MovieChat Forums > KitesĀ (2010) Discussion > 89% on Rotten Tomatoes!!!

89% on Rotten Tomatoes!!!


Why is there such a big difference about rating, on IMDB: 5.6, then how come so good on RT.... May be paid critics, to write only good review...

reply

Most serious moviegoers I know go to Rotten Tomatoes to decide whether to see a movie because the percentage rating is a weighted process involving reviewers. Those reviewers have credibility already either by the fact that they have been hired by a magazine or a newspaper or by the fact that they are web only reviewers, often non-journalists, who get published due to their popularity with readers. Imdb.com, on the other hand, achieves ratings only by people who log on and vote. As I understand it -- no proof here, only what I have heard -- hackers can move a rating up or down using computer programs masquerading as readers. I loved Kites. Saw it twice this week. They should be proud of their RT rating.

"Enjoy life. This is not a dress rehearsal."

reply

Bollywood is not Hollywood. For the first hour or so KITES is an engaging mixture of comedy and romance, of originality and homage, of media gangsters and con artists--all done with a non-western twist. Then it does some great--tho sometimes tedious--chase scene parodies. Throughout there is real romantic tension. IMO, the critics liked it because in spite of all its deliberate borrowing there is nothing else like it. However, the film somehow loses momentum winding down, rather than revving up; partly because after the shootout it decides for no good reason to go doomed lovers. Is that a Bollywood cultural thing? Perhaps. But the Mermaid-went-back-to-the-sea bit certainly is not. The ending both moved and annoyed me; when I realized it was moving me, I became even MORE annoyed. So I can see why critics would give it high marks, while filmgoers might not. After the first hour I was ready to give it a TEN; by the end a SEVEN; today I gave it an EIGHT.

--Rayf

reply

score is low here b/c IMDb has a lot of stans and trolls who just give films low scores when they havent even seen the film, to be a-holes. Just b/c they didnt like the actor or storyline, or racist, etc, etc. I've seen ppl even boast on the particular boards that they did that. This is how you tell is a film is GOOD & moving in IMDb...look at the "USER REVIEWS" in front. If it has over 20 written reviews, good or bad, the film is usually worth a watch. That many ppl arent going to waste their time writing over the recommended 10 sentences for a c rappy movie. If it has 50-100 written 'user reviews', such as Karate Kid (2010), but only 5.3/10 out of 4,462 votes ...it's do sh-t! The movie is G-O-O-D!!! lol Thats strategy hasnt failed me yet ;)

'My goal is to be as nice as my pets think I am'

reply

[deleted]

I believe it's because in RT a movie can only be "fresh" or "rotten". That's why many movies that nobody would say are the best of the year (like so-so documentaries, forgettable ok-movies and the like) have really high scores. A movie that makes people passionate about it (either LOVE it or HATE it) is more likely to get a lower tomatometer score than one that most people agree is "meh" or "ok". I suspect that's it. In the case of Kites, I'd go with the IMDb rating (it kinda sucked).

reply

89% on Rotten Tomatoes its because Indians were not allowed to vote on Rotten Tomatoes.

Many Indians come to imdb.com and vote according to their liking, which is similar to the ''success at the Indian box office'':

Most movies that are hits at the Indian box office are unwatchable dreck.
Quality movies like Kites or Fashion always fail at the box office.

reply

What he said.

reply

[deleted]