2012 movie review rotten tomatoes

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

• Upcoming Movies and TV shows
• Trivia & Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
• Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

Movies / TV

No results found.

• What's the Tomatometer®?
• Login/signup

Movies in theaters

• Opening this week
• Top box office
• Coming soon to theaters
• Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

• Netflix streaming
• Prime Video
• Most popular streaming movies
• What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

• Love Lies Bleeding Link to Love Lies Bleeding
• Problemista Link to Problemista
• Late Night with the Devil Link to Late Night with the Devil

New TV Tonight

• Mary & George: Season 1
• Star Trek: Discovery: Season 5
• Sugar: Season 1
• American Horror Story: Season 12
• Parish: Season 1
• Ripley: Season 1
• Loot: Season 2
• Lopez vs Lopez: Season 2
• The Magic Prank Show With Justin Willman: Season 1

Most Popular TV on RT

• 3 Body Problem: Season 1
• We Were the Lucky Ones: Season 1
• Shōgun: Season 1
• A Gentleman in Moscow: Season 1
• X-Men '97: Season 1
• The Gentlemen: Season 1
• Palm Royale: Season 1
• Invincible: Season 2
• Quiet on Set:The Dark Side of Kids TV: Season 1
• American Rust: Season 2
• Best TV Shows
• Most Popular TV
• TV & Streaming News

Certified fresh pick

• Steve! (martin) a documentary in 2 pieces Link to Steve! (martin) a documentary in 2 pieces
• All-Time Lists
• Binge Guide
• Comics on TV
• Five Favorite Films
• Video Interviews
• Weekend Box Office
• Weekly Ketchup
• What to Watch

MonsterVerse Movies and Series Ranked: Godzilla, Kong, Monarch by Tomatometer

All King Kong Movies Ranked

Women’s History

Awards Tour

The Visibility Dilemma

Godzilla x Kong First Reviews: Full of Mindless, Glorious Spectacle, Just as Expected

• Trending on RT
• Godzilla X Kong: The New Empire
• 3 Body Problem
• In the Land of Saints and Sinners
• Play Movie Trivia

2009, Action/Mystery & thriller, 2h 38m

What to know

Critics Consensus

Roland Emmerich's 2012 provides plenty of visual thrills, but lacks a strong enough script to support its massive scope and inflated length. Read critic reviews

You might also like

Where to watch 2012.

Watch 2012 with a subscription on Netflix, rent on Vudu, Prime Video, Apple TV, or buy on Vudu, Prime Video.

Rate And Review

Super Reviewer

Rate this movie

Oof, that was Rotten.

Meh, it passed the time.

It’s good – I’d recommend it.

So Fresh: Absolute Must See!

What did you think of the movie? (optional)

You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.

Step 2 of 2

How did you buy your ticket?

Let's get your review verified..

AMCTheatres.com or AMC App New

Cinemark Coming Soon

We won’t be able to verify your ticket today, but it’s great to know for the future.

Regal Coming Soon

Theater box office or somewhere else

By opting to have your ticket verified for this movie, you are allowing us to check the email address associated with your Rotten Tomatoes account against an email address associated with a Fandango ticket purchase for the same movie.

You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.

2012 videos, 2012   photos.

Earth's billions of inhabitants are unaware that the planet has an expiration date. With the warnings of an American scientist (Chiwetel Ejiofor), world leaders begin secret preparations for the survival of select members of society. When the global cataclysm finally occurs, failed writer Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) tries to lead his family to safety as the world starts falling apart.

Rating: PG-13 (Some Language|Disaster Sequences)

Genre: Action, Mystery & thriller, Drama

Original Language: English

Director: Roland Emmerich

Producer: Harald Kloser , Mark Gordon , Larry J. Franco

Writer: Roland Emmerich , Harald Kloser

Release Date (Theaters): Nov 13, 2009  wide

Release Date (Streaming): Apr 1, 2010

Box Office (Gross USA): $166.1M

Runtime: 2h 38m

Distributor: Sony Pictures Entertainment

Production Co: Centropolis Entertainment

Cast & Crew

John Cusack

Jackson Curtis

Chiwetel Ejiofor

Adrian Helmsley

Amanda Peet

Oliver Platt

Carl Anheuser

Thandiwe Newton

Laura Wilson

Danny Glover

President Thomas Wilson

Woody Harrelson

Charlie Frost

Tom McCarthy

Gordon Silberman

Noah Curtis

Morgan Lily

Lilly Curtis

Zlatko Buric

Yuri Karpov

Béatrice Rosen

Alexandre Haussmann

Philippe Haussmann

John Billingsley

Professor West

George Segal

Tony Delgatto

Stephen McHattie

Capt. Michaels

Patrick Bauchau

Roland Picard

Jimi Mistry

Dr. Satnam Tsurutani

Roland Emmerich

Screenwriter

Harald Kloser

Mark Gordon

Larry J. Franco

Executive Producer

Ute Emmerich

Michael Wimer

Dean Semler

Cinematographer

David Brenner

Film Editing

Peter S. Elliot

Barry Chusid

Production Design

Shay Cunliffe

Costume Design

Original Music

Thomas Wander

Don Macaulay

Supervising Art Direction

Dan Hermansen

Art Director

Ross Dempster

Kendelle Elliott

News & Interviews for 2012

RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: 2012 is Where the Wild Things Are for Ponyo

Box Office Guru Wrapup: 2012 Destroys the Competition

Friday Harvest: Clash of the Titans , Kick-Ass , and more!

Critic Reviews for 2012

Audience reviews for 2012.

While it may have the occasional fun sequence, 2012 is too self-serious for it's own good - as well as having characters and acting that are boring, stale and wooden. The implausibility of the events is to the point of ridiculousness.

This disaster flick really goes for the brass ring and tries to destroy the entire world. The concept for the plot is interesting as solar radiation is heating up the earth's core. The action sequences are fairly good and the special effects are excellent. The veiled message at the end comes across as almost too "in your face" though, much like in "The Day After Tomorrow." As disaster films go, however, this one isn't the worst.

This is a horrible movie. The plot really have potential to create something smart and special, but because of horrible writing and mediocre directing from Roland Emmerich, it just becomes another big scaled disaster movie. The characters are definitely the worst thing about this movie, because they are so uninteresting and the acting is so bad. John Cusack's character is so horribly written that Cusack himself, didn't even bother giving a somewhat acceptable performance. Woody Harrelson just plays Woody Harrelson, and while that may not be a bad thing, his character is just as insane and crappy written as every other character. Chiwetel Ejiofor is the only actor who gives a somewhat good performance in this movie, but his character is really just there for exposition and to narrate the various events that go down in the movie. The effects on the other hand are spectacular and follow the trail of great effects in Emmerich's movies, except for "Godzilla," of course. In the end, this is a really bad movie with some bad writing and badly written characters. Still excited for "Independence Day: Resurgence," though...

The false-predictable 2012 had its good moments, but unfortunately ended up being a disaster all over the place as soon the first disaster came.

Movie & TV guides

Play Daily Tomato Movie Trivia

Discover What to Watch

Rotten Tomatoes Podcasts

The Definitive Voice of Entertainment News

Subscribe for full access to The Hollywood Reporter

site categories

‘2012’: film review.

If you rolled every disaster movie into one spectacular package, you would wind up with something close to "2012," Roland Emmerich's latest apocalyptic fantasy.

By Stephen Farber

Stephen Farber

• Share this article on Facebook
• Share this article on Twitter
• Share this article on Flipboard
• Share this article on Email
• Show additional share options
• Share this article on Linkedin
• Share this article on Pinit
• Share this article on Reddit
• Share this article on Tumblr
• Share this article on Whatsapp
• Share this article on Print
• Share this article on Comment

If you rolled every disaster movie into one spectacular package, you would wind up with something close to “ 2012 ,” Roland Emmerich’s latest apocalyptic fantasy.

This time Emmerich and co-writer Harald Kloser use the Mayan calendar and other end-of-days prophecies for their doomsday scenario, which imagines the world coming to an end in 2012. Eye-popping special effects ensure that this movie will be a smash hit, and while it’s entertaining for most of its excessive running time, the cheesy script fails to live up to the grandeur of the physical production.

Stitching together highlights from “Earthquake,” “The Poseidon Adventure,” “Volcano,” and even “Titanic,” the movie follows the fate of a dozen characters as they fall victim to a series of calamities brought on by some kind of solar meltdown. The issue is not so much what caused the cataclysm but how humanity will respond to the crisis. A venal presidential adviser (Oliver Platt) has the task of handpicking the people who will be allowed to board the atomic-age equivalent of Noah’s ark. So the film aims to ask profound questions about how we choose the people worth saving. But profundity is not the director’s strong suit.

Related Stories

Michael mann's new film to feature sino-u.s. anti-hacking task force (exclusive), the many ways hollywood destroys the white house (video).

Luckily, Emmerich’s movies — which include the disaster flicks “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow” — never take themselves too seriously, so it’s easy to enjoy the often laughable dialogue without balking. Credibility takes a flyer near the start, when an amateur pilot (Tom McCarthy) is able to steer a small plane through all kinds of fireballs and find his way to a tiny landing strip in Yellowstone National Park. You know the major characters aboard the airplane (John Cusack and Amanda Peet) aren’t going to meet a fiery death this early in the movie, so you tolerate the ludicrous plot device.

Every disaster movie derives its suspense from trying to guess which of the characters will survive and which will expire. One of the disappointments of “2012” is how predictable the crash-and-burn list turns out to be. As in many of these epics, the characters who have committed some kind of extramarital transgression are the ones marked for death. Cecil B. DeMille would have been pleased.

Technically, Emmerich and his crew bring off a series of wonders. The movie hits its peak early on, when Cusack drives a limo through the streets of Los Angeles as freeways and skyscrapers crumble all around him from the shock of a 10.5 earthquake. The preposterous flying sequence is equally thrilling. The climax occurs aboard the giant ark, when an equipment malfunction almost threatens the entire mission. Unfortunately, this crucial sequence is not filmed or edited with the requisite clarity. Say what you will about “Titanic,” but James Cameron did a brilliant job of photographing the spectacular shipwreck so that the logistics were always crystal clear. In “2012,” by contrast, Emmerich leaves us befuddled as to exactly what is happening to whom.

On the other hand, Emmerich deserves credit for offbeat casting. Cusack supplies his trademark hangdog charm, and McCarthy (recently better known as the director of “The Station Agent” and “The Visitor”) has perhaps his best role ever as Peet’s cocky but likable boyfriend. Danny Glover lends dignity to the role of the tormented president. (The role originally was written for a woman, until Hillary Clinton’s star began to fade during the 2008 primaries.) Chiwetel Ejiofor, as the chief scientist advising the world leaders, brings a moving sense of anguish to a stock role. Platt has fun playing the villain of the piece, and Woody Harrelson also chews the scenery as a bug-eyed radio prophet trying to warn his listeners about Armageddon. Peet’s role as Cusack’s ex-wife is drab, and Thandie Newton as the president’s daughter has to struggle with some ponderous dialogue. But then disaster movies never have been kind to their female characters.

Cinematography, production design and visual effects are awards-worthy. Music also propels the movie, with “American Idol” runner-up Adam Lambert providing a rousing anthem over the end credits.

THR Newsletters

Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day

More from The Hollywood Reporter

‘godzilla x kong: the new empire’ roars to monstrous $80m u.s. box office opening, tim mcgovern, visual effects veteran and oscar winner for ‘total recall,’ dies at 68, amazon prime video’s new releases coming in april 2024, hollywood flashback: 25 years ago, ‘the matrix’ sent audiences down a rabbit hole, neurodiverse filmmakers and narratives take the spotlight in two new york-based film festivals, jane fonda says late “bestie” paula weinstein wanted people to honor her by supporting democrats.

Review by Brian Eggert November 13, 2008

Everything you’re expecting from 2012 is exactly what you’re going to get. Roland Emmerich’s magnum opus is the pinnacle of his career. The director’s pithy efforts like Independence Day , Godzilla , and The Day After Tomorrow feel like small indie gems in comparison to this overblown, wonderfully destructive piece of demolitionist eye candy. Utterly impossible by any stretch of the imagination, the movie is a cheesy, one-dimensional, epic-sized spectacle that does exactly what it promises to—destroy the Earth. Audiences unwilling to dismiss reality for some very expensive entertainment by way of mass death and landmark obliteration will not appreciate its full effect.

As predicted by the Mayans hundreds of years ago, the year 2012 marks what they believe to be the end of the world. They even gave us an exact date: December 21, 2012. Emmerich’s movie opens near this point, as strange natural occurrences stir scientists to inquire about what’s happening. It seems neutrino bursts from the Sun are causing the planet’s core to boil, making the crust unstable and causing a whole lot of ruckus in the process. For the basis of his movie, Emmerich credits Charles Hapgood’s 1958 Earth Crust Displacement theory, but how the Mayans knew this would happen is never explained. Once the rumblings cause massive earthquakes to tremor, deep chasms to rupture open, super-volcanoes to blow, and tsunamis to roll, speculation into the Mayans’ curiously advanced methods of global ruin detection hardly matters.

Of course, there’s always some crackpot who no one believes, but who turns out to be right about his wild doomsday theories. And when the fit hits the shan, everyone regrets not listening to him sooner. Said nutjob is played by Woody Harrelson, who’s having fun playing his hippie radio show host-cum-prophet. His more respectable counterpart is chief science advisor Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor), who warns the ever-grave U.S. President Thomas Wilson (Danny Glover) just in time. In a joint effort with various billionaires and governments, the world comes together to build arks in the Himalayas, but only a select few of the planet’s population and wildlife will fit on the arks. Regardless, the president’s chief of staff, Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt), secures spots for the world’s elite on these ships, because there’s always a slimy character like this in disaster movies.

Most of the action revolves around Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a failed writer turned limo driver for Russian bazillionaire Yuri Karpov (Zlatko Buric). Curtis’ ex-wife (Amanda Peet) and their two kids (Liam James and Morgan Lily) now live with the nice “other man” Gordon (Tom McCarthy), much to Curtis’ dismay. But you can believe that Gordon, along with 99% of the world’s population, gets wiped out, leaving Curtis and his estranged wife to rekindle their love. And why not? After learning about the arks from Harrelson’s wacko character while on vacation in Yellowstone, Curtis proves himself a superhero faced with the task of saving his family. He out-drives an earthquake and outruns the blast path of a super-volcano—impressive for a writer. Most of the bit characters in the movie are set up only to help Curtis along on his quest to reach China, and most die while carrying out their Good Samaritan deeds.

So what’s all destroyed in the movie? California falls into the ocean. All of America is covered by toxic ash. Las Vegas falls into a hellish crevasse, sparking a moment of irony, while Rio’s Christ the Redeemer statue and St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome topple over, killing many God-fearing Christians in the process. Emmerich spares no one, but he takes particular joy in depicting Christian icons crumbling. The John F. Kennedy aircraft carrier gets carted by a giant wave and crashes into the White House, marking the second time Emmerich has destroyed the president’s home. Tibet is waterlogged by a tsunami. And when it’s all over, the planet is covered in water.

Emmerich and his co-writer Harald Kloser arrange a series of near-escapes and ridiculous resolutions. The clichés are piled on top of one another in an almost comic fashion. There are only so many times a character can say “My God!” or “You have to take a look at this, sir” before the audience starts laughing. But there’s also the impression that the movie is fully aware of its own corniness, and we’re in on the joke. Aside from John Cusack outrunning planetary calamities, the movie’s many other characters outrun their own waves and explosions and what-have-yous in airplanes and cars and on foot. It’s all preposterous but meant in the escapist disaster movie spirit. Several shots feature a bystander gawking in awe of some terrible force approaching them, a familiar shot for Emmerich (borrowed from Spielberg). Plenty of nice characters undeservedly die, while irredeemable jerks are fully redeemed. And in the end, there’s an inappropriate feeling of hopefulness among the survivors, only because dwelling on the fact that virtually everyone on Earth is dead would be a major bummer.

The computerized special effects throughout are big and bold and staggering, and they should be since Emmerich’s budget was a reported $250 million. He uses that money to carry out his ultimate goal of obliterating the Earth, which has been a long time coming as those of us who have followed his work know. The action scenes unfold with clarity, so we always know what’s what, unlike the majority of over-edited blockbusters. Some of it looks shoddy and stupid, but the acting for this sort of drivel is above average, so the few CGI missteps are easily forgiven. Cusack and Ejiofor are both too good for the material, but they’re welcome protagonists. Harrelson, after his unexpected turn in Zombieland earlier this year, gives another memorable-if-throwaway performance. And Platt does a nice job making the audience despise him.

Defending Emmerich’s latest movie comes with some difficulty for this critic, since the director’s work is generally empty commercial fare, and the majority of his movies are unwatchably bad upon revisitation. So let’s be clear: This isn’t a “good movie,” but it’s an entertaining one. 2012 is trash, to be sure, but it’s well-assembled trash that’s bigger and better than anything Emmerich has made before. Shockingly, despite its 2-hour-and-40-minute runtime, this pageant of devastation keeps our interest for the duration. Never mind logic, because it’s defied in almost every scene. It’s even sort of fun to point out the clichés throughout. Thinking about it too much is missing the point of this mindless exhibition. Just sit back, eat your popcorn, and watch Emmerich destroy the world. Why else would you see a movie like this?

Related Titles

The Definitives

• In Theaters

Recent Reviews

• Wicked Little Letters 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• The Animal Kingdom 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Patreon Exclusive: Immaculate 1.5 Stars ☆ ☆
• Late Night with the Devil 2.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire 2 Stars ☆ ☆
• Road House 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• You'll Never Find Me 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Patreon Exclusive: True Lies 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Love Lies Bleeding 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Frida 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• One Life 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Club Zero 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Kung Fu Panda 4 2.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Patreon Exclusive: Terminator 2: Judgment Day 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Problemista 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Recent Articles

• The Definitives: The Abyss
• The Definitives: The Gleaners and I
• Guest Appearance: KARE 11 - Oscar Picks and Predictions
• The Definitives: Cléo from 5 to 7
• The Definitives: The Terminator
• The Definitives: Melancholia
• Friends and Fellow Critics
• The Definitives: Eve's Bayou
• Guest Appearance: KARE 11 - Three movies that got 'snubbed' by the Oscars in 2024
• The Definitives: Goodfellas

• Newsletters

Site search

• Israel-Hamas war
• 2024 election
• Kate Middleton
• TikTok’s fate
• Supreme Court
• All explainers
• Future Perfect

Filed under:

Rotten Tomatoes, explained

Does a movie’s Rotten Tomatoes score affect its box office returns? And six other questions, answered.

Share this story

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: Rotten Tomatoes, explained

In February 2016, Rotten Tomatoes — the site that aggregates movie and TV critics’ opinions and tabulates a score that’s “fresh” or “rotten” — took on an elevated level of importance. That’s when Rotten Tomatoes (along with its parent company Flixster) was acquired by Fandango , the website that sells advance movie tickets for many major cinema chains.

People had been using Rotten Tomatoes to find movie reviews since it launched in 2000, but after Fandango acquired the site, it began posting “Tomatometer” scores next to movie ticket listings. Since then, studio execs have started to feel as if Rotten Tomatoes matters more than it used to — and in some cases, they’ve rejiggered their marketing strategies accordingly.

It’s easy to see why anyone might assume that Rotten Tomatoes scores became more tightly linked to ticket sales, with potential audiences more likely to buy tickets for a movie with a higher score, and by extension, giving critics more power over the purchase of a ticket.

But that’s not the whole story. And as most movie critics (including myself) will tell you, the correlation between Rotten Tomatoes scores, critical opinion, marketing tactics, and actual box office returns is complicated. It’s not a simple cause-and-effect situation.

My own work is included in both Rotten Tomatoes’ score and that of its more exclusive cousin, Metacritic . So I, along with many other critics , think often of the upsides and pitfalls of aggregating critical opinion and its effect on which movies people see. But for the casual moviegoer, how review aggregators work, what they measure, and how they affect ticket sales can be mysterious.

So when I got curious about how people perceive Rotten Tomatoes and its effect on ticket sales, I did what any self-respecting film critic does: I informally polled my Twitter followers to see what they wanted to know.

Here are seven questions that many people have about Rotten Tomatoes, and review aggregation more generally — and some facts to clear up the confusion.

How is a Rotten Tomatoes score calculated?

The score that Rotten Tomatoes assigns to a film corresponds to the percentage of critics who’ve judged the film to be “fresh,” meaning their opinion of it is more positive than negative. The idea is to quickly offer moviegoers a sense of critical consensus.

“Our goal is to serve fans by giving them useful tools and one-stop access to critic reviews, user ratings, and entertainment news to help with their entertainment viewing decisions,” Jeff Voris, a vice president at Rotten Tomatoes, told me in an email.

The opinions of about 3,000 critics — a.k.a. the “Approved Tomatometer Critics” who have met a series of criteria set by Rotten Tomatoes — are included in the site’s scores, though not every critic reviews every film, so any given score is more typically derived from a few hundred critics, or even less. The scores don’t include just anyone who calls themselves a critic or has a movie blog; Rotten Tomatoes only aggregates critics who have been regularly publishing movie reviews with a reasonably widely read outlet for at least two years, and those critics must be “active,” meaning they've published at least one review in the last year. The site also deems a subset of critics to be “top critics” and calculates a separate score that only includes them.

Some critics (or staffers at their publications) upload their own reviews, choose their own pull quotes, and designate their review as “fresh” or “rotten.” Other critics (including myself) have their reviews uploaded, pull-quoted, and tagged as fresh or rotten by the Rotten Tomatoes staff. In the second case, if the staff isn't sure whether to tag a review as fresh or rotten, they reach out to the critic for clarification. And critics who don't agree with the site’s designation can request that it be changed.

As the reviews of a given film accumulate, the Rotten Tomatoes score measures the percentage that are more positive than negative, and assigns an overall fresh or rotten rating to the movie. Scores of over 60 percent are considered fresh, and scores of 59 percent and under are rotten. To earn the coveted “designated fresh” seal, a film needs at least 40 reviews, 75 percent of which are fresh, and five of which are from “top” critics.

What does a Rotten Tomatoes score really mean ?

A Rotten Tomatoes score represents the percentage of critics who felt mildly to wildly positively about a given film.

If I give a film a mixed review that’s generally positive (which, in Vox’s rating system, could range from a positive-skewing 3 to the rare totally enamored 5), that review receives the same weight as an all-out rave from another critic. (When I give a movie a 2.5, I consider that to be a neutral score; by Rotten Tomatoes' reckoning, it's rotten.) Theoretically, a 100 percent Rotten Tomatoes rating could be made up entirely of middling-to-positive reviews. And if half of the critics the site aggregates only sort of like a movie, and the other half sort of dislike it, the film will hover around 50 percent (which is considered “rotten” by the site).

Contrary to some people’s perceptions, Rotten Tomatoes itself maintains no opinion about a film. What Rotten Tomatoes tries to gauge is critical consensus.

Critics’ opinions do tend to cluster on most films. But there are always outliers, whether from contrarians (who sometimes seem to figure out what people will say and then take the opposite opinion), or from those who seem to love every film. And critics, like everyone, have various life experiences, aesthetic preferences, and points of view that lead them to have differing opinions on movies.

So in many (if not most) cases, a film’s Rotten Tomatoes score may not correspond to any one critic’s view. It’s more like an imprecise estimate of what would happen if you mashed together every Tomatometer critic and had the resulting super-critic flash a thumbs-up or thumbs-down.

Rotten Tomatoes also lets audiences rate movies, and the score is often out of step with the critical score. Sometimes, the difference is extremely significant, a fact that's noticeable because the site lists the two scores side by side.

There’s a straightforward reason the two rarely match, though: The critical score is more controlled and methodical.

Why? Most professional critics have to see and review many films, whether or not they’re inclined to like the movie. (Also, most critics don’t pay to see films, because studios hold special early screenings for them ahead of the release date, which removes the decision of whether they’re interested enough in a film to spend their hard-earned money on seeing it.)

But with Rotten Tomatoes’ audience score, the situation is different. Anyone on the internet can contribute — not just those who actually saw the film. As a result, a film’s Rotten Tomatoes score can be gamed by internet trolls seeking to sink it simply because they find its concept offensive. A concerted effort can drive down the film’s audience score before it even comes out, as was the case with the all-female reboot of Ghostbusters .

Even if Rotten Tomatoes required people to pass a quiz on the movie before they rated it, the score would still be somewhat unreliable. Why? Because ordinary audiences are more inclined to buy tickets to movies they’re predisposed to like — who wants to spend $12 to $20 on a film they’re pretty sure they’ll hate?

So audience scores at Rotten Tomatoes (and other audience-driven scores, like the ones at IMDb) naturally skew very positive, or sometimes very negative if there’s any sort of smear campaign in play. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. But audience scores tend to not account for those who would never buy a ticket to the movie in the first place.

In contrast, since critics see lots of movies — some of which they would have gone to see anyhow, and some of which they would’ve never chosen to see if their editors didn’t make the assignment — their opinion distribution should theoretically be more even, and thus the critical Rotten Tomatoes score more “accurate.”

Or at least that’s what Rotten Tomatoes thinks. The site displays a movie’s critics’ scores — the official Tomatometer — at Fandango and in a more prominent spot on the movie’s Rotten Tomatoes landing page. The audience score is also displayed on the Rotten Tomatoes page, but it’s not factored into the film’s fresh or rotten rating, and doesn’t contribute to a film being labeled as “certified fresh.”

Why do critics often get frustrated by the Tomatometer?

The biggest reason many critics find Rotten Tomatoes frustrating is that most people’s opinions about movies can’t be boiled down to a simple thumbs up or down. And most critics feel that Rotten Tomatoes, in particular, oversimplifies criticism, to the detriment of critics, the audience, and the movies themselves.

In some cases, a film really is almost universally considered to be excellent, or to be a complete catastrophe. But critics usually come away from a movie with a mixed view. Some things work, and others don’t. The actors are great, but the screenplay is lacking. The filmmaking is subpar, but the story is imaginative. Some critics use a four- or five-star rating, sometimes with half-stars included, to help quantify mixed opinions as mostly negative or mostly positive.

The important point here is that no critic who takes their job seriously is going to have a simple yes-or-no system for most movies. Critics watch a film, think about it, and write a review that doesn't just judge the movie but analyzes, contextualizes, and ruminates over it. The fear among many critics (including myself) is that people who rely largely on Rotten Tomatoes aren't interested in the nuances of a film, and aren't particularly interested in reading criticism, either.

But maybe the bigger reason critics are worried about the influence of review aggregators is that they seem to imply there's a “right” way to evaluate a movie, based on most people's opinions. We worry that audience members who have different reactions will feel as if their opinion is somehow wrong, rather than seeing the diversity of opinions as an invitation to read and understand how and why people react to art differently.

Plenty of movies — from Psycho to Fight Club to Alien — would have earned a rotten rating from Rotten Tomatoes upon their original release, only to be reconsidered and deemed classics years later as tastes, preferences, and ideas about films changed. Sometimes being an outlier can just mean you're forward-thinking.

Voris, the Rotten Tomatoes vice president, told me that the site is always trying to grapple with this quandary. “The Rotten Tomatoes curation team is constantly adding and updating reviews for films — both past and present,” he told me. “If there’s a review available from an approved critic or outlet, it will be added.”

What critics are worried about is a tendency toward groupthink, and toward scapegoating people who deviate from the “accepted” analysis. You can easily see this in the hordes of fans that sometimes come after a critic who dares to “ruin” a film's perfect score . But critics (at least serious ones) don't write their reviews to fit the Tomatometer, nor are they out to “get” DC Comics movies or religious movies or political movies or any other movies. Critics love movies and want them to be good, and we try to be honest when we see one that we don't measures up.

That doesn't mean the audience can't like a movie with a rotten rating, or hate a movie with a fresh rating. It's no insult to critics when audience opinion diverges. In fact, it makes talking and thinking about movies more interesting.

If critics are ambivalent about Rotten Tomatoes scores, why do moviegoers use the scores to decide whether to see a movie?

Mainly, it’s easy. You’re buying movie tickets on Fandango, or you’re trying to figure out what to watch on Netflix, so you check the Rotten Tomatoes score to decide. It’s simple. That’s the point.

And that’s not a bad thing. It's helpful to get a quick sense of critical consensus, even if it's somewhat imprecise. Many people use Rotten Tomatoes to get a rough idea of whether critics generally liked a film.

The flip side, though, is that some people, whether they’re critics or audience members, will inevitably have opinions that don't track with the Rotten Tomatoes score at all. Just because an individual's opinion is out of step with the Tomatometer doesn't mean the person is “wrong” — it just means they're an outlier.

And that, frankly, is what makes art, entertainment, and the world at large interesting: Not everyone has the same opinion about everything, because people are not exact replicas of one another. Most critics love arguing about movies, because they often find that disagreeing with their colleagues is what makes their job fun. It's fine to disagree with others about a movie, and it doesn't mean you're “wrong.”

(For what it’s worth, another review aggregation site, Metacritic, maintains an even smaller and more exclusive group of critics than Rotten Tomatoes — its aggregated scores cap out around 50 reviews per movie, instead of the hundreds that can make up a Tomatometer score. Metacritic’s score for a film is different from Rotten Tomatoes’ insofar as each individual review is assigned a rating on a scale of 100 and the overall Metacritic score is a weighted average, the mechanics of which Metacritic absolutely refuses to divulge . But because the site’s ratings are even more carefully controlled to include only experienced professional critics — and because the reviews it aggregates are given a higher level of granularity, and presumably weighted by the perceived influence of the critic’s publication — most critics consider Metacritic a better gauge of critical opinion.)

Does a movie’s Rotten Tomatoes score affect its box office earnings?

The short version: It can, but not necessarily in the ways you might think.

A good Rotten Tomatoes score indicates strong critical consensus, and that can be good for smaller films in particular. It’s common for distributors to roll out such films slowly, opening them in a few key cities (usually New York and Los Angeles, and maybe a few others) to generate good buzz — not just from critics, but also on social media and through word of mouth. The result, they hope, is increased interest and ticket sales when the movie opens in other cities.

Get Out , for example, certainly profited from the 99 percent “fresh” score it earned since its limited opening. And the more recent The Big Sick became one of last summer's most beloved films, helped along by its 98 percent rating. But a bad score for a small film can help ensure that it will close quickly, or play in fewer cities overall. Its potential box office earnings, in turn, will inevitably take a hit.

Yet when it comes to blockbusters, franchises, and other big studio films (which usually open in many cities at once), it’s much less clear how much a film’s Rotten Tomatoes score affects its box office tally. A good Rotten Tomatoes score, for example, doesn't necessarily guarantee a film will be a hit. Atomic Blonde is “guaranteed fresh,” with a 77 percent rating, but it didn‘t do very well at the box office despite being an action film starring Charlize Theron.

Still, studios certainly seem to believe the score makes a difference . Last summer, studios blamed Rotten Tomatoes scores (and by extension, critics) when poorly reviewed movies like Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales , Baywatch , and The Mummy performed below expectations at the box office. ( Pirates still went on to be the year’s 19th highest-grossing film.)

2017’s highest grossing movies in the US

But that correlation doesn’t really hold up. The Emoji Movie , for example, was critically panned, garnering an abysmal 6 percent Rotten Tomatoes score. But it still opened to $25 million in the US, which put it just behind the acclaimed Christopher Nolan film Dunkirk . And the more you think about it, the less surprising it is that plenty of people bought tickets to The Emoji Movie in spite of its bad press: It's an animated movie aimed at children that faced virtually no theatrical competition, and it opened during the summer, when kids are out of school. Great reviews might have inflated its numbers, but almost universally negative ones didn't seem to hurt it much.

It's also worth noting that many films with low Rotten Tomatoes scores that also perform poorly in the US (like The Mummy or The Great Wall ) do just fine overseas, particularly in China. The Mummy gave Tom Cruise his biggest global opening ever . If there is a Rotten Tomatoes effect, it seems to only extend to the American market.

Without any consistent proof, why do people still maintain that a bad Rotten Tomatoes score actively hurts a movie at the box office?

While it’s clear that a film’s Rotten Tomatoes score and box office earnings aren't correlated as strongly as movie studios might like you to think, blaming bad ticket sales on critics is low-hanging fruit.

Plenty of people would like you to believe that the weak link between box office earnings and critical opinion proves that critics are at fault for not liking the film, and that audiences are a better gauge of its quality. Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, co-star of Baywatch , certainly took that position when reviews of the 2017 bomb Baywatch came out:

Oh boy, critics had their venom & knives ready . Fans LOVE the movie. Huge positive scores. Big disconnect w/ critics & people. #Baywatch https://t.co/K0AQPf6F0S — Dwayne Johnson (@TheRock) May 26, 2017

Baywatch ended up with a very comfortably rotten 19 percent Tomatometer score , compared to a just barely fresh 62 percent audience score. But with apologies to The Rock, who I’m sure is a very nice man, critics aren't weather forecasters or pundits, and they’re not particularly interested in predicting how audiences will respond to a movie. (We are also a rather reserved and nerdy bunch, not regularly armed with venom and knives.) Critics show up where they’re told to show up and watch a film, then go home and evaluate it to the best of their abilities.

The obvious rejoinder, at least from a critic’s point of view, is that if Baywatch was a better movie, there wouldn’t be such a disconnect. But somehow, I suspect that younger ticket buyers — an all-important demographic — lacked nostalgia for 25-year-old lifeguard TV show, and thus weren't so sure about seeing Baywatch in the first place. Likewise, I doubt that a majority of Americans were ever going to be terribly interested in the fifth installment of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise (which notched a 30 percent Tomatometer score and a 64 percent audience score), especially when they could just watch some other movie.

A pile-up of raves for either of these films might have resulted in stronger sales, because people could have been surprised to learn that a film they didn’t think they were interested in was actually great. But with lackluster reviews, the average moviegoer just had no reason to give them a chance.

Big studio publicists, however, are paid to convince people to see their films, not to candidly discuss the quality of the films themselves. So when a film with bad reviews flops at the box office, it’s not shocking that studios are quick to suggest that critics killed it.

How do movie studios try to blunt the perceived impact when they’re expecting a bad Rotten Tomatoes score?

Of late, some studios — prompted by the idea that critics can kill a film’s buzz before it even comes out — have taken to “ fighting back ” when they’re expecting a rotten Tomatometer score.

Their biggest strategy isn’t super obvious to the average moviegoer, but very clear to critics. When a studio suspects it has a lemon on its hands, it typically hosts the press screening only a day or two ahead of the film's release, and then sets a review “embargo” that lifts a few hours before the film hits theaters.

Consider, for example, the case of the aforementioned Emoji Movie . I and most other critics hoped the movie would be good, as is the case with all movies see. But once the screening invitations arrived in our inboxes, we pretty much knew, with a sinking feeling, that it wouldn’t be. The tell was pretty straightforward: The film’s only critics' screening in New York was scheduled for the day before it opened. It screened for press on Wednesday night at 5 pm, and then the review embargo lifted at 3 pm the next day — mere hours before the first public showtimes.

Late critics’ screenings for any given film mean that reviews of the film will necessarily come out very close to its release, and as a result, people purchasing advance tickets might buy them before there are any reviews or Tomatometer score to speak of. Thus, in spite of there being no strong correlation between negative reviews and a low box office, its first-weekend box returns might be less susceptible to any potential harm as a result of bad press. (Such close timing can also backfire; critics liked this summer's Captain Underpants , for example, but the film was screened too late for the positive reviews to measurably boost its opening box office.)

That first-weekend number is important, because if a movie is the top performer at the box office (or if it simply exceeds expectations, like Dunkirk and Wonder Woman did this summer), its success can function as good advertising for the film, which means its second weekend sales may also be stronger. And that matters , particularly when it means a movie is outperforming its expectations, because it can actually shift the way industry executives think about what kinds of movies people want to watch. Studios do keep an eye on critics’ opinions, but they’re much more interested in ticket sales — which makes it easy to see why they don’t want risk having their opening weekend box office affected by bad reviews, whether there’s a proven correlation or not.

The downside of this strategy, however, is that it encourages critics to instinctively gauge a studio’s level of confidence in a film based on when the press screening takes place. 20th Century Fox, for instance, screened War for the Planet of the Apes weeks ahead of its theatrical release, and lifted the review embargo with plenty of time to spare before the movie came out. The implication was that Fox believed the movie would be a critical success, and indeed, it was — the movie has a 97 percent Tomatometer score and an 86 percent audience score.

And still, late press screenings fail to account for the fact that, while a low Rotten Tomatoes score doesn’t necessarily hurt a film’s total returns, aggregate review scores in general do have a distinct effect on second-weekend sales. In 2016, Metacritic conducted a study of the correlation between its scores and second weekend sales , and found — not surprisingly — that well-reviewed movies dip much less in the second weekend than poorly reviewed movies. This is particularly true of movies with a strong built-in fan base, like Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice , which enjoyed inflated box office returns in the first weekend because fans came out to see it, but dropped sharply in its second weekend, at least partly due to extremely negative press .

Most critics who are serious about their work make a good-faith effort to approach each film they see with as few expectations as possible. But it's hard to have much hope about a movie when it seems obvious that a studio is trying to play keep-away with it. And the more studios try to game the system by withholding their films from critics, the less critics are inclined to enter a screening devoid of expectations, however subconscious.

If you ask critics what studios ought to do to minimize the potential impact of a low Rotten Tomatoes score, their answer is simple: Make better movies. But of course, it’s not that easy; some movies with bad scores do well, while some with good scores still flop. Hiding a film from critics might artificially inflate first-weekend box office returns, but plenty of people are going to go see a franchise film, or a superhero movie, or a family movie, no matter what critics say.

The truth is that neither Rotten Tomatoes nor the critics whose evaluations make up its scores are really at fault here, and it’s silly to act like that’s the case. The website is just one piece of the sprawling and often bewildering film landscape.

As box office analyst Scott Mendelson wrote at Forbes :

[Rotten Tomatoes] is an aggregate website, one with increased power because the media now uses the fresh ranking as a catch-all for critical consensus, with said percentage score popping up when you buy tickets from Fandango or rent the title on Google Market. But it is not magic. At worst, the increased visibility of the site is being used as an excuse by ever-pickier moviegoers to stay in with Netflix or VOD.

For audience members who want to make good moviegoing decisions, the best approach is a two-pronged one. First, check Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to get a sense of critical consensus. But second, find a few critics — two or three will do — whose taste aligns with (or challenges) your own, and whose insights help you enjoy a movie even more. Read them and rely on them.

And know that it’s okay to form your own opinions, too. After all, in the bigger sense, everyone’s a critic.

Will you help keep Vox free for all?

At Vox, we believe that clarity is power, and that power shouldn’t only be available to those who can afford to pay. That’s why we keep our work free. Millions rely on Vox’s clear, high-quality journalism to understand the forces shaping today’s world. Support our mission and help keep Vox free for all by making a financial contribution to Vox today.

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

Next Up In Culture

Sign up for the newsletter today, explained.

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

Thanks for signing up!

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

Want a 32-hour workweek? Give workers more power.

The harrowing “Quiet on Set” allegations, explained

The chaplain who doesn’t believe in God

Beyoncé’s “Jolene” and country music’s scorned woman trope 

Could Republican resignations flip the House to Democrats?

Truth Social just made Trump billions. Will it solve his financial woes?

Liam Neeson’s New Action Thriller Breaks A Rotten Tomatoes Streak That Lasted 4 Years

• Liam Neeson's new movie breaks his Rotten Tomatoes streak that consisted of eight straight movies deemed "Rotten."
• In the Land of Saints and Sinners could become one of Neeson's best action movies, showcasing his impressive status as an action star at 71.
• Neeson has more action/thriller genre films on the way, as well as a role in the upcoming Naked Gun remake, demonstrating his versatility and willingness to explore new roles.

Liam Neeson's new movie In the Land of Saints and Sinners has broken the actor's eight-movie Rotten Tomatoes streak, which lasted four years. The Northern Irish actor reinvented himself as an action hero when he starred in Pierre Morel's action-thriller Taken in 2008 . Since then, the Oscar nominee has appeared in numerous action, crime, and thriller movies, with the most recent being his second collaboration with director Robert Lorenz, the thriller In the Land of Saints and Sinners . It follows Neeson as a world-weary assassin seeking redemption in the Irish wilderness, whose past comes back to haunt him.

The movie, which features an ensemble cast including Kerry Condon, Ciarán Hinds, Colm Meaney, and Jack Gleeson, has received critical acclaim. According to Rotten Tomatoes , the film is currently certified "Fresh," scoring 78% based on 36 reviews. If it stays "Fresh" as more reviews get tabulated, it will break the recent streak of poorly-reviewed movies from the Schindler's List star. Specificaly, Neeson has had a string of eight consecutive movies over a four-year period that were certified "Rotten" since 2020 . Check out the scores of those eight movies below:

The Action Genre Isn't Responsible For Liam Neeson's Rotten Tomatoes Slump

Liam neeson has earned several fresh scores for action movies in the past.

Although many titles from this grim Rotten Tomatoes streak are action movies , the genre itself isn't responsible for his slump. Quite a few prohects featuring Liam Neeson action heroes have had strong critical reception in the past. This kicked off, just like his commercial success in the genre, in 2008 with the release of Taken , which earned a score of 60% on Rotten Tomatoes in addition to earning $226.8 million against its $25 million budget, becoming the 28th highest-grossing movie of the year worldwide.

Action and thriller movies have dominated both the highs and the lows of the star's recent career. This includes the 2018 thriller Widows , which is Neeson's seventh-highest-rated narrative movie of all time on Rotten Tomatoes with a Certified Fresh score of 91%, falling just behind huge hits including Schindler's List (98%) and The Lego Movie (96%). Below, check out the other recent action and thriller titles that have performed well for the star since 2008:

It's entirely possible that Neeson's recent streak has been the result of diminishing returns in audience interest in seeing the star lead action movies. However, this strong result for his new movie could indicate that both critics and audiences are taking his genre movies on a case-by-case basis and these scores are merely based on those titles' relative merits. If that is the case, the future could be very bright for the star.

Does In The Land Of Saints And Sinners Mark Another Career Revival For Neeson?

Neeson has more action/thriller movies on the way as well as the naked gun remake.

It remains to be seen how much longer Neeson will conduct movies in the action genre, but there will be hope that more of them can rate as highly as In the Land of Saints and Sinners .

Neeson's recent movies have been fairly well received by audiences for the most part, but they certainly lack the critical acclaim of some of his earlier work. The positive reception for In the Land of Saints and Sinners means it could eventually become one of Liam Neeson's best action movies and potentially mark a return to form for the star, who has carved out a successful niche in the action-thriller genre, but has also endured a string of critical and commercial flops in recent times.

Standing out in the genre can be a challenge, so Neeson's status as an action star is all the more impressive due to his age . The established and respected 71-year-old actor has the luxury to pick and choose whichever projects he wishes to do, and his clear devotion to the action genre has allowed him to thrive in these kinds of movies. It remains to be seen how much longer Neeson will take on movies in the action genre, but there will be hope that more of them can rate as highly as In the Land of Saints and Sinners .

The Ice Road 2 and Cold Storage are Neeson's upcoming movies currently in production, while Thugs is in post-production.

The versatile actor is well-known for reinventing himself and taking his career in unexpected directions, and he could do the same again with the upcoming Naked Gun remake , in which he's set to star. The movie represents a departure from the action-thriller genre into more comedic territory and will be Neeson's first major comedy leading role. While the wait for the remake continues, there is at least no shortage of Neeson movies coming to theaters with In the Land of Saints and Sinners being the latest thrilling experience.

Source: Rotten Tomatoes

In the Land of Saints and Sinners

In the Land of Saints and Sinners is an action crime thriller directed by Robert Lorenz and stars Liam Neeson as former assassin Finbar Murphy, who is in retirement and looking to leave his hitman days behind him. When Murphy's peaceful Irish town is rocked by terrorists who have begun abusing the locals, he slips back into his old ways to deal with them, all while trying to keep his identity a secret from those around him.

Director Robert Lorenz

Release Date September 15, 2023

Studio(s) Prodigal Films Limited, RagBag Pictures, Facing East

Distributor(s) Netflix

Writers Mark Michael McNally, Terry Loane

Cast Sarah Greene, Ciarn Hinds, Liam Neeson, Kerry Condon, Jack Gleeson, Colm Meaney

Runtime 106 Minutes

Genres Thriller, Action, Crime

Main Genre Thriller

Where To Stream Netflix

The 10 Highest-Grossing 2010s Movies That Critics Hated, Ranked by Box Office

These movies made bank at the box office, but at what cost?

The 2010s were an unprecedentedly outstanding decade for cinema financially; of the ten highest-grossing movies of all time, a whopping six were released during this decade. From massive original blockbusters to even bigger legacy sequels from popular franchises and a few book adaptations, plenty of movies drew swarms of people to the theater to check them out.

However, as well as they may have done in terms of ticket sales, some of the decade's highest-grossing films were far from a hit with critics . Whether they were misguided superhero films like Suicide Squad or well-meaning family movies like Ice Age: Continental Drift , these movies failed to earn the favor of experts despite dominating the box office . And while they might've not been outright panned, they certainly didn't earn high scores from the criticism community.

10 'The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn — Part 1' (2011)

Worldwide box office: $712,205,856.

None of the movies in the Twilight Saga did particularly well with critics, but each was a huge financial success. Breaking Dawn — Part 1 was the beginning of the series’ conclusion, seeing the Quileutes close in on expecting parents Edward and Bella, whose unborn child poses a threat to the people of Forks.

The movie was evidently quite successful with fans of the franchise and of the teen fantasy genre, becoming the second highest-grossing entry in the series. However, critics thought that Breaking Dawn — Part 1 was the worst of the bunch . Calling it slow, often unintentionally hilarious , and completely uninteresting for any non- Twilight fan, they lamented the script’s lack of quality and the emptiness of the narrative. Because of this and much more, the movie holds a meager 25% on Rotten Tomatoes and a surprisingly high 45 on Metacritic .

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1

Watch on Hulu

9 'Suicide Squad' (2016)

Worldwide box office: $749,200,054.

Not to be confused with the infinitely superior The Suicide Squad directed by James Gunn , David Ayer 's Suicide Squad is perhaps the worst film in the entire DCEU . In it, a secret government agency recruits some of the world’s most dangerous supervillains to form a team that must complete the impossible task of saving the world from the apocalypse. Almost as if they’re some kind of suicide squad.

A killer marketing campaign, stellar casting, and anticipation led to Suicide Squad becoming a box-office juggernaut. Though there’s no shortage of fans of the movie and Ayer’s vision of the characters and story, certainly not many critics can be counted among those people. Reviewers called Suicide Squad a messily directed and even more messily written film that squandered the potential of such a star-studded cast, resulting in a 26% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 40 on Metacritic .

Suicide Squad

Watch on Max

8 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales' (2017)

Worldwide box office: $795,922,298.

Following the surprising success of Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl , Disney tried multiple times to capitalize on audiences’ fondness for the franchise; each time, they succeeded greatly at the box office. Dead Men Tell No Tales —currently the most recent movie in the series ( though not for long )—finds Jack Sparrow pursued by old undead rival Captain Salazar and his deadly ghost crew.

It's a simple enough premise for a simple enough sequel, and although some audience members resonated with it (certainly more than with the previous installment in the saga), critics definitely did not. Giving the movie a 30% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 39 on Metacritic , reviewers criticized how it tried to cover up its poorly thought-out script with excessively loud and flashy set pieces . By that point, the franchise was all but dead, but Dead Men Tell No Tales was really the final nail in the coffin.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales

Watch on Disney+

7 'Venom' (2018)

Worldwide box office: $856,085,161.

Venom is one of the films with the biggest gaps between audience and critic scores on Rotten Tomatoes. Fans found lots of enjoyment in this adaptation of Marvel’s titular antihero, an alien entity who bonds with a failed reporter. Critics, on the other hand, were much less impressed.

Venom holds a score of 30% on Rotten Tomatoes and one of 35 on Metacritic , evidence that critics felt that the movie was nauseatingly chaotic and loud , as well as lacking bite due to its PG-13 rating. Even then, avid fans of the character enjoyed the film’s many action scenes and the depiction of the lore surrounding the character, resulting in astonishing box office numbers. The film defied box office expectations, proving naysayers wrong and effectively launching the Spider-Man-less Sony universe that continues today.

6 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' (2016)

Worldwide box office: $874,362,803.

Fans were highly anticipating the 2016 movie Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice , controversial director Zack Snyder ’s depiction of DC’s most popular heroes. The plot sees the two clash under the manipulation of Lex Luthor. However, all that wait turned out to be for nothing as, in the end, the film was as divisive as its director for critics and audiences alike.

With 29% on Rotten Tomatoes and 44 on Metacritic , the now infamous Batman v. Superman is perhaps the most polarizing blockbuster of the 2010s . Critics were let down by the overstuffed story, nonsensical plot, and the way Snyder’s idiosyncratic style interacted with the subject matter . Even with many viewers feeling the same way, the movie managed to amass nearly $900 million at the box office, proving that names as big as Batman and Superman can be more than enough to attract curious audiences.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

5 'ice age: continental drift' (2012), worldwide box office: $877,244,782.

The Ice Age franchise is one of the highest-grossing animated movie series of all time, even if it isn’t one of the most highly praised. The fourth installment, Continental Drift , sees the prehistoric crew embarking on another adventure after their continent is set adrift. With an iceberg as their ship, they battle pirates as they explore a new world.

Though praised for its charming animation and the occasional genuinely funny jokes, Continental Drift received negative comments for its overtly kiddy tone and the lack of freshness in a franchise that they thought had already run its course. Critics gave this sequel 37% on Rotten Tomatoes and 49 on Metacritic . Still, families clearly hadn’t had enough of Manny the Mammoth and his family, making Continental Drift the second highest-grossing film in the series. Sadly, it was only downhill for the Ice Age series after Continental Drift .

Ice Age: Continental Drift

4 'pirates of the caribbean: on stranger tides' (2011), worldwide box office: $1,046,721,266.

The fourth movie in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, On Stranger Tides , separates Jack Sparrow from Will and Elizabeth. Instead, the film puts him and Barbossa on a quest to find the elusive fountain of youth, which Blackbeard and his daughter happen to be after as well. The film tries to compensate for the loss of Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom with Penélope Cruz and Ian McShane , with so-so results.

By this point, critics had already grown tired of the series — even audiences who had joyfully supported the previous two critically panned sequels found this one boring and unnecessary. The film holds a disappointing 33% on Rotten Tomatoes and 45 on Metacritic , with critics voicing their disapproval of the disjointed script and utterly uninteresting characters . This time, not even audiences stood up in defense of the franchise, instead letting critics call On Stranger Tides one of the worst movie sequels of all time .

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

3 'transformers: age of extinction' (2014), worldwide box office: $1,104,054,072.

Michael Bay ’s Transformers movies never were critical darlings, exactly, but audiences enjoyed them well enough that they were willing to turn up at the theater for every new installment. In Age of Extinction , the fourth film and a significant departure from the story and characters of the previous three, the Autobots recur to a mechanic and his family for their help in finding Optimus Prime.

Critics and audiences alike called Age of Extinction the single worst installment in the series . With an 18% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 32 on Metacritic , the movie was criticized for hiding its lack of a semi-intelligent script behind some of the most overblown action of Bay’s entire filmography, which is saying a lot. With hardly any redeeming qualities, it's no surprise that audiences turned their backs on Transformers after Age of Extinction , with its 2017 sequel grossing considerably less.

Watch on Paramount+

2 'Transformers: Dark of the Moon' (2011)

Worldwide box office: $1,123,794,079.

With well over $1.1 billion in its piggy bank, Transformers: Dark of the Moon (the third movie in the franchise) is the series’ highest-grossing outing. In it, the Autobots learn of a Cybertronian spacecraft hidden on the Moon’s surface and race against the Decepticons to reach it and learn all its secrets.

With impressive visual effects and surprisingly bonkers social satire , Dark of the Moon was better-liked by critics than its notoriously panned predecessor, even if not by much . It holds a weak 35% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 42 on Metacritic , with critics and audiences finding that the simplistic script was simply far too lackluster to ignore. The grand, explosive action sequences were still there, but by that point, they had become a bit too been-there-done-that for audiences, who craved more from their entertainment.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

1 'jurassic world: fallen kingdom' (2018), worldwide box office: $1,308,467,944.

Steven Spielberg ’s original Jurassic Park remains one of the most important movies of the ‘90s, having revolutionized visual effects and the sci-fi genre in general. None of its sequels, however, were nearly as critically successful. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom , in particular, was a significant downgrade, telling an ambitious yet ultimately disappointing story where Owen and Claire mount a campaign to rescue the dinosaurs remaining on the island from an extinction-level event.

What's sad is that this film had promise; its premise is intriguing, and its willingness to venture outside the series' comfort zone gives it extra points. Alas, it's all for naught. The film has a score of 46% on Rotten Tomatoes and 51 on Metacritic , with critics talking about how glaringly the film is in short supply of thrills, shock, or intelligence in its plotting . Audiences weren’t much kinder to the spectacle, even if they were interested enough to make Fallen Kingdom the 20th highest-grossing movie of all time.

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)

NEXT: The Lowest-Grossing Movies of the 21st Century (So Far)

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors, not with my song, you don't.

Now streaming on:

"Killing Them Softly” begins with a George V. Higgins novel set in Boston in 1974 and moves its story to post-Katrina New Orleans in 2008, to allow televised speeches by Barack Obama, John McCain and George W. Bush to run frequently in the background.

The facile point, I think, is that organized crime in America is troubled, just like the rest of the economy with a business slowdown and a growing recession. It’s a good thing these crooks are in a lot of bars where the television sets are tuned to C-SPAN.

The plot of “Killing Them Softly” centers on a deadly Catch-22. A genial guy named Markie Trattman ( Ray Liotta ) operates high-stakes poker games for the mob. One night the game is hit by two hooded stick-up men, who make off with a big pile of mob money. This in itself is suspicious, because it looks like an inside job: What outsider, even knowing about the secret game, would be crazy enough to steal from the mob?

Talk about crazy. Some time later, Markie, feeling in a good mood, tells the players that he arranged the job himself, robbing his own game. He finds this revelation so funny that tears run down his cheeks. The job was pulled off by insignificant goombahs Johnny Amato (Vincent Curatola) and Russell ( Ben Mendelsohn ), and since the heist happens near the beginning of the film, we know instinctively that Russell and Johnny aren’t going to be around at the end.

A high-level mob boss named Mickey ( James Gandolfini ) arrives in town, hauling his in-flight luggage through the airport like a traveling businessman. He orders the executions of Russell and Johnny by a silky hit man named Jackie ( Brad Pitt ), who likes to kill softly, as explained by one of the many aging classic songs on the soundtrack. These are the first two of many, many mob-on-mob killings in the film, as the syndicate administers its own version of a bailout.

“Killing Them Softly” continues as a dismal, dreary series of cruel and painful murders, mostly by men who know one another, in a barren city where it’s usually night, often rainy and is never identifiable as New Orleans — not even by the restaurants. I recall only one female character in the film, a hooker employed by Mickey, who is the only mobster not exclusively obsessed with crime, money and pecking order. As the body count grows, we meet Driver ( Richard Jenkins ), a gravel-voiced chief executive who appears often behind the wheel of a car parked in the wastelands beneath bridges.

Here is where the Catch-22 comes in: Now that Markie has claimed credit for knocking off his own game, another one of his games is stuck up. Does it now seem inevitable that he, too, becomes a marked man? Not to me. Who with any common sense would think he was that dumb? There’s some of the Higgins brand of humor in a conversation about how badly he should be beaten up.

It seems as if I’ve been seeing versions of this story since forever. A cast is assembled from various flavors of tough guys, they’re placed in a dreary and joyless cityscape, they hold a series of fraught conversations, there is a great deal of suffering and blood, and most of them are required to die by the end. Ideally, the plot also involves romance, humor and suspense, and tense scenes involving exact timing. Not here. All “Killing Them Softly” takes from the limitless universe of film noir is the night and the city.

Here’s a good question: How does this mob manage to support itself? “Killing Them Softly” contains not a single crime involving civilians. No heists, hijackings or frauds, and drug deals only among themselves. Like a captive animal struggling to free itself from a trap, they seem reduced to gnawing off their own legs.

The charisma of such actors as Gandolfini, Pitt, Liotta and Jenkins depends largely on their screen presences and our memories of them in better roles. This one, written and directed by Andrew Dominik , for example, recalls Brad Pitt’s strong work in the director’s earlier “ The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford ” (2007).

One particular distraction is the comparison drawn between American politics and crime. Only a brief exchange between Jackie and Driver draws the parallel, and it’s so labored that once is more than enough.

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from 1967 until his death in 2013. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.

Now playing

Nandini Balial

Golden Years

Clint worthington.

Megamind vs the Doom Syndicate

Space: The Longest Goodbye

Marya e. gates.

Sheila O'Malley

About Dry Grasses

Carlos aguilar, film credits.

Killing Them Softly (2012)

Rated R for violence, sexual references, pervasive language, and drug use

104 minutes

Richard Jenkins as Driver

Brad Pitt as Jackie

Ben Mendelsohn as Russell

James Gandolfini as Mickey

Scoot McNairy as Frankie

Sam Shepard as Dillon

Ray Liotta as Markie

Directed and written by

• Andrew Dominik

Latest blog posts

A Poet of an Actor: Louis Gossett, Jr. (1936-2024)

Why I Love Ebertfest: A Movie Lover's Dream

Adam Wingard Focuses on the Monsters

Colin Farrell Shines In Apple TV+’s Refined and Genre-Bending Sugar