Mo-Cance t1_iycp3fj wrote
So the first movie, 400 Days, has a 22%, while the next two have yet to receive a rating. I stopped at that point.
Ranulf5 t1_iycpr3o wrote
Dang it. I expected more from Newsweek.com, I’m disappointed. They’ve lost a fan
/s
January28thSixers t1_iycx5kw wrote
They were better in the 30s. Now it's just another pointless website trying very hard to turn a profit in the laziest way possible.
Dry-Mortgage5063 t1_iycycib wrote
Some of these movies even have mildly positive reviews. It just seems like the single person to contribute to the audience score didn't bother actually rating it.
Also a lot of these movies are just...old. Nobody's really going out of their way to just rate old, random movies.
Koweh714 t1_iyd4hvt wrote
r/fuckthes
Simsalabimbamba t1_iydmpm7 wrote
It's talking about audience scores, not critic scores. Not that the audience scores are all 0 either, but maybe they were when the article was written
PanzerWatts t1_iyf9vhc wrote
>It's talking about audience scores, not critic scores.
For Left Behind, the critic score is 0% and the audience score is 17%. So it probably depends. But either way, the listicle seems misleading.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments