re: Dunkirk discussion (NO SPOILERS)

quote:

---

This dude have XXX a fresh rating and gave Moonlight rotten

---

I don't expect a person to agree with the tomatometer, and it can be deceiving for an indivdual reviewer because it is binary, and a mixed review may be counter to the consensus but not far off.

This is where metacritic is useful. For example, Cole rated The new Mummy as rotten so it looks like he's in line with consensus of 15%.

However, he gave it a 2/4, so he rated it higher than Dunkirk. In addition, the metacritic score for the Mummy was 34 so his 50 was 16 points higher, whereas his 37.5 (rounded to 38) for Dunkirk is not only 12.5 points lower, it is 58.5 lower than the metacritic score. So he essentially views The Mummy 75 points better relative to the average than Dunkirk.

I get that it's subjective, but that sort of discrepancy makes me question his credibility as a critic. Although he's no Armond White.