WOW... 93% AT ROTTEN TOMATOES? - Spy Kids (2001) Discussion

[–] Great_Gazoo 15 years ago

The RT community sucks. This is a terrific family film, one of my favorites.

reply

[–] Dougienesses 14 years ago

Its not an incredible film, theres just nothing really wrong with it.

reply

[–] Goku_Ol_Chap 14 years ago

Exactly

reply

[–] zeroevildarkcool 14 years ago

LOOK AT ROTTEN TOMATOES TITLE. "ROTTEN TOMATOES". THE SITE ITSELF IS INHERENTLY NEGATIVE LIKE "SOMETHING AWFUL". YOU CANT EXPECT GOOD TO COME OUT OF IT. COMPARED TO ROTTEN TOMATOES IMDB IS A DIVINE MERCIFUL SAINT.

reply

[–] mlg-t888 14 years ago

Wow, really? You thought it was terrific?

________________________________________
I'll teach you to laugh at something that's funny!

reply

[–] ColJ 14 years ago

10 years later, I still have it on my iPod. Seriously, one of my favorite pictures ever. And it is unquestionably the best spy soundtrack ever.

Spy Kids 2 and 3 were disappointing, mostly for the fact that they were too morally ambiguous for any kids, centering on dark themes of betrayal and spies changing teams, etc...

But #1 was a 10 out of 10 for me.

reply

[–] mlg-t888 14 years ago

Or how about they were disappointing just because they sucked?

The sequel had no plot and pointless characters, the third one was just a shameless assault of God-awful visual effects and suicidally bad dialogue.

And I really don't see how this is a 10/10 in any respect.

________________________________________
I'll teach you to laugh at something that's funny!

reply

[–] ColJ 14 years ago

Your point is that #s 2 and 3 weren't good. And I agree. I only said I'd give a 10 to #1, with its foreboding yet not creepy tone, its HansZimmer/DannyElfman/LosLobos/RobertRodriguez soundtrack, its cast of serious celebs screwing around... it was the perfect incarnation of Yo Gabba Gabba.

reply

[–] mlg-t888 14 years ago

Admittedly there are elements of the first which I liked (kinda). And it is a very good movie to show to kids (except for that random S-bomb toward the end there, WHAT WAS THAT?).
________________________________________
I'll teach you to laugh at something that's funny!

reply

[–] megancedwards 10 years ago

RT is just a thumbs up or down type site and if something doesn't totally suck it gets thumbs up.

reply

[–] angelx 14 years ago

It's a good movie. The sequels suck though.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] alerasoul 13 years ago

Yet another reason to never, ever, ever, EVER trust Rotten Tomatoes.

...And yet another reason to never, ever, ever, EVER trust Roger Ebert. Although he also said "The Mummy 3" was the best of the trilogy.

Yeah. All critics are idiots.

-------------
"Rescue the damsel in distress; kill the bad guy; save the world."
--Rick O'Connell

reply

[–] mosqtsing 13 years ago

I always find RT to be a better place when it comes to ratings. People on IMDb seem to think that critics are pretentious, but IMO the IMDb community is worse. Some of the people are just trying to be serious, and to show that they have taste they just diss movies with genres like horror/family.

reply

[–] All_Seeing_I 13 years ago

Just clarifying for you guys (don't mean to offend, but it doesn't seem as if most of you are aware of this...no intention to insult whether you do or don't) but RT calculates its scores based on the percentage of reviewers who gave positive reviews. A (say) 90% on Rotten Tomatoes doesn't mean most critics thought it was a 9/10 movie, it means that 9 out of 10 critics liked it.

A film can be 100% on RT even if most reviewers gave it a 7/10.

reply

[–] balrogshallnotpass 11 years ago

Plus, the critics don't have to like the film a lot to vote it up. For example:

Spy Kids is a frivolous but fun adventure movie that will give kids thrills and adults some smiles. Everybody goes home happy.

As long as they didn't hate the film, they will vote up. Spy Kids has an average of 7.2/10 from the critics.

But Gandalf! I don't want to be a Hobbit~~

reply

[–] CCRider01 12 years ago

"I always find RT to be a better place when it comes to ratings. People on IMDb seem to think that critics are pretentious, but IMO the IMDb community is worse"

The RT critics got this one right. IMDB has too many fanboys who vote up merely decent movies, ie comic book action heroes, and too many "hateboys" that vote down good movies.

This film is certainly better than its 5.7 IMDB rating.

reply

[–] balrogshallnotpass 11 years ago

People on IMDb are more biased IMO, especially since extreme fanboys vote 1's to movies just because they don't want it to have a higher score than their favourite film (which they vote 10 to just for it to rise)

But Gandalf! I don't want to be a Hobbit~~

reply

[–] Dragoneyed363 13 years ago

This, Free Willy and The Wild Thornberrys Movie are probably some of the most underrated kid's movies I know of.

"Do you want to hurt me?"
"No?"
"YOU'RE LYING!"

reply

[–] OrionKnight 12 years ago

It damn well deserved it too. Don't know why there's such a difference between the critics and viewers, but for this I'll side with the critics. The first sequel was good too.

reply

[–] BrainGremlin 12 years ago

I don't think you understand the RT rating system.

Unless *I* am mistaken, 93% only means 93% of the reviews were positive (i.e., they considered it to be above 5/10). The average rating is just 7.2/10, which certainly isn't anywhere near the 9.3/10 you seem to think it has.

---
I hear his theme music, he's around here somewhere...

reply

[–] JungleBunnyBastard 12 years ago

The movie is a piece of *beep* and deserves less than 10%

My Vote History:
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=25714486

reply

[–] iKnowFilm 11 years ago

I saw this as a kid and LOVED IT....I just watched it a couple days ago and was baffled by how good I remembered it being and how not-so-good it was. Though it deserves higher than a 10%

reply