MovieChat Forums > Da 5 Bloods (2020) Discussion > RT: 92% Critics (158) versus 61% Audienc...

RT: 92% Critics (158) versus 61% Audience (468) now 93% (196) vs 60% (848)


Da 5 Bloods so far doesn't have the same type of broad appeal among audiences as among Critics. The pool of critics is larger now and with more voices, so a 30 point gap for me is an opportunity for discussion.

Edit: In roughly 4 days Critic ratings are trending up ↑ but the audience rating is trending down ↓.

reply

Critics are scared of giving it a bad rating because they will be called racists.

reply

[–] MrMovie (460) an hour ago
Critics are scared of giving it a bad rating because they will be called racists.
That's an interesting opinion, angle or take on something that has so far had no basis in fact nor reality.

Are you able to name any brave critics that have ventured out into that scary world of film criticism of "Black" movies and have been called racist for daring to call, grade or rate a movie fairly or objectively?

And just WHO would call those brave professional critics "Racist"?

reply

Lol on movies Reddit if you say something negative about the movie people call you a racist. Also, look what happened to the people who said they don’t agree with protests or kneeling for the flag they were called racists.

reply

[–] MrMovie (461) an hour ago
Lol on movies Reddit if you say something negative about the movie people call you a racist. Also, look what happened to the people who said they don’t agree with protests or kneeling for the flag they were called racists.
I'm going to need you to stay focused with me on this one. Okay?

Were there professional critics on Reddit:Movies that gave an objective review or rating of a, ahem, "Black" movie and because of that review or rating they were called "racist"? Easy question to answer.

reply

Obviously a critic isn't going to say I gave this movie a good rating because I don’t want to be called racist.

reply

[–] MrMovie (462) 17 hours ago
Obviously a critic isn't going to say I gave this movie a good rating because I don’t want to be called racist.
I must not understand English or your logic very well as I read that sentence. 😕

It would make more sense to me if you had said this: "Obviously a critic isn't going to say, 'I didn't give this movie a Bad rating because I didn't want to be called a racist'". I know the two express the same thought but the difference is subtle to me.

Regardless though your response isn't evidence that it has happened on Reddit:Movies to a professional critic and doesn't even suggest that being scared or afraid is being acknowledged. 😕 The other quite odd thing in your expressed POV or opinion that you are positing as fact is; any critic worth his/her salt should be able to 'use his/her words,' in the body of their critique to justify their rating; be it good, bad or indifferent. If he/she is word-wise they could even Damn the film with faint praise or use double-speak to justify their rating.

reply

No that is Bullshit. Its happens with lots of films.

reply

[–] Galactus03 (1843) 3 hours ago
No that is Bullshit. Its happens with lots of films.
What's BS? I'm missing the context.

reply

I was replying to MrMovie. Did I click the wrong reply??🤔

reply

No, no, no, you did indeed reply to MrMovie. I was being a bit of a buttinski and couldn't follow the train of thought between you two.

reply

I go with the audience score. RT professional reviewers and I rarely agree. I think its because the audience goes to see a movie out of desire to see the film whereas reviewers go regardless of their interest because they're paid to do it.

reply

On braindead action and violence movies, the American audience usually loves it, so this is probably the reaction to being disappointed in not really seeing what they expected, i.e. a black "Apocalypse Now!" but I think the movie is great. Very touching and very direct not the matters of African Americans and Viet Nam.

reply

61% is a good score. So I don't see the negative here.

reply

[–] Anotherday (513) an hour ago
61% is a good score. So I don't see the negative here.
I agree that the rating is reflected as "Certified Fresh" which is a good consensus indicator for this film.

Given that Spike Lee is seen as a controversial director and storyteller suggests for me that he doesn't have really broad commercial appeal or commercial success. His last film was profitable, ~$93 Million on a $10 Million budget and Inside Man did about double that amount. Critics tend to love him.

reply

> Critics tend to love him.

I think that is sort of sad. Critics like him, and the members of
the motion picture academy because his movies are woke representations
of political and racial issues. However that might be what caused
him to dump all over Woody Allen after having defended him, as he
might thing that his defense of Woody will reduce his chances of
winning an Oscar.

reply

[–] brux (5565) 10 hours ago
> Critics tend to love him.

I think that is sort of sad. Critics like him, and the members of
the motion picture academy because his movies are woke representations
of political and racial issues. However that might be what caused
him to dump all over Woody Allen after having defended him, as he
might thing that his defense of Woody will reduce his chances of
winning an Oscar.
Critics and cine-o-files have acknowledged him for some of his works NOT because of his political and or social stances. You're on a crusade to conflate a position he took, and has now retracted, as evidence of a tactical decision by Spike Lee to maintain his apparent fast-track to another Oscar accolade?

That's your hill you're willing to die on. Spike Lee is no Hollywood darling as most of his works he never finds financing for and Spike has never sucked up to anyone to continue his trade and passion. Game knows game and Spike pushes to deliver his message his way. My personal opinion is you're barking up the wrong tree.

Spike Lee has never been awarded or rewarded in "Hollywood" for being woke or socially prescient or politically aware or racially active or pro Black or Anti-White. (being Pro-Black clearly doesn't mean Anti-White but clearly he is Anti-Racism) I'm not posting to defend Spike Lee or confront you. I responded in kind because you brought the subject up in context to film ratings about Da 5 Bloods as a segue to pontificate about Woody Allen?

Really??!!

reply

> You're on a crusade to conflate a position he took, and has
> now retracted, as evidence of a tactical decision by Spike
> Lee to maintain his apparent fast-track to another Oscar accolade?

> That's your hill you're willing to die on.

Hardly ... give me a break.

> My personal opinion is you're barking up the wrong tree.

Thanks, I can accept that appreciate it for being direct. It's not that important to me, but a feeling I get because the inner reasoning of SL is not apparent where I have read about. I read the article here -

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/may/29/do-i-really-care-woody-allen-comes-out-fighting

about Woody and the scandal, and having following this throughout the years I think that anyone who neutrally reads the actual facts could hardly come to the conclusion that Woody is anything in the same galaxy as Weinstein, Cosby, etc.

It's OK with me if you defend Spike or attack me as long as you are honest and truthful, I'm here to express my opinions and for a discussion. It is surprising how hard it is to do that - even here where it should be the norm.

I find it funny how people use the word pontificate. I see no call for you to use that word except as a jab to emphasize that you don't agree and have animus towards me from my opinion. There was nothing "pontificatorial" about anything I said.

It was straight reasoning. You can disagree or point out errors in the facts I present, again, which is fine. Spike went from defending Woody to backstabbing him at a critical time with his new movie - I just put the two together and speculated.

It is much easier to discuss, agree or disagree, than all this weird convoluted attacked on me. It's boring to get these personal attacks rather than a discussion about the actual subject.

reply

Did you just imply that Apocalypse Now is a braindead action movie? If so, I must call you a moron.

reply

I had a relatively hard time getting into it because of some of what seemed like continuity errors. Like when they did the flashbacks they really all still old men most of the time. Maybe NetFlix did not want to get the same criticism for using the anti-aging software, and they did not fetishize the war special effects ... which I respect him for.

For what it says this movie is an instant classic because it is the only flick that nails Viet Nam right, without becoming a violent war movie cliche. It has not been out that long, so I expect this is a king of a sleeper since people may be emotionally reacting to all the black lives matter and police shooting fatigue and anger.

reply

I had a relatively hard time getting into it because of some of what seemed like continuity errors. Like when they did the flashbacks they really all still old men most of the time. Maybe NetFlix did not want to get the same criticism for using the anti-aging software, and they did not fetishize the war special effects ... which I respect him for.
I've seen others state that the Vietnam flashbacks took them out of the movie and, in their opinion - which goes without saying but I said it anyway - 😎, the fire fights were poorly done and executed. For me the fire fights were raw and a bit visceral and kept the Bloods locked into and frozen in time. The war never left them. It worked brilliantly for me. the tracking followed Norm's action and his vow to get them out of Nam alive which adds to the tragedy of film and explains Paul's psychological terror.

Until the end of that film you are never really inside Paul's head or his heart to really understand his soul.

reply

I'd even agree that the "continuity" of the movie was poor. It was hard for me a various points throughout the movie to tell when they were in a flashback - because they looked the same. These guys should be about 70 or more now, and 20's then, and it was hard to see what was going on - but at some point I just accepted it and went with it as a weird stylistic directorial choice.

I'd even stipulate the fire-fights were "stylized" as the machine guns firing endlessly without ammunition, or just an occasional small clip change were not realistic ... but same result for me.

Once I got into the movie, and especially after it got a bit more complex, I just didn't worry about that.

> For me the fire fights were raw and a bit visceral and kept the Bloods locked into and frozen in time.

Yes, that is what I eventually realized, and it was brilliant. This was not a war/action movie, it was a psychological and racial study, to me it did turn out to be well done. I was not a fan of Delroy Lindo before, but his acting and character in D5B was really impressive and affected me deeply.

reply

How could it be hard to tell if it was a flashback? You did not notice that present-day scenes were widescreen and for the flashbacks the screen shrunk to the old 4:3 TV format?

reply

You're a jerk.

reply

RT scores have been compromised for a long time now. Best to ignore RT and look at Metacritic.

reply

RT 1.0 scores were generally accepted as fine and RT's critic aggregation and audience participation ratings were benignly innocent. 😎

Then the "Compromization or Compromisation" happened due to "Bad Actors". The new rules, policies, software updates and purges were put in place and now there is a RT 2.0. Past RT user scores I guess now must be viewed with suspicion but the past critic ratings don't bother me even though they have since "Expanded" the total number of critics.

reply

I personally think this film would have benefited from a theatrical release just for the simple fact that the theater experience is more impactful because of the visuals.

reply

91% (210) from critics and now down to 57% (1043)among audiences.

reply

RT: 92% Critics (158) versus 61% Audience (468) now 93% (196) vs 60% (848)
posted 23 days
Da 5 Bloods so far doesn't have the same type of broad appeal among audiences as among Critics. The pool of critics is larger now and with more voices, so a 30 point gap for me is an opportunity for discussion.

Edit: In roughly 4 days Critic ratings are trending up ↑ but the audience rating is trending down ↓.


[–] NorrinRad (2708) 17 days ago
91% (210) from critics and now down to 57% (1043)among audiences.


92% (250) from critics and now down to 54% (1488) among audiences who cared to rate the film.

Critics and the general audience seem pretty much divided on this film and I believe the lack of a theatrical release hurt the film. The film aspect ration changes don't seem as dramatic or cinematic on a small screen. Also the film score is a bit muted for home viewing. I'm surmising that most home viewers aren't doing 5:1 or 7:1 Dolby atmos. 😎

reply