Movie Reviews
The Movie Rating Dilemma: Or How I Learned How to Value Ratings
The act of judging — of assigning value to someone or something based on performance — is probably as old as humanity itself. You can safely assume that even cavemen were sizing each other up: Who hunts better? Who builds the sturdier shelter? Who’s pulling their weight?
Formalized systems came much later. The Roman Empire famously popularized the thumbs up/thumbs down gesture during gladiatorial games — a blunt but effective metric. By the 18th century, academic institutions began standardizing numerical grading systems. The 19th century introduced letter grades. And by the early 20th century, film criticism had entered the chat, with newspapers like the New York Daily publishing some of the earliest recorded movie grades (at least according to a quick Google dive — so take that with a grain of salt).
Fast forward to the 1970s, and modern film criticism as we know it began to crystallize. Roger Ebert popularized the four-star system, while he and Gene Siskel turned the thumbs up/thumbs down into a cultural mainstay on their television show — perhaps subconsciously echoing those ancient Roman gestures.
Now, I could theoretically try to confirm whether the Roman inspiration was intentional. But seeing as both critics have passed on, the only way to do that would involve a séance — and if horror movies have taught us anything, that never ends well. Sure, some people claim they’ve used an Ouija board, and nothing happened. Good for them. With my luck, I’d end up summoning Pazuzu, Candyman, a Djinn, and Satan all at once. So that’s a hard pass.
Jokes aside, in the past decade — arguably since the moment movie ratings were invented — people have increasingly questioned their value in entertainment and beyond. Albums, films, TV shows, books: every score feels like a potential battleground. (I don’t spend much time in Goodreads comment sections, but I can only imagine.)
But where did it all probably begin?
The Rotten Tomatoes Effect
I still remember the first time I heard about Rotten Tomatoes. It was on a radio show I used to catch after school called La Hora Señalada (the Spanish title for “High Noon”), where two veteran critics would break down new releases and revisit older classics. Before every discussion, they’d reference “the Rotten Tomatoes score,” like it was some cinematic barometer of truth.
I didn’t actually visit the site back then. Internet access at home was spotty — dial-up at best, nonexistent at worst — and not exactly a priority when my family had bigger concerns. But even without browsing it myself, I grew up watching cinephiles treat the Tomatometer like gospel. A high percentage meant “good.” A low one meant “bad.” Simple as that.
Over the past decade, that perception seems to have intensified. The site has been around since 1998, but the explosion of high-speed internet, social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, and the rise of online fandom culture amplified its influence. Suddenly, that big red or green number wasn’t just a reference point — it became ammunition in arguments.
So, how much should we actually care about it?
The answer isn’t straightforward.
First, it’s important to understand what that percentage represents. The Tomatometer isn’t an average movie rating — it’s the percentage of critics who gave the film a “fresh” (positive) review. That means a movie sitting at 80% doesn’t necessarily have critics raving about it. Many of those positive reviews could be modest 7/10s or 3.5/5s. The more telling metric is the smaller average rating number listed beneath the percentage — but let’s be honest, most people fixate on the big, bold score.
Filmmakers have criticized the site for oversimplifying complex critical opinions into a binary fresh/rotten system. And that critique isn’t entirely unfair. When nuanced reviews get distilled into a single color-coded badge, context gets lost.
Then there’s the audience score — which, at least historically, has been vulnerable to manipulation. The most infamous example came during the release of “Captain Marvel,” when organized groups review-bombed the film largely due to backlash against Brie Larson. The score plummeted before most people had even seen the movie. To their credit, Rotten Tomatoes implemented changes afterward to curb that kind of coordinated sabotage. Of course, the opposite phenomenon exists too: fans artificially inflating scores for films they love.

All of this reinforces one simple idea: the site is a reference point, not a verdict.
It can be useful — a quick snapshot of critical consensus — but it shouldn’t live on a pedestal. It can mislead. It can misrepresent nuance. And it absolutely may not reflect your own taste. There are plenty of low-rated films I adore. “Max Keeble’s Big Move” sits at 27%, and I’ll defend that gem every, any, what, where, why, when, and however time.
Another factor people rarely consider: critics are individuals with specific tastes. If a horror skeptic reviews a slasher or a rom-com enthusiast tackles an austere arthouse drama, their reaction may not align with your own sensibilities. That doesn’t make them wrong — it just means taste is subjective.
I believe the healthiest approach is to treat Rotten Tomatoes as a starting point. Read individual reviews. Seek out critics whose tastes align with yours. Cross-reference with other aggregators like Metacritic, which uses a weighted average system rather than a binary model. (Full disclosure: I haven’t relied on it heavily myself, but many cinephiles prefer its methodology.)
In the end, no percentage can replace your own experience. The most reliable metric will always be the one you assign after the credits roll.
Also Related to Movie Rating Dilemma: The Death of the Opening Weekend: What Actually Defines Success in Film Now
The Value
In preparation for this article, I ran a small poll — and the results were both surprising and completely predictable. Much like politics (and, frankly, everything else these days), people are deeply divided on how much value they place on ratings. What caught me off guard, though, was that after hundreds of votes, the majority leaned toward the “don’t care” camp.
That lines up with a noticeable trend on platforms like Letterboxd, where more and more users are ditching the traditional star system in favor of a simple “heart” — or nothing at all.
So why is that happening?
From the responses and patterns I observed, one recurring reason is fluidity. Many people say their film ratings change constantly in their heads. A movie that felt like a four yesterday might feel like a three-and-a-half next month. Updating scores repeatedly can become tedious, even exhausting. But the bigger issue seems to be perception. People worry — sometimes rightly so— that their ratings will be misinterpreted. For some, three stars is a solid, positive endorsement. For others, anything below four feels like a dismissal. That disconnect can spiral into unnecessary debates — or worse, online pile-ons.
Which brings me to what I like to call the comparison game.
This is where things get absurd. It’s when someone compares potatoes to lettuce. Sure, they both grow from the ground. They might share space on a burger plate. But beyond that? Completely different textures, flavors, and purposes.
Recently, I rated “Dhurandhar” four stars — the same score I gave “One Battle After Another.” A follower asked how I could possibly see those films as equals. But that’s the assumption baked into the comparison game: that identical ratings equal identical value. They don’t. One film might be a potato, the other a lettuce — or an apple. What do they meaningfully have to do with each other?
The root issue seems simple: people take their favorite art personally. If I love X and give it four stars, you’d better love it just as much — or at least rate it the “correct” way. Otherwise, the pitchforks come out. Disagreement isn’t just disagreement; it becomes a perceived attack.
And that’s where ratings shift from being shorthand expressions of personal taste to symbols people defend as if they were moral positions. In theory, a rating is just a snapshot of how something worked for one individual at one moment in time. In practice, it can feel like a referendum on identity.
Which says less about the numbers themselves — and more about how much we’ve invested in them.
When you rate a movie, do you stop and cross-reference every prior rating to ensure consistency across unrelated genres? The only time that kind of comparative calibration makes sense to me is within a contained body of work — ranking a director’s filmography, an actor’s performances, or entries in a franchise.
There are even stranger edge cases. I’ve given “The Room” a perfect score — not because it’s “objectively” great in a traditional sense, but because, for what it is, and what it accidentally achieves, it feels like a specific kind of perfection. Meanwhile, others might rate it a two-star disaster and still love it just as passionately. The number doesn’t always tell the whole emotional truth.
Now, for the positives.
As one commenter on the site put it, “rating forces us to confront the tough question: how much did this film really work for me?” A rating compels clarity. It forces you to distill your feelings into a decision.
In a way, this circles back to the heart-versus-stars debate. Clicking a heart on Letterboxd leaves a lot open to interpretation. Say you heart both “Dog Day Afternoon” and “12 Angry Men.” Great — but do you value them equally? Which one affected you more? Which one would you revisit first? Without a rating (or a detailed review), we’re left guessing.
And that ties into another undeniable reality: we’re living in a low-attention-span era. You can write a thoughtful, beautifully argued review — and many people simply won’t read it. On fast-scrolling platforms, especially, the rating becomes a kind of headline. A shorthand signal. It tells followers, at a glance, whether you found something worthwhile.
Conclusion
Personally, I’ll always champion ratings.
Yes, they’re a double-edged sword. They can flatten nuance, spark unnecessary outrage, or reduce complex feelings to a tidy number. But they can also serve a practical purpose — if we’re willing to understand how to read them. There’s probably an argument to be made that audiences need a bit more education on interpreting ratings as shorthand rather than gospel.
Some critics have come up with creative systems that embrace that shorthand in interesting ways. Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel boiled it down to the now-iconic thumbs metric — elegantly simple, instantly readable. Dan Murrell leans into a more textual breakdown, while Cody Leach blends a numbered score with contextual explanation. Different approaches, same goal: distilling a reaction into something digestible without (ideally) stripping it of meaning.
It’s not easy. The more you think about cinema as art — deeply personal, highly subjective — the more assigning it a number can start to feel reductive. For some critics, the very act of rating becomes a burden, as if they’re forced to quantify something that resists quantification.
Are ratings imperfect? Absolutely. Are they reductive? Sometimes. But they’re also efficient, clarifying, and — when used thoughtfully — a meaningful extension of the conversation rather than its replacement. In a media landscape built on quick takes and endless content, ratings function as a kind of necessary evil. They’re a snapshot, not the whole portrait. When used responsibly — and interpreted thoughtfully — they don’t have to replace the conversation. They can simply be the entry point to it.
Similar Read Around Movie Rating Dilemma: 9 Biggest Hollywood Box Office Bombs of 2025: Movies That Lost Millions Despite Huge Budgets
Movie Reviews
Movie Review – Modern Whore (2025)
Modern Whore, 2025.
Directed by Nicole Bazuin.
Starring Andrea Werhun.
SYNOPSIS:
Modern Whore follows Andrea Werhun as she portrays her past roles as escort Mary Ann, stripper Sophia, and her OnlyFans presence – all part of her Toronto sex work journey.
Writer/director Nicole Bazuin makes her feature debut with Modern Whore, a hybrid documentary detailing the experiences of Andrea Werhun based on her memoir of the same name. Bazuin and Werhun make an insightful and funny adaptation of Werhun’s life as a former sex worker in Toronto, examining the hows and whys of the industry and her participation in it.
Modern Whore takes an interesting approach to the way it tells Werhun’s story as half of it is a documentary of Werhun relaying her experiences and speaking with family, friends and colleagues while the other half is scripted with Werhun and others acting out the stories. It is unconventional, but its uniqueness makes Werhun’s story entertaining with a tight and witty script by her and Bazuin.
The scripted portions display Werhun’s fun personality with the cast and material – after all, literally telling and acting in her own story makes for a great performance as she opens herself up to some of her most vulnerable moments knowing the stigma against sex workers whether they are/were escorts or OnlyFans creators. There’s plenty of light self-awareness along with quirky fourth-wall breaking humour as she recounts her stories or that of her clients skewed perspectives of their interactions. It is also not afraid to shy away from the more difficult subject matter of being a sex worker like meeting with really sketchy clients or some taking it too far, looking at the impact it has and the little support system in place.
The switches from the scripted scenes to the talking heads or interviews is well paced with the formats complimenting each other. The interviews are interesting and insightful, digging into why someone chooses to enter sex work and the stigma they feel from family or friends. Werhun digs into the different personas she put on, how some were closer to her real self than others, and the necessity for those identities in her work. Much of the conversations revolve around the taboo of sex work and how the discussions are slowly shifting so it is less shameful, but still plenty of work needed to be done towards that front.
Modern Whore showcases great writing from Werhun and Bazuin with plenty of entertaining sequences, not to mention Werhun’s performance. It is insightful, funny and creative with its hybrid format, making it very memorable in several aspects.
Flickering Myth Rating – Film: ★ ★ ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★ ★ ★
Ricky Church – Follow me on Bluesky for more movie news and nerd talk.
Movie Reviews
Little Amélie or the Character of Rain Movie Review: A quiet story that speaks louder than most
The Times of India
Apr 04, 2026, 1:12 PM IST
4.0
Story: A quiet child named Amélie grows up in Japan, barely reacting to the world until a small moment begins to pull her into it. As she slowly becomes aware of people and emotions, she starts to understand life through experiences.Review: Oscar-nominated in the Best Animated Feature category, ‘Little Amélie or The Character of Rain’ is a gentle film that draws you in with its simplicity and honesty. It does not rely on tricks or dramatic moments to grab your attention. The story trusts itself completely and moves at its own pace with quiet confidence. The film feels calm and still, giving each scene time instead of rushing ahead. At times, it may seem like very little is happening, but that is when you realise it wants you to slow down and stay in the moment. Set in Japan, it follows a French family from Belgium with a sense of warmth and care. There are moments when it may feel like the film is holding back, but there is also something real in the way it avoids rushing or explaining everything. Beneath its soft surface, there is a deeply philosophical and thoughtful layer that reflects on life in a simple and honest way.The story follows Amélie (voiced by Loise Charpentier), a young Belgian child growing up in Japan, who spends the early part of her life in a strange, distant state. She barely reacts to the world around her and seems lost in her own space. Her parents, especially her mother, try to reach out to her in simple ways, hoping to see some response. Things begin to change when her grandmother arrives from Belgium and tries to bond with baby Amélie, and the offering of a piece of white Belgian chocolate makes all the difference. Around the same time, we meet Nishio San, the gentle caregiver, who becomes an important part of her daily life. The white Belgian chocolate becomes a turning point in the film, and from that moment, Amélie begins to respond to people and her surroundings, as if she is discovering everything for the first time.The way the film opts to showcase Amélie’s inner world stays with you. It does not explain her thoughts in a clear or direct way. Instead, it lets you sit inside her perspective, even when it feels distant or hard to read. The animation plays a big role here. It has a soft, almost calming quality, like a memory that keeps changing shape. Some moments feel very personal, while there are also sequences that may test your patience. There are stretches where the film stays on a plot point a little longer than expected, and you might find your attention slipping. At the same time, when it works, it really works. It brilliantly captures small feelings that are tough to put into words, and that is not something many films manage to do.The voice performances match this tone well. The actor voicing Amélie keeps things very minimal, which suits the character. There is very little need for long dialogue in this film, as the performance is carried more through tone and the way the moments play out. The voices of her parents and Nishio San bring warmth into the film and give it some emotional grounding. They feel natural, like people you might actually know, rather than characters trying to make a strong impression. Absolutely nothing feels forced in the film, and that helps the film stay believable even when it moves into more abstract spaces.‘Little Amélie or The Character of Rain’ leaves an impression in a quiet and unexpected way. It is thoughtful and gentle, though there are moments where it may feel a bit too soft or even repetitive. The mixed reactions around it make sense because it speaks in a very specific tone and sticks to it. It asks you to meet it halfway, to be patient and open to its rhythm. That may not work for everyone, but if you do connect with it, the film stays with you as a simple and sincere look at how a person slowly begins to understand the world.
Movie Reviews
Movie review: The Drama
The Drama is a psychological horror film masquerading as a romcom. From the jump, something feels a little off about the “meet-cute.” At a coffee shop, Charlie (Robert Pattinson) sees Emma (Zendaya) reading a novel (The Damage by Harper Ellison, a truly excellent fake title and author). Taken with her, he does a quick google search of the book and approaches her.
“I love that book,” he says.
She ignores him. All of a sudden, he feels like all eyes in the coffee shop are on him, judging him for this hapless pick-up attempt. Time seems to freeze.
Finally, she removes her single earbud and looks at him. She explains that she’s deaf in one ear and had no idea he was even talking to her. They decide to have a do-over, a cute practice that is repeated throughout their romance. He sits back down and tries again.
Later, over dinner, he continues the ruse when she asks him for his thoughts on the ending of the novel.
“Is she dead?” Emma asks.
“Um, yeah, I think she’s dead,” Charlie says.
“And what about the mirrors?”
“Uh…the mirrors?…I think they’re, um, metaphors,” he sputters.
She stares at him, quizzically, until he finally comes clean: He hasn’t read the book. He just wanted to talk to her.
That lie, while seemingly innocent, was actually pretty dark: He wooed her under false pretenses, pretending to be something he wasn’t. Not necessarily a dealbreaker, but a red flag to be sure. What else would he lie about to get his way?
But here’s the thing: This film isn’t actually about Emma’s safety or whether or not Charlie can be trusted. It’s the opposite. You see, Charlie has told a tiny lie. Emma has been hiding a whopper.
IF YOU DON’T WANT TO BE SPOILED COME BACK AND READ THE REST OF THE REVIEW AFTER YOU’VE SEEN THE FILM!
Okay, so Emma and Charlie get engaged. They’re in love—and they’re happily planning their wedding. Over a tasting dinner of mushroom risotto and too much wine with Charlie’s best man, Mike (Mamoudou Athie) and his wife, Emma’s maid of honor, Rachel (Alana Haim), they play an ill-advised game of “What is the worst thing you’ve ever done?” (I can’t emphasis enough how much you should never play this game.)
They go around the table, admitting some genuinely messed up things, until they get to Emma, who is quite drunk at this point.
“I planned a school shooting,” she says.
Charlie laughs nervously.
Then, with mounting horror, everyone around the table realizes she’s serious.
“I didn’t do it, of course,” Emma says quickly. But the damage has been done.
It’s Rachel, played with exquisite haughtiness by Haim, who storms away in disgust. As far as she’s concerned, Emma is canceled. The wedding is obviously off. And a freaked out Mike essentially agrees with her.
It’s up to Charlie to navigate his conflicting emotions. In the wedding speech he was writing, he extols Emma’s unimpeachable character, but now he thinks, does he ever know her? (There’s a wonderful scene where he begins editing out words like “kindness” and “empathy” in the speech.) He can’t reconcile the woman he thinks he is marrying with a person who would plan such an evil act.
So yes, The Drama is about the impossibility of really knowing someone. And I like the idea of a romcom morphing into a kind of “hell is other people” horror film.
But something about this film really put me off. It’s reminiscent of Tár, a film I actually loved that nonetheless had one glaring flaw. As we know, most so-called “geniuses” who get away with sexual predation are men, but Tár dared to ask the question: What if it was a woman? Flipping that paradigm seemed like provocativeness for its own sake.
It’s worse with The Drama, mostly because it’s not nearly the film Tár is. The majority of school shooters are boys. More specifically, white boys. Why on earth have a movie about a Black woman who considered such violence?
The answer is simple: It’s to center Charlie’s dilemma, his pain, his confusion. I knew without even checking that the film had been written by a man, writer/director Kristopher Borgli (Dream Scenario). The film is entirely from Charlie’s perspective as he drives himself slightly mad with uncertainty.
Pattinson, who burst on the scene playing a heartthrob vampire, has spent the rest of his career trying to undo that fact. He specializes in men on the verge of a nervous breakdown—I feel like I’ve almost never seen him in a film where he doesn’t twitch and sweat—so this is right in his wheelhouse. He’s good at playing Charlie’s increased agitation. Should he go through with the wedding or not?
The ever-captivating Zendaya has the trickier part because her inner life is intentionally opaque—that’s part of the puzzle of the film. We’re supposed to at least entertain the notion that Emma could actually be psychopath, not just a woman who had a troubled adolescence who briefly lost her way.
Zendaya does the best she can with this cryptic character, but I found the whole premise of The Drama off-putting.
Yes, the otherness of our lovers is rich material to mine. But the shock value of this film overpowered its ideas. (It’s like that old fashion insult: “You’re not wearing the jacket. The jacket is wearing you.”) By embracing an outlier and taking the premise to such an extreme, the film lost its grip—both on reality and my interest.
-
South-Carolina7 days agoSouth Carolina vs TCU predictions for Elite Eight game in March Madness
-
Education1 week agoVideo: Transgender Athletes Barred From Women’s Olympic Events
-
Miami, FL1 week agoJannik Sinner’s Girlfriend Laila Hasanovic Stuns in Ab-Revealing Post Amid Miami Open
-
Minneapolis, MN1 week agoBoy who shielded classmate during school shooting receives Medal of Honor
-
Vermont7 days ago
Skier dies after fall at Sugarbush Resort
-
Politics7 days agoTrump’s Ballroom Design Has Barely Been Scrutinized
-
Atlanta, GA7 days agoFetishist ‘No Kings’ protester in mask drags ‘Trump’ and ‘JD Vance’ behind her wheelchair
-
Entertainment3 days agoInside Ye’s first comeback show at SoFi Stadium

