Metacritic finally published four of the toughest critics around: Village Voice, NYT, Salon, and Chicago Tribune. None were 100 on Social Network, but none were below 70. So its average is still 97 in 25 reviews.

Can't wait to see it this weekend. Also it seems like the rare movie where high expectations won't hurt it.

why didnt you just give the average score from those 4

But none were 100, or below 70, what more do you need

And Armond White (gasp!) gives it it's first green splat.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the-...contentReviews

http://www.nypress.com/article-21676...as-heroes.html

" If critics and fanboys weren’t suckers for simplistic nihilism and high-pressure marketing, Afterlife would be universally acclaimed as a visionary feat, superior to Inception and Avatar on every level."

i love this guy

RT isn't great for comparing two good movies to find out which is more critically acclaimed. I use it as a "is this movie worth seeing?" score.

Really? You're ****ing weird.

PJ still trying to justify his Spike Lee pick in the Hollywood draft.

Owned.

Sites like this should really ignore White. What the guy does is amusing, but it's not reviewing movies, it's trolling/performance art/attention whoring, and there's a ton of obvious and intentionally intellectual dishonesty in his work. If you're really attempting to show how a film is received by critics, including a guy who does reviews as parody is just silly.

Of course I guess you could make the argument that they're also including the review from people who just enjoy crap because they're ******ed, and I could make an equally snobby case for ignoring them as well.

there goes dids again, portraying another opinion as fact!

if it's so "obvious" why don't you prove it?

Because it's obvious. You sound like a guy who wants to argue if the sun sets in the east.

no, i'm actually tired of everyone stating their opinions as fact.

what if there was a reviewer getting paid off to write favorable reviews for popular films? wouldn't that be just as bad, if not worse (i think it's waaaay worse) than what white is supposedly doing?

you may think that's irrelevent but my point is dids is trying to regulate what he "sees" (white's trollness) without any validating proof. but why can't i do the same with the above? "hey guys, it makes a ton of sense that at least ONE reviewer is getting paid off! maybe not on every review, but now and then! let's begin our own investigation and look into this! hey, you know what, that review looks ridiculous! that movie sucks and he was obviously paid off! RT can't count this ****! it's OBVIOUS!"

do you get my point? where do you draw the line? I draw the line with objectivity and facts.

it's just egotistic to try to censor things. if you don't like it don't read it; if enough people ignore him then he doesn't have a career. but if you keep paying attention to him then you're justifying his presence.

Reup Gang,
First Dids isn't stating his opinion as fact. Unless you feel it is necessary to preface every though you have that isn't a direct statement of fact with "DISCLAIMER: THIS IS JUST MY OPINION".

White's trolling is well documented and has nothing to do with his review of The Social Network. Sites like RT aren't in the business of free speech they are trying to get the best reviewers possible the the information they aggregate will be as meaningful as possible.

This is why Metacritic >>> RT. Metacritic doesn't use Armond or similar trolls/morons/easy graders. It's the best of the best and a more accurate reading.

98 through 34 reviews on Metacritic, one of the highest scores on the site period, and I imagine as well as over that sample of reviews too. we could be witnessing history here, people.

i'm alarmed at the # of ppl that have not heard of fincher and/or sorkin. i've asked a few friends if they're going to see the movie, replies consist of "wtf hell no i hate fb." or "omg looks so lame that kid from zombieland sux"

i counter with, but it's FINCHER AND SORKIN WTF and the replies have been "who are they?" DIIIIIE ALL OF YOU!

QFT, MC isn't perfect but it's so much better than RT it's to the point that RT should never be used

i do the same, generally speaking anything below 40% should be avoided. there may be exceptions but i do the same.

Of course RT is fine to use. The Tomatometer is good to give a general indication of how a movie is being received. Also if you took the time to look you would notice that RT also publishes an average score similar to MC. It's located directly below the Tomatometer - The Social Network currently has an average score of 9.4/10.

Harold and Kumar, Paranoid Park, Donnie Darko, Pi, probably Eternal Sunshine as well

IDK, those movies were real great

ps I'll defend H&K's status as a masterpiece to the death, with a knife

Just saw the 12:01. pretty f good.

agreed

Was there anything special about the 12:01, or do you mean the movie is really good?

Also, I didn't recognize Rashida Jones in the trailer, pleasant eye candy surprise!