I'm sure this is a belabored topic 'round these parts, and I'm sure that my being motivated to register at these forums just to pose this question is laughable on a number of levels, but I really gotta know.
I'm all ears for someone to explain to me how Michael Wilmington's review of Bug translates to a 75 rating on Metacritic. Sure, I get subjectivity and all, and I even read the damned FAQ, but hell! Wilmington didn't have one negative thing to say about the movie. Fact, he slathered it with praise. Me no get.
Posts: 3 | Location: L.A.-ish | Registered: 24 May 2007
On the right top part of the metromix.com review page, it says "rating (out of four): three starts". That translates to 3/4 or 75%. To me, three stars out of four is equivalent to a B, and if one of my students gets a B, that's a very positive grade. So the bottom line is that MC took Wilmington at his own rating's word.
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12895 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
Right you are. Somehow I had missed the star rating. So now the only question is, how did Wilmington arrive at such a rating for a film he seemed to have no reservations about?
Posts: 3 | Location: L.A.-ish | Registered: 24 May 2007
Sometimes it happens because of the genre or the timing of similar films released concurrently; I don't know, but I think a 75 is definitely worth watching, at least if you trust the reviewer.
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12895 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
He did say it was a "nerve-rending, extremely unpleasant experience." That doesn't sound too positive to me. But he had a lot of praise, and thus I think the rating fits. Plus, a 75 review is pretty good.
☺☻☺☻☺☻☺☻☺☻☺☻☺ Go Liminal State Bobcats!
Posts: 1071 | Location: Back, after an eternal hiatus | Registered: 24 April 2007
Originally posted by Smithie: See, I read that as a compliment, but who can say?
For a movie like "Bug", I'd say it is a compliment. The previews look extremely disturbing & you can bet I'll be finishing my drink & nachos waaaay before the movie starts!
"I can't live the buttoned down life like all of you! I want it all: the terrifying lows, the dizzying highs, the creamy middles! Sure, I might offend a few of the blue-noses with my cocky stride and musky odor - oh, I'll never be the darling of the so-called 'City Fathers' who cluck their tongues, stroke their beards, and talk about what's to be done with this Monkey_Boy?!"
Posts: 2557 | Location: Springfield, Oh! Hi ya, Maude! | Registered: 01 January 2007
I think most critics really like a movie they give 3 stars to--but it might take a film they consider classic or Oscar-worthy to get the full 4 stars.
I agree with the initial premise of this thread though, that the number Metacritic assigns to some non-star-based reviews seems a little off. I remember one in particular that said only negative things (in no uncertain terms), noting that the only saving grace was one supporting actor's performance, which saved it from being a complete failure. I would have interpreted the review as a 40 or so, 45 tops, while MC assigned the review a score in the high 50s. Sorry, I can't remember which film, but that's not the only one I've noticed...occasionally the subjectivity of assigning a numerical value to the review is pretty wide-ranging.
Metacritic Forums 
