When IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes disagree (original) (raw)
Sort by: Showing 1-50 of 65
Decade: Rating: List Type:
Rotten Tomatoes: 17%
IMDb: 7.8
Difference- 61
I have recently added this to the list under the suggestion of Leo, having never seen the film myself. But if ever there was a split opinion between the two sites- this has got to be one of the biggest!
Rotten Tomatoes: 26%
IMDb: 7.5
Difference- 49
This is one heck of a difference! Seven Pounds was not a bad film, and is obviously a favourite among audiences. Critics on the other hand have mostly panned this film, calling it grim and illogical. Now HERE is a division of opinion!
judmac1's rating: 
Rotten Tomatoes: 25%
IMDb: 7.2
Difference- 47
Though not on the high scale of IMDb ratings, there is nevertheless a massive difference between this site and the opinions of critics on the Rotten Tomatoes sight. Critics really don't seem to like Gerard Butler films. Thanks to Leo for this pick up.
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 33%
IMDb: 7.7
Difference- 44
Another classic difference, thanks to King Stefou. While the critics may have found the plot farfetched and rediculous, that didn't stop audiences from ignoring science and enjoying it for what is was- pure entertainment.
judmac1's rating: 
Rotten Tomatoes: 34%
IMDb: 7.4
Difference- 40
I have not seen this film, but I believe that some critics thought that Sean Penn's performance was a little too over the top for their liking. Audiences are more sensitive towards family issues though, I believe. Thanks to moviewatcher122 for the suggestion.
Rotten Tomatoes: 37%
IMDb: 7.6
Difference- 39
A popular sci-fi movie with audiences, Equilibrium obviously featured the adrenaline rush that audiences were looking for. It didn't, however, deliver as well for critics, who saw it as a re-hash of better sci-fi films. Thanks to Leo for this inclusion!
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 38%
IMDb: 7.7
Difference- 39
I have not seen this movie, but according to audiences it is possibly as epic as its movie poster looks! 7.7 is no low score on imdb. I've noticed that a lot of Dakota Fanning films happen to be on this half of the list...interesting. Thanks to meuisviocm for this suggestion!
Rotten Tomatoes: 37%
IMDb: 7.1
Difference- 34
Thanks to AVPGuyver21 for this one! So the imdb rating of this movie is not all that high, but considering it scored very lowly on Rotten Tomatoes it was worth a mention. To be honest, I didn't think that 'Rambo' was all that exciting, but this is one odd film where I can understand and appreciate both people who loved it and people who hated it.
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 40%
IMDb: 7.4
Difference- 34
Suggestion by: Hyana Brain
Rotten Tomatoes: 48%
IMDb: 7.7
Difference- 29
The next largest difference goes to Indie-horror film 'Saw', that is, before the massive franchise. Audiences seemed to love this original gore-fest, which really wasn't THAT gory, especially in comparison to its sequels. The critics disagreed though, and Saw's "Rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes only proves that critics were too squeamish for this one.
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 52%
IMDb: 7.9
Difference- 27
Now here is an interesting one! We have a schmaltzy Nicholas Sparks adaptation which, I think I can fairly say, is likely to raise eyebrows. What is unusual about 'The Notebook' is that it is the only film adaptation of a Nicholas Sparks novel that actually scored even REASONABLY well (let alone VERY highly). However, I actually can understand the hype from audiences. It is a very sweet film. But critics were not as touched as audiences were, and perhaps this can be blamed on an otherwise manipulative run of bad Nicholas Spark adaptations from both before and after this film was released. I am ashamed to say that I overlooked this inclusion myself, but thanks to Max the Movie Kid for refreshing my memory and bringing it up in the comments!
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 51%
IMDb: 7.8
Difference- 27
To be honest, I had not even heard of this film until Leo pointed out this difference for me. However, correct me if I'm wrong, it seems to be a typical camp action film that audiences fell for while critics felt less enthusiastic. Oh wait. It stars Morgan Freeman. Ahhh thats why audiences loved it.
Rotten Tomatoes: 51%
IMDb: 7.6
Difference- 25
I have not seen this film, but it clearly divided audiences and critics. Apparently the film lacked character development, but obviously still had enough visual appeal, and Johnny Depp, to please audiences on IMDb. Thanks again to DragonPhoenix for this input.
Rotten Tomatoes: 50%
IMDb: 7.4
Difference- 24
Suggestion by: Max the movie kid
Rotten Tomatoes: 55%
IMDb: 7.7
Difference- 22
Suggestion by: martyrofevil
Rotten Tomatoes: 58%
IMDb: 7.9
Difference- 21
While it is the 13th film on the list, I believe that this is one of the most significant films featured here. Mainly because I have not heard of a single person who has NOT liked 'Taken'. In truth, when a crappy sequel comes out, it does seem to discredit the previous film, but 'Taken' still seems to be an audience favourite. To be honest I was surprised to see the film score so lowly on Rotten Tomatoes. Yes, it is a bit implausible, but its also very thrilling (and isn't that the whole point of the movie?). I have to thank AVPGuyver21 and Acey for this suggestion.
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 54%
IMDb: 7.3
Difference- 19
Okay so I said in the description that I would only include films that did VERY well on one of the websites, and while 7.3 isn't EXCELLENT, I thought I had to include this film to represent the franchise. It made SO much money, was really very funny, and audiences really liked it! However, for the critics, it was really muddled and ROTTEN.
judmac1's rating: 
Rotten Tomatoes: 62%
IMDb: 8.0
Difference- 18
I loved this film. So it makes me cringe seeing how low it scored on Rotten Tomatoes. Come on critics! It had everything going for it! At least the audience on IMDb had more sense. 8.0's don't come around too often.
judmac1's rating: 
Rotten Tomatoes: 59%
IMDb: 7.7
Difference- 18
A visually spectacular film, even if it was a little brainless. Audiences connected to it anyway though, for pure entertainment (and awesome one-liners), and though it stayed 'Fresh' for a while on Rotten Tomatoes, it ultimately ended up in 'Rotten' territory with a teasing 59%. Perhaps for some critics the film really was a dine in hell.
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 56%
IMDb: 7.3
Difference- 17
Suggestion: AVPGuyver21
In the eyes of critics 'Man of Steel' was perhaps too cliched and too serious to rank among the best superhero movies. It didn't have the fantastic writing of Christopher Nolan's 'Batman' trilogy, or the light humour of the Marvel's Avengers franchise, and yet the IMDb viewers obviously found something they enjoyed in the movie, giving it a generous 7.3 rating perhaps simply for its popcorn visual effects and likeable leads.
Rotten Tomatoes: 64%
IMDb: 8.1
Difference- 17
We got this one right, I believe. 'The Hobbit' received so much criticism upon its release, being compared to and criticised against the 'Lord of the Rings' franchise. But Peter Jackson said himself, this is not Lord of the Rings. There is a lighter tone, it is more colourful (both in script and visually), and it is not as epic as the Lord of the Rings, it is simply an adventure film. Sure, it's long and somewhat similar in plot to 'The Fellowship of the Ring', but I along with what I'm sure are fellow fans of the classic Rings trilogy found a lot to like here, and it's bound to only get better.
Rotten Tomatoes: 71%
IMDb: 8.7
Difference- 16
8.7 on IMDb! Wow! The film may be the 26th highest film on the website, and it won the Oscar for 'Best Picture', but its 71% on Rotten Tomatoes isn't all that impressive. Neither, in my opinion, is this film. Sorry fellow audience, I have to agree with the critics on this one!
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 65%
IMDb: 7.7
Difference- 12
Maybe having an American as the lead in a film called 'The Last Samurai' angered critics, but there's no denying this film has a sense of atmosphere and spirituality. I thought it was great, as did my fellow audience members.
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 65%
IMDb: 7.7
Difference- 12
The exact same scores as 'The Last Samurai'! How's that! Well this is the second Zach Snyder film on this list, so it's clear that he's popular with his audience, even if the critics don't connect as well with his films. And come on, 'Watchmen' was pretty sick.
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 66%
IMDb: 7.8
Difference- 12
Another film with Will Smith in the lead on this list. Audiences seem to love him! And critics...well they don't HATE his movies, but lets just say they're not so enthusiastic. This is no exception.
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 69%
IMDb: 8.0
Difference- 11
Another film I'm so happy is on this list. Critics should be ashamed of themselves, but they probably all already knew the twist ending. Martin Scorsese creates incredible atmosphere and suspense in this intense thriller, and the audience, including me, fell for it.
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 73%
IMDb: 8.2
Difference- 9
One of the few films on this list that I haven't seen, 8.2 is a pretty damn high score on IMDb! But that 73% on Rotten Tomatoes isn't too impressive. A noteable difference there.
Rotten Tomatoes: 67%
IMDb: 7.5
Like Christian Bale's performance or not, this is a captivating film. The audience seemed to enjoy the terror, though the feelings of critics were generally lukewarm.
judmac1's rating:
NOW we get to the films that scored highly on Rotten Tomatoes, but weren't as popular with the IMDb raters. There are plenty of these, but none with as great a margain as...Spy Kids!
Rotten Tomatoes: 93%
IMDb: 5.5
Difference- 38
The movie that pretty much defines this list. Critics seemed to love 'Spy Kids' back in 2001, but it's obvious that audiences did NOT agree on this one!
judmac1's rating: 
Rotten Tomatoes: 97%
IMDb: 6.7
Difference- 30
An unfortunate Australian film that, through its hype, did not live up to expected standards. Which is a shame, because really its a very effective horror film with an excellent lead performance.
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 95%
IMDb: 6.7
Difference- 28
Extremely popular with critics when it was first released, 'Antz' turned out to be a disappointment for audiences.
judmac1's rating: 
Rotten Tomatoes: 88%
IMDb: 6.2
Difference- 26
The reason that 'Freaky Friday' now probably rates so low with audiences is because of Lindsay Lohan's lack of popularity. The film itself is not that bad, perhaps not deserving an 88% score on Rotten Tomatoes, but not that bad. The IMDb raters seem to have different ideas though.
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 98%
IMDb: 7.0
Difference- 28
To be honest, I think this one's a bit sad. Being an Aussie myself.. :) ..I loved this film as a kid and still do. Critics ADORED it, but perhaps it didn't connect with the American audience? I'm not sure why, but that's a hefty difference!
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 93%
IMDb: 6.7
Difference- 26
Nawww come on IMDb! This couldn't even scrape the 7.0 mark? I am a sucker for stop-motion animation films. I find the work that goes into making them absolutely fascinating. But, (and this is actually a recurring theme here), stop-motion animation does NOT tend to score highly on IMDb! 'Chicken Run', 'The Pirates!' and 'Paranorman' are all examples of stop-motion animation that deserve to be a lot higher than they get on IMDb! I'm sorry, I have to agree with the critics on this one. The story and the animation are excellent. Thanks AVPGuyver21 for this suggestion!
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 93%
IMDb: 6.8
Difference- 25
Strangely, an exceptionally high scoring horror film, Drag me to Hell was loved by the critics, who perhaps created too much hype for the film. Therefore, by the time audiences saw it, they probably watched it and thought 'So? You've panned every other horror film in existence! How's this REALLY that different?'.
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 87%
IMDb: 6.3
Difference- 24
Suggestion: AVPGuyver21
Rotten Tomatoes: 85%
IMDb: 6.1
Difference- 24
Another family film, starring Lindsay Lohan, that critics really enjoyed, and audiences...not so much. Although to be honest I thought that this was a fun film when I was younger. Perhaps it worked for its target audience, but keep in mind that young kids probably don't rate on IMDb.
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 96%
IMDb: 7.2
Difference- 24
Now while 7.2 isn't neccessarily a BAD score on IMDb, compared to its massive critical acclaim, it's a curious difference. I'm with the critics on this one. How is this not one of the funniest animations ever made? Ahhh well..
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 90%
IMDb: 6.7
Difference- 23
The harsh reality is...if foreign films (this is British), receive acclaim from international AND American critics, American audiences tend to judge them MUCH more harshly. I also find that this is the case with a lot of Australian films, most predominantly 'Animal Kingdom'.
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 92%
IMDb: 7.0
Difference- 22
I was surprised that audiences didn't connect to this film as I thought they would. Critics were drawn in by the realism and wonderful special effects in the film- and usually this is an attraction for audiences. Apparently not this time.
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 91%
IMDb: 6.9
Difference- 22
Critics were overjoyed with the bopiness and fun of 'Hairspray', but musicals with big casts aren't too popular with IMDb voters (see also Chicago and Mamma Mia!). Personally, I don't think they get the credit they deserve from audiences. Thank goodness for critics then! :P
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 90%
IMDb: 6.9
Difference- 21
Ok, now here's a film that probably was blown out of proportion. Yes, it was very funny, but just like the horror genre, I sometimes think 'Critics, you loved this one so much, how did you not find *insert list of extensive good but underrated comedies such as 'Anchorman' and 'Dodgeball'* funny???'
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 92%
IMDb: 7.1
Difference- 21
Not a huge popular hit for audiences. Jack Black gives a good performance, and maybe this was the reason that critics fell for it.
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 92%
IMDb: 7.1
Difference- 21
Another Aardman Studios film! Poor Aardman, I still like your films! Well, to be honest, 'Arthur Christmas' didn't neccessarily score BADLY with IMDb raters, but it received pretty massive acclaim last year! Once again, hype probably ruined it for many.
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 93%
IMDb: 7.2
Difference- 21
Touching and well acted, 'About a Boy' works well but the comedic moments take away a lot of the drama. Critics still admired it- well, loved it- but audiences might have found it a bit sugary in the end.
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 94%
IMDb: 7.3
Difference- 21
Audiences didn't seem to mind this, with a fairly solid 7.3 rating, but compared to its 94% Rotten Tomatoes rating, there seems to be a gap in the popularity.
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 93%
IMDb: 7.2
Difference- 21
This 'Best Picture' nominee was certainly unconventional, and split critics and audiences. Most critics thought it was great fun, clever and very emotional, while audiences may have been wondering WHY exactly it was doing so well, with a pretty standard 7.2 imdb rating for such a critically acclaimed film.
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 86%
IMDb: 6.8
Difference- 20
You just look at that movie poster with its bright colours and trashy-action look about it like a 'Fast and Furious' or 'Transporter' poster, and you think this is going to be a dud. Maybe to some audience members it was, but critics (and I) loved the blood-pumping action and intensity of this film!
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 92%
IMDb: 7.2
Difference- 20
What?!?! A Pixar film? Yes a Pixar film! Audiences weren't too chuffed about this 1998 installment, being the lowest scoring Pixar film on IMDb (do you count Cars 2? Ok, second lowest then), while still scoring a solid 92% and impressing critics on Rotten Tomatoes.
judmac1's rating:
Rotten Tomatoes: 93%
IMDb: 7.3
Difference- 20
We can see with this addition that family films that the critics love go wasted on audiences. It's probably because they see the high Rotten Tomatoes rating, therefore see the film, and treat it as simply a film for kids. Their low IMDb is kind of retalliation for the film scoring higher than some of their favourite action films. Thanks to DragonPheonix for this one.
judmac1's rating:
Load more items (15 more in this list)