bright lighting, the environments filled with tall structures in the distance to keep us oriented. The nature of the world is revealed in action and detail. Its immensity is contrasted with the smallness of the characters, highlighting a breathtaking sense of scale.
“Flow” uses platforming and puzzle-solving elements to push its story forward, and before long you might get a little impatient and wonder when we’re finally going to be allowed to play. We can’t, of course, because in this story humanity is dead. The story is in so many ways about persevering in the face of overwhelming helplessness. We may never get that “Shadow of the Colossus” movie Hollywood kept threatening to make for so long, but “Flow” understood many of the storytelling lessons that particular classic had to teach us.
Zilbalodis’s film makes a powerful double feature with this year’s “The Wild Robot,” which also tells a tale of a harrowing future in which animals have to set aside their instincts and band together to survive. Both films evoke religious imagery, although “The Wild Robot” is very much The New Testament and “Flow” is basically “Noah’s Skiff.” On the surface it may be tempting to suggest that “The Wild Robot,” being the Hollywood studio version, is the less subtle of the two, but that film has complex philosophical conversations that “Flow” can only hint at, and the commitment “Flow” has to imperiling small animals amidst a climate change allegory is anything but understated. The two films make similar points in incredibly different ways; both do a beautiful job of it.
Getting back to my earlier threat that if anything happens to the cat I’ll never watch a movie again — I can’t say everything turns out OK. Because it kind of can’t, and that’s the point. The animals in “Flow” aren’t in control of their circumstances, and it’ll be a miracle if anything — except of course for (most of) the fish — survives this aquatic apocalypse. And if they do, who knows for how long? Then again “Flow” is itself a bit of a miracle, so maybe there’s hope. If not for us, then at least for the innocent creatures who have to live in the crappy world we’ve made for them.
So if anything does happen to this cat, or this dog, or this secretarybird, or this lemur, or this capybara … we have only ourselves to blame.
Movie Reviews
The Last Republican movie review (2024) | Roger Ebert
The documentary “The Last Republican” follows the final months in office of Congressman Adam Kinzinger, who represented two districts in Illinois over the span of 12 years. Kinzinger was one of a handful of Republicans who stood against President Donald Trump, refusing to support him in 2016, then going after him more straightforwardly after Trump lost the election of 2020 and tried to overturn the results by inciting a mob that stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, causing multiple deaths. Unlike other Republicans, including then-Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell and then-Speaker of the House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy, Kinzinger never walked back or even softened his position on Trump’s role in Jan. 6 in order to help position Trump for re-election and stay close to the party’s power center. Kinzinger instead made his opposition to Trump the defining part of his identity.
He started a podcast titled “Country First Conversations”” and a political action committee to fund anti-Trump candidates and later supported President Joe Biden and then Vice President Kamala Harris for president and spoke at the Democratic convention. After voting against Trump’s first impeachment, Kinzinger voted for his second impeachment and later said he regretted not voting for the first one.
He also became one of 35 Republicans to support the formation of a committee to investigate the attacks on the Capitol and served on the committee himself. There’s grimly funny segment showing House speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, announcing that Kinzinger was going to serve on the Jan. 6 committee before actually asking him, and a snippet of McCarthy casually referring to Kinzinger and another Trump critic, Wyoming Republican senator Liz Cheney, as “Pelosi Republicans.” When Cheney lost her primary in Wyoming to her former advisor Harriet Hageman—who briefly opposed Trump, then supported him again—Kinzinger accused conservative pastors of “failing their congregations” by encouraging support for Trump. He is now a CNN commentator.
The title telegraphs the point-of-view of the movie’s director, Steve Pink (“Gross Pointe Blank”). Pink is progressive who disagrees with most of what Kinzinger stands for politically (the movie opens with Kinzinger baiting Pink by calling him a “communist”). Pink positions Kinzinger as one of the last true or real Republicans, primarily because Kinzinger consistently advocated for the rule of law where Trump was concerned and, in Kinzinger’s words, put “country over party.”
This is, of course, a questionable framing, good for branding and sparking arguments on podcasts but not much else. There are plenty other examples of Republicans positioning themselves above the law at various points in the last 50 years, and it’s not as if Democrats have a spotless record in that regard either. In any given era of American history, the “true” Republicans are whichever ones define the identity of the party, and at this particular juncture, it’s not people like Kinzinger.
“The Last Republican” also mostly elides Kinzinger’s positions on various issues, seemingly to make him more palatable here as a Capra-esque hero who is exclusively defined by standing up to corruption, and against a politician that the filmmaker also opposes. (Kinzinger had a much more progressive record on anti-discrimination legislation than most Republicans, but still voted with Trump 90% of the time, blamed China for spreading COVID, and voted in 2017 to repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act.)
This is not to say that Kinzinger’s opposition to Trump isn’t evidence of integrity and a willingness to sacrifice power for principle. That’s plainly the case, and it’s driven home in a scene where Kinzinger and his wife Sofia Boza-Holman sit on a couch in their house cradling their newborn son while watching the House vote to censure Kinzinger and Cheney for serving on the Jan. 6 committee. But there’s a more nuanced movie that could’ve been made covering the same period in Kinzinger’s life, one that took fuller measure of the ancient proverb “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”—though, to be fair, the very end of the movie humorously acknowledges what strange allies Pink and Kinzinger are, at least as far as this project is concerned.
The movie also gives a strong sense of Kinzinger as a person walking against the winds of change and dealing with tendencies in the American character that elude party definitions. “Everybody’s self-centered,” he tells Pink. “That’s the fight now of my next part of life, fighting against that cynicism.”
-
Business1 week ago
Column: OpenAI just scored a huge victory in a copyright case … or did it?
-
Health1 week ago
Bird flu leaves teen in critical condition after country's first reported case
-
Business7 days ago
Column: Molly White's message for journalists going freelance — be ready for the pitfalls
-
Science4 days ago
Trump nominates Dr. Oz to head Medicare and Medicaid and help take on 'illness industrial complex'
-
Politics6 days ago
Trump taps FCC member Brendan Carr to lead agency: 'Warrior for Free Speech'
-
Technology5 days ago
Inside Elon Musk’s messy breakup with OpenAI
-
Lifestyle6 days ago
Some in the U.S. farm industry are alarmed by Trump's embrace of RFK Jr. and tariffs
-
World6 days ago
Protesters in Slovakia rally against Robert Fico’s populist government