Rotten Tomatoes Is Being Misused Once Again
Written by Andreas Babiolakis
Who needs tomatoes when you can have citrus?
It’s time for me to be sour, salty, bitter, and any other taste associated with unpleasantry. However, keep in mind this is partially in jest, but still with just enough of how I truly feel to make this rant feel worth publishing. Once again, review aggregate Rotten Tomatoes is in the entertainment news for something debatable. Not too long ago, Citizen Kane was given a “rotten” review that was dug up from yesteryear, and Paddington 2 — which is a lovely and actually great film all things considered, but it also has become a bit of a meme because of this site — became the undisputed highest rated film on the site; naturally, some people think this means it is the “greatest” film of all time, when really all it means is that the site has the most positive reviews (in quantity and its rating averages), even though others know better. Well, not too long afterwards, Paddington 2 has now been banished all the way down to a catastrophic 99% fresh, since a review for a four year old family film has now cursed it with its first rotten rating, thanks to critic Eddie Harrison who saw fit to review it three days ago (of course, this is his opinion, and he’s completely entitled to how he feels, so no viciousness here).
That means Toy Story 2 is now the highest rated film on Rotten Tomatoes. I love the film, and it made my top films of the 1990’s. I also understand that the site hasn’t officially stated that this is the greatest film ever made, and, again, I know how the aggregate (or “Tomatometer”) works. That is, until some critic decides that now is the time that they don’t care for Stinky Pete. Again, Harrison’s review is fine. I don’t think Paddington 2 is a masterpiece, despite how surprisingly strong it actually is for a wholesome family film (and a sequel at that). What I do think is that Harrison’s timing is awfully convenient, if convenience was measured by the strategy of striking while the iron is hot, and by that I mean this feels like it was purposefully planned. I clicked on the hyperlink to his review via Rotten Tomatoes to see if this was a recent review, but guaranteed other people clicked to see how this evil person could stab the poor, charming, Peruvian bear in front of the unsuspecting Brown family. Truth is there is no real, visible reason why Harrison reviewed Paddington 2 a few days ago, outside of knowing that the film’s replacement of Citizen Kane as the highest rated film on the site could mean he was guaranteed to get the most hits of his entire journalistic career.
I’ve written before about how users misread Rotten Tomatoes, but now I’m addressing this insight towards the selected critics of Rotten Tomatoes, who knowingly misuse the site for dirty clicks. This has happened time and time again. Someone like Armond White, who I have covered before, is a well known contrarian who goes against the grain so viewers can suss out why he felt differently. Then there’s the infamous case where journalist Eric D. Snider actually got banned from being a Rotten Tomatoes selected critic for writing a fake review for The Dark Knight Rises with the sole intention of annoying the site’s users. Rotten Tomatoes would actually get rid of the comment sections for reviews as an effort to try and discourage critics from creating bait-based content (since there wouldn’t be an open forum for them to lick up the tears of the offended), but that clearly hasn’t stopped critics from manipulating the site’s features for their own loaded benefits. Again, what Harrison believes may actually be real, but his timing makes no sense. If Paddington 2 was a classic that would often be revisited, then maybe he could write about it whenever he would wish to (which he still can). Maybe if Harrison was covering family films or Paddington related works, this would check out. The review was released shortly after Paddington 2 was crowned the top film via the Tomatometer. I’m not upset for the film’s legacy on a website like this. I weep for journalistic ethics, however.
I’m not the best writer, despite my passions. However, I vow to always be true to myself, and use this kind of platform for honest reasons. I would rather have reviews not be looked at despite my best efforts than be immensely popular for lying and relying on clickbait. I’m willing to place a bet that Toy Story 2 will “mysteriously” get a negative review within the near future, just because a critic felt it was necessary to revisit this Pixar film for no real rhyme or reason. The Citizen Kane situation makes more sense, since an older review was dug up (Rotten Tomatoes has done extensive work with finding much older reviews, especially for lost films, to get a better sense of how films were received upon release, even though this confuses the whole situation a little bit). Be weary of new reviews, and try and find out which critics actually care about reviewing films, and which ones want to be noticed by any means necessary. I love writing about cinema, and wish to continue to do so until I can’t anymore (in whatever sense), but I can admit that the industry isn’t what it once was. Part of that reason is because of dishonest leeches that are in the hate-click business and will do anything to be noticed. Do better, critics. If you want to be taken seriously, take yourselves and the medium seriously.
Andreas Babiolakis has a Masters degree in Film and Photography Preservation and Collections Management from Ryerson University, as well as a Bachelors degree in Cinema Studies from York University. His favourite times of year are the Criterion Collection flash sales and the annual Toronto International Film Festival.