How many times have you changed your mind on a movie? It’s probably happened to all of us, possibly quite often. Sometimes it takes years and multiple viewings for us to find something we like, perhaps even love, in a movie. But if you’re a critic who gave something a bad review on Rotten Tomatoes years ago, that score sticks. And there are some great movies with shitty RT scores that have become cult classics. Wayne Kramer’s awesome 2006 thriller Running Scared is a prime example, and he thinks something should be done to change this problem.
Kramer posted on Facebook that he feels filmmakers should be able to appeal the RT scores for their movies after a period of ten years. His reasoning is simple and, I think completely accurate, that it takes a long time for opinion to set in on a movie and that should be taken into account. Here’s what he wrote…
“Here’s an idea for ROTTEN TOMATOES. Allow filmmakers to lodge an appeal over their RT score for a film that is over TEN YEARS-OLD and currently scores more than 6.5 on IMDB. It takes a decade (or longer!) to know the real impact of a film and I’m sure quite a few critics might reverse themselves after ten years. I’ve heard from several critics who feel they got it wrong on RUNNING SCARED and might consider it differently today. Unfortunately, their original score is still shackled to the film on RT – and every filmmaker knows that a RT “rotten” score is worn by a film (and the filmmaker) like a Scarlett Letter.
The Rotten Tomatoes score is visible on most streaming sites right next to the title of a film and I, personally, find it insulting. I’ve never been a fan of Rotten Tomatoes. I hold firmly that the site has contributed to the dumbing down of movie criticism – and ultimately movies themselves. When a film is judged like a gladiator in the ring with the emperor giving it a very black & white thumbs up or thumbs down, compounded by occasional critics’ herd mentality – which, trust me, is a real thing – then all the nuance involved in reviewing goes out the window.
SCARFACE gets an 81 on the Tomatometer today — but that’s a completely revisionist review. SCARFACE was trounced by critics upon its initial release in 1983. A film I regard as one of the finest crime/action films of all time, Tony Scott’s MAN ON FIRE (2004), is rated a paltry 34 percent on RT with a 7.7 on IMDB. HOW CAN THAT FUCKING BE POSSIBLE? MAN ON FIRE is a freakin’ masterpiece, up there with Michael Mann’s HEAT, and in no way deserving of a rotten score on RT. My own film, RUNNING SCARED – the most popular of my films and rated 7.4 on IMDB – rates rotten on RT with a 41 percent score. Antonine Fuqua’s underrated BROOKLYN’S FINEST (2009) is another candidate: 6.7 on IMDB and 44 percent on RT. I’ll add another undervalued Fuqua as well: TEARS OF THE SUN. 6.6 on IMDB, 33 percent on RT. I’m sure I can find many other examples — feel free to add them in the comments below.
I’m not joking. If anyone has access to the execs at Rotten Tomatoes, please forward them my proposal. I’m sure hundreds of filmmakers would sign on — as well as more than a few critics. It can be called ROTTEN TOMATOES ON APPEAL. Just like a misguided NC-17 rating might be changed to an R or an R to a PG-13 on appeal with the MPAA, I believe RT can – and should! – reevaluate certain films that have proven themselves with audiences after a decade of being scorned on RT.”
That Man on Fire has a 34% (it’s up to 39% since Kramer’s post) on RT is a disgrace and reason enough to take Kramer’s proposal seriously. That said, critics can go into RT and update their scores right now if they feel like it. Perhaps RT’s management should do something like require critics to review their past scores each year as part of a renewal process? I’d be down for that.
What do you think? Chime in, folks.
