im gonna say metacritic, because it uses more prestigious critics and takes the score rather than just the thumbs up thumbs down approach, but metacritic is absent of critics like siegel, shalit, and roeper, and is also a little leniant, because a film isnt good if it gets less than two and a half stars

Metacritic because I tried to register on rotten tomatoes and I didn't get a email to finish signing up. HERE I DID!!!

Martian Leader

RT is far more comprehensive, which has its advantages. But they also include every critic with a pulse from every dinky little website, so I tend to think half the material the score is based on is really no better than a bunch of Amazon or Netflix user reviews.

Metacritic has a much sleeker, more pleasing design and interface. RT is choked with garish advertisements and logos.

And yes, MC does seem more rigorous about who they include as critics (with the exception of James Berardinelli - a total hack who, over the course of hundreds of reviews could not help but develop a semi-coherent style).

For some reason, the media tends to reference RT a lot more. Little blurbs from AP or Reuters will sometimes mention a movie's RT score, but never MC (that I've seen).

I've been on METACRITIC and been happy, I've probably been on Rotten Tomatoes but I've forgotten what it's like so I guess that says it all.

I like how fast the pages load in metacritic, and the very simple interface. I also like Spout because it is loaded with all sorts of cool user created stuff but the pages sometimes take forever to load.

My newspaper, The Orange County Register, only references MC and never RT, but remember that I live "Behind the Orange Curtain".