“Netflix spent huge amounts of money on this feature, and it ended up getting tanked by reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.”
Rotten Tomatoes isn’t a source of truth. If you go by the critics it’s only 71% despite being well written and historically accurate (say, well, historians).
It has become the Twitter of review sites.
“Unfortunately we get Michael Douglas miscast as being a Ben Franklin”
This line is repeated ad nauseum.
They didn’t watch it.
https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/atlas-netflix-rotten-tomatoes-bomb.html
@feloneouscat Completely disagree about Rotten Tomatoes. People misinterpret the scores even though it is explained. 71% is a good score as it indicates 71% of CRITICS recommended it. User score is 52% but I discount that because there is no control over who rates.
Further, even higher critic scores don't mean "better" necessarily but just more generally appealing.
Great works are often polarizing. So some critics may hate what others love, making a lower score.
@feloneouscat High score tend to go to well done "feel good" movies. They may not be anyone's favorite, but they have a broader appeal to the range of critics polled.
I look at it as a probability you won't be sorry you committed time to watch it. It doesn't mean an individual will like a 98% movie more than a 60% movie.
Hell, even if it get a crappy score, like 20%, you might be in that 20% that liked it.
Too many look at the score like a test score. It is just a way to aggregate opinions.
@feloneouscat When in doubt, scan the actual critic articles. Drill down.
FWIW, Atlas seems to be panned by men and women critics alike. The few who liked it characterized as a "good B-movie.." Most seem to blame a bad script over the actors.
The audience score is higher at 55% recommending Atlas. But 55% isn't good comparably.
We are allowed to like things others don't, but it doesn't mean the consensus opinion is invalid either.