Inspired by the linked XKCD. Using 60% instead of 50% because that’s an easy filter to apply on rottentomatoes.
I’ll go first: I think “Sherlock Holmes: A game of Shadows” was awesome, from the plot to the characters ,and especially how they used screen-play to highlight how Sherlocks head works in these absurd ways.
Too many to list, but I take Tomato scores with a grain of salt unless they’re unusually low. I don’t know if I just have a high tolerance for crappy movies or scores are too intolerant there. I’ve also seen a good number with high scores I thought should be low. Sometimes they rate movies highly just for being unusual or for having some kind of social message, but that hardly ever means better.
I saw a good breakdown from a critic about how you should perceive tomato ratings. The general idea was that critics have to see any movie that might be popular so are often not the target audience, they also see enough movies that tropes and cliches annoy them faster than the general audience. The conclusion was that you should use the critic rating to get an idea of how novel a movie is, the audience score to see how well it appeals to it’s target audience, and individual critics you’ve agreed with in the past to get an idea of how well you’ll like it.
I always look at it as:
Critics judge craftsmanship. Audiences judge enjoyment.