MovieChat Forums > Girl, Interrupted (2000) Discussion > 54% on RT?? WHAT!!!

54% on RT?? WHAT!!!

posted 11 years ago by LieutenantRyder
23 replies | jump to latest

I am seriously, seriously, absolutely godsmacked this film has such a low rating on Rotten Tomatoes :O

This is one of my favourite films of all time I never get tired of watching it, it portrays a great story and great performances from Winona Ryder, Angelina Jolie & Brittany Murphy, i honestly thought at lowest, it would be around 75% like how the rating on IMDB is 7.2, pretty similar.

I have no idea what the critics were smoking back in 1999, because I am most definitely not the only person to adore this film. Even the audience gave it an 83% rating!!

[–] Beetlehands 11 years ago

Yes, I was quite alarmed when I noticed that rating. My only guess is that the critics got on this bandwagon saying it was a weakened female version of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". I highly disagree. I think it's a very well made film with an excellent story and masterfully acted!

[–] TANSD76 11 years ago

Rotten Tomatoes has some issues. At the most basic level, they have to decide if a review should be deemed "fresh" or "rotten". When a film isn't undeniably brilliant or terrible, most good reviewers will break it down with more nuance than "fresh" or "rotten".

Personally, I think the film is reasonably entertaining but not very dense. I want to read the book now as I felt like there were gaps and leaps in the way the story was told that made it lack emotional resonance for me. Also, the way the movie was filmed and the soundtrack and scoring choices felt more commercial and Hollywood and detracted from the subject matter. It felt like an interesting story told in a very conventional way.

[–] Beetlehands 11 years ago

You may feel this way about the story because the book is more of a diary or memoir than a novel so to speak. After reading it I felt it was amazing how they brought it to the screen.

[–] Future_Games 11 years ago

Who gives a crap what the critics on Rotten Tomatoes think of a film.

ROCK STARS HAVE KIDNAPPED MY SON

[–] ecf13 11 years ago

Maybe it's the fact that it is ridiculously inaccurate when it comes to describing mental illnesses.

[–] AlwaysSunnyIsAlwaysFunny 10 years ago

The film wasn't describing any certain mental illness per se, it depicted individuals who happen to be mentally ill. How they act is how they act. Everyone is different. And anyone who has ever been to a state mental hospital knows that they are filled with colorful people, to say the least.

[–] ecf13 10 years ago

She defined Borderline Personality Disorder flat out wrong.

[–] hodie1 10 years ago

It doesn't matter how accurate it is in retrospect. RT is full of heartless, imaginationless youngsters who think human knowledge began the year they were born.
It was pretty faithful to the book, which reflected thought in the 60s. I love this film. I would watch it again for Jolie's performance alone.

[–] marthahunter 9 years ago

I love it too. In particular, Jolie's performance was extraordinarily riveting, and Ryder's character brought exactly the right tone and attitude to the film.

[–] maximusveritas 9 years ago

It wasn't accurate at any time. The author didn't like it, complaining about how they changed it by adding all the melodramatic drivel.
It's not the worst film I've seen about mental illness, but it's pretty bad. Jolie does give a good performance, but that's not enough to save the movie.

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

It was pretty faithful to the book ...

... except Susanna Kaysen herself thought it was melodramatic drivel. I kind of feel she was right.🐭

[–] CaityTheRed 10 years ago

Yeah, this is one of the few movies I can watch over and over again. It's amazing. I try to keep an open mind about movies with lower scores on rotten tomatoes like 40/50% because you can miss out on some good ones.

http://caitythered.tumblr.com

[–] rc-108 10 years ago

I also really enjoyed this movie...
and I liked the performances by the whole cast.. especially Murphy, Jolie and Ryder...

I give it an 8.

[–] hodie1 10 years ago

Rotten Tomatoes sucks.

[–] Dan_Garten 9 years ago

If released today, the rating would probably be in the 80's.

He's nothing next to Bart Taylor.

[–] yajji 9 years ago

I agree with the above poster. 1999 was a great year for film, as were the 1990s in general which maybe why a few critics were especially hard on this film. The 2000s and 2010s have been pretty average. Good films these days are few and far in between. I'm sure if Girl was released today, it would sweep all the critics off their feet. It's a genuinely good film and probably one of the very few instances where Rotten Tomatoes is wrong.

[–] goldpink23 9 years ago

@yajji.Are you saying because 1999 had so many great movies the critics couldn't rate this movie higher?If that isn't what you meant can you clear it up.However if you did mean that.Should'nt this movie that is so great receive a higher score from critics?Other movies that they consider great during 1999 wouldn't prevent them from rating this movie higher(Unless they didn't think it was great to begin with).I don't care what other people think of a movie that I like because I know what I might think is great someone else may not.That just means that some critics have a completely different OPINION than other people who think this is an amazing movie.

[–] yajji 8 years ago

What I'm saying is sometimes when there's a slew of great films coming out that many good, well intentioned films can fall through the cracks. Critics can sometimes be on a high horse as far as judging a film goes, especially when they've seen a lot of flat out masterpieces. It can make them especially tough on everything else. Like the expression "it pales in comparison to...". I feel like Girl, Interrupted came out in a year where there were just so many other films garnering attention that it didn't do as well as it could have, if it came out in a year when there weren't that many excellent films.