Is 65 Rotten Tomatoes good?

Beyond the Number: When a 65% on Rotten Tomatoes Still Feels Rotten

Rotten Tomatoes has become a ubiquitous yardstick for measuring a film’s critical success, or lack thereof. A score of 60% or above earns the coveted “Fresh” badge, implying at least a general level of approval. So, a 65% rating – seemingly safely within that Fresh zone – should suggest a decent film, right? Not always. Sometimes, that number can mask a deeper problem, a pervasive mediocrity that leaves viewers feeling utterly underwhelmed.

Take, for example, the recent dinosaur film starring Adam Driver and Ariana Greenblatt. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that it garnered a 65% on Rotten Tomatoes. On paper, that’s not terrible. However, when dissecting the critiques, a common thread emerges: disappointment.

Imagine the reviews echoing the sentiment: “Lacking imagination and excitement, this dinosaur film disappoints despite Adam Driver and Ariana Greenblatt’s valiant efforts. What could have been a thrilling spectacle is instead a bland and uninspired bore. This cinematic crime offers no thrills, just a deep sense of wasted potential.”

A 65% rating can often be achieved through a lukewarm consensus. Sure, enough critics might find something to praise – perhaps the CGI is passable, or Driver’s performance, though ultimately let down by the script, still holds a certain magnetism. These minor positives, however, barely paper over the cracks of a fundamentally flawed film.

The problem lies in the fact that Rotten Tomatoes averages individual critic scores into a binary “Fresh” or “Rotten” determination. A series of “slightly above average” reviews can collectively push a film into “Fresh” territory, even if the underlying feeling is one of profound “meh.”

In the case of our hypothetical dinosaur flick, a 65% suggests a film that isn’t offensively bad, but it’s far from good. It’s the cinematic equivalent of beige – safe, inoffensive, and utterly forgettable. It’s a film that squanders its potential, leaving audiences with a lingering sense of “what could have been.”

The lesson here is that a Rotten Tomatoes score, while a useful starting point, shouldn’t be the sole determining factor in deciding whether or not to watch a film. Reading individual reviews, understanding the consensus (even if it’s just slightly above the “Fresh” threshold), and considering your own preferences are crucial.

Sometimes, that 65% on Rotten Tomatoes doesn’t signify a worthwhile cinematic experience, but rather a missed opportunity, a hollow spectacle, and a deeply unsatisfying waste of time and money. It’s a reminder that a numerical score can’t always capture the true essence of a film’s shortcomings, especially when those shortcomings stem from a profound lack of imagination and a pervasive sense of blandness. In such cases, a 65% can feel a lot more rotten than it looks.