rottentomatoestheater3000

[rottentomatoestheater3000]

CHALLENGE 6: Jeff Goldblum

There’s a certain allure to some actors, which is what drew us to a Jeff Goldblum day. Also, Johnny hadn’t seen The Fly (or the original Independence Day) so this needed to happen. We ended up with The Lost World & Resurgence due to rating spacing and how much Goldblum was in Lost World versus say the first or third films.

The List

1.    Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

2.    The Fly (1986)

3.    The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension (1984)

4.    Jurassic Park: The Lost World (1997)

5.    Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

6.    Man of the Year (2006)

The Findings

Preface: Regardless of how much we did or didn’t enjoy the movie, we did notice an odd corrolation with the ratings - the further away from the 80s the movie gets (either in production year or aesthetics - I’m looking at you, Ragnarok), the worse the rating is. Also, for some reason, every character Goldblum plays fucks. Every one.

1.    Thor: Ragnarok (2017) Tomato Meter - 92%

Scientists Say: “I think Ragnarok is a piece of fucking Art. We’ve seen this movie all before, but honestly, it’s doing Goldblum a disservice not showing this movie. Bless Taika Waititi for making this movie.” - J

2.    The Fly (1986) Tomato Meter - 91% [Content Warning: Body Horror]

Scientists Say: “This movie was. Okay? Like the plot was pretty good, and the acting was good. I’m always a little turned off with 80s values towards women, especially considering Grade A Creep ended up getting a slot as a Good Guy in the end, but it didn’t make the movie terrible. I do highly warn people about some body horror content, because while I enjoy myself a good smattering of weird body horror things, this turned my stomach occasionally.” - J

3.    The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension (1984) Tomato Meter - 71%

Scientists Say: “This movie seemed like what happens when a 15 year old weebaboo gets a hold on some story telling software, be it flash animation or Microsoft Word, and writes a 50k word novella about his super awesome badass surgeon/ninja/scientist/racecar driver and his super cool friends. Like it’s not a bad movie, and it’s an enjoyable watch, but there’s absolutely no way to take any movie seriously when the main character is like a Masculine Barbie with 200 jobs and more connections than God, and one of the bad guys is LITERALLY named John BigBooty.” - J

4.    Jurassic Park: The Lost World (1997) Tomato Meter - 53%

Scientists Say: “Lost World was never my absolute favorite of the original Jurassic Park trilogy (here’s looking at you, JP3), but I do always enjoy it. Especially the honking baby T-Rex. I’ve always found people either enjoy the dinosaurs and love these movies, or aren’t here for the dinosaurs and only tend to like the first one and there’s not a lot of in between, so I get the rating.” - J

5.    Independence Day: Resurgence (2016) Tomato Meter - 31%

Scientists Say: “I entered into this experience without having seen the first Independance Day. Steve helpfully recapped it - aliens happened, earth did the thing, hurray - right before. I still enjoyed this movie, though I found it the least strong of the set. I am biased, though, as I’m always a sucker for any kind of decent space alien movie and I really loved the alien’s designs. I can definitely see the low rating, though, and I honestly would have to take off any points I did give it because they did Kill Their Gays.” - J

6.    Man of the Year (2006) Tomato Meter - 21%

Scientists Say: “If you watch this movie, and you live in the US, brace yourself. This movie did not age well, and by didn’t age well I meant aged far too well and I’m uncomfortable. The plot? Comedian with no political background gets elected president due to voter fraud and bad capitalism practices. Seems a LITTLE too familiar, doesn’t it? It really is a good film, and if you keep the date in mind - 2006 was during the second G.W. Bush term and the last Dem on the plate was John Kerry, for the context - it’s really a good piece of media. Robin Williams is phenomenal, the writing is good and the jokes really are funny. It just hits FAR too close to home to be able to enjoy it right now, considering everything that’s happened.” - J

[rottentomatoestheater3000]

CHALLENGE 5: Peter Stormare

For this next challenge, we decided to go with Peter Stormare, having already seen him in several other challenges we’ve done. We also had intern Cody (@white-haired-mando) for what we officially dubbed “The Storemarathon”.

The List

1.       The Big Lebowski (1998)

2.       Dancing in the Dark (2000)

3.       Constantine (2005)

4.       The Brothers Grimm (2005)

5.       8MM (1999)

6.       Bad Company (2002)

 The Findings

1.       The Big Lebowski (1998). Tomato Meter - 91%.

Scientists Say: “Most of us have seen this movie before, and being the sort of classic it is, it’s hard to judge it without bias. Especially when we’d watched it for Buscemi before now, and just for the sheer joy of it before that. Much like Con Air, it’s hard content to just put away. However, if I recall correctly, Intern Cody had not seen it, and thus we watched it. It is, definitely, a classic. It grows on you, regardless of your initial findings, and every time we’ve watched it I’ve liked it just a little more.” - J

2.       Dancing in the Dark (2000) Tomato Meter - 68%

Scientists Say: “This movie was. Well. It happened. I don’t think it personally lived up to the rating, though I feel really bad saying so. Like I legitimately feel bad saying I didn’t enjoy this movie, because it was trying so hard. I think it just tried too hard, to be fair. Tried to hard to be too many different things and didn’t quite manage to be any one of them, which really sucks. It had a lot of potential and would have been delightful had it focused on being any one or two of the 6 different genres it tried to be, but it didn’t.” - J

“[That] was the strangest fever dream of a film that I’ve ever seen.” - Intern Cody

3.       Constantine (2005) Tomato Meter - 46%

Scientists Say: “Not a bad movie. Definitely enjoyable if a little weird at times. Stormare’s roll was something we were all relatively looking forward to, and while he basically wasn’t in it more than a single scene, it didn’t detract from the enjoyment of it.” - J

4.       The Brothers Grimm (2005) Tomato Meter - 38%

Scientists Say: “It was.... alright? It seemed to miss.... something. I got a similar feeling to Dancing in the Dark, except I can’t tell you what it was trying too hard to be, just that it was definitely trying to be something it wasn’t and while not a terrible film it just felt like it wasn’t quite there. Like maybe if they’d gone a little darker, or a little sillier, it would have been better, but they managed to fence sit so hard they fucked it up.” - J

5.       8MM (1999) Tomato Meter – 22%

Scientists Say: “Surprise, there’s a Nic Cage in this list! Honestly, I really enjoyed the heck out of 8MM. I have no idea why it got rated at a 22%, because it was very delightful. Not exactly for the faint of heart, as it’s a movie about finding snuff films and filming snuff films so there’s titties and also death, but I can’t see that being the reason why people rated it so low. It definitely kept me interested even though it was the 5th movie of the group and we were a little drunk from Brother’s Grimm. Nic Cage Face: Low to None. This tells you everything you need to know, really. “- J

6.       Bad Company (2002) Tomato Meter - 10%

Scientists Say: “I also really enjoyed this movie? Like, I’m sorry, but I’m perfectly okay watching the early 2000s buddy cop movie with Anthony Hopkins and Chris Rock. Was it kind of predictable? Yeah, but a lot of early 2000s movies are, because they weren’t obsessed with “the twist ending~~~~~” like we are now. It wasn’t like an Oscar performance, but it was enjoyable.” - J

[rottentomatoestheater3000]

CHALLENGE 4: Johnny Depp

Requested by Johnny, because Johnny Depp has been a long time favorite actor of his, and has a lot of really weird movies. (Please, do not message us about any current or previous JD controversy involving his significant others or movie roles. We know. We’re aware. You don’t need to tell us what you think of him.)

The List

1. Ed Wood (1994)

2. Donnie Brasco (1997)

3. Once Upon A Time In Mexico (2003)

4. From Hell (2001)

5. Ninth Gate (1999)

6. Mordecai (2015)

The Findings

Preface: We managed to pick movies that Johnny hadn’t seen enough to get a 3/3 split, which was good enough.

1. Ed Wood (1994) Tomato Meter - 92%.

Scientists Say: “I still very much enjoy this movie. It’s a little weird, especially for a Johnny Depp movie, and may be a little too much for some people to enjoy, which I get. Johnny Depp is good in it, and I definitely agree with the rating.” - J

2. Donnie Brasco (1997) Tomato Meter - 88%.

Scientists Say: “It was a good film, though I had a lot of problems with what were apparently the realistic FBI practices that just fucked everything up all the time. If it wasn’t based on a true story I’d call it bad writing, because Yikes, but apparently, the stuff I have issue with was just What Happened so I have to give it a pass. Otherwise, it was very enjoyable.” - J

3. Once Upon A Time In Mexico (2003) Tomato Meter - 67%.

Scientists Say: "I’ve always enjoyed this film. It’s very campy and hard to take very seriously, but that makes it delightful in it’s own way.” - J

4. From Hell (2001) Tomato Meter - 57%.

Scientists Say: "Honestly, I think this needed to be lower on the Tomato Scale. It was just very... bland. Hardly memorable, really. There wasn’t much of a hook, let alone anything to keep you tied in for the duration. I got bored watching it.” - J

5. Ninth Gate (1999) Tomato Meter - 42%.

Scientists Say: “I think half the reason this rating is so bad is because this movie gets very hard to follow very quickly. I get it much better the second watch, and I very much enjoyed watching it, but it asks a lot of questions that it doesn’t really answer or if it does not blatantly enough to make it seem like an answer.” - J

6. Mordecai (2015) Tomato Meter - 12%.

Scientists Say: "This movie was just. Really bad. Like, someone decided they wanted to try and capture the goofy nature of Austin Powers, Jack Sparrow, and campy comedy, but forget to actually pay attention to any of those sources before writing the movie. It tries to be funny and fails at it, tries to be campy and misses it. The only good part was a surprise Jeff Goldblum.” - J

[rottentomatoestheater3000]

CHALLENGE 3: David Lynch

We started out this Challenge with a different mindset: Let’s try a director. One Chris liked, with weird movies that the others hadn’t seen. What could go wrong? (Hint: Everything).

The List

1. Blue Velvet (1986)

2. Eraserhead (1977)

3. Mullholland Drive (2001)

4. Wild at Heart (1990)

5. Lost Highway (1997)

6. Dune (1984)

The Findings

Preface: I’m not entirely sure how you manage to rate David Lynch films on a scale in tandem with literally anything else. They’re so weird they’re not on the same plane most of the time as other movies. But we’ll try?

1. Blue Velvet (1986) Tomato Meter - 94%.

Scientists Say: "Enjoyable, if a bit odd. I found a lot of Lynch’s films hard to track, but this was at least interesting to watch even if I was a little lost.” - J

2. Eraserhead (1977) Tomato Meter - 91%.

Scientists Say: “I can tell you I don’t know if the rating is accurate, but I cannot tell you what rating I would give it instead. How do you rate this movie from a 0 to 100? Does it qualify for real statistics? Is it good? It is bad? What did I just watch?”

3. Mullholland Drive (2001) Tomato Meter - 83%.

Scientists Say: “This was one of the better movies of the bunch, which says a lot. It was catchy, decently acted, able to be followed like a real plotline. It was one of the only movies I managed to actually follow all the way through. Also, gay content is good content.” - J

4. Wild at Heart (1990) Tomato Meter - 65%.

Scientists Say: “I have no working memory of this movie. Like I’m like what was Wild at Heart again, and Chris will give me a short synopsis, and I’ll go oh yeah and I’ll remember the scene, or something, and then IMMEDIATELY forget as soon as I stop actively recalling the film. It’s like my brain refuses to process the movie. It did have Nic Cage in it, though I don’t even remember how many times he makes The Face. I remember I didn’t hate it, though?” - J

5. Lost Highway (1997) Tomato Meter - 60%.

Scientists Say: "So I definitely have no memory of this film. Unlike Wild at Heart, which I can recall bits of, even looking at the synopsis of this movie I can only really picture the inside of one of the houses and that’s it. I think my medical breakdown was starting to wear me thin, either that or the beer, but I don’t know if I can give a rating to a movie that won’t let me recall it.” - J

6. Dune (1984) Tomato Meter - 56%.

Scientists Say: We actually didn’t complete this challenge. Due to medical issues, Johnny couldn’t linger, so we never actually watched Dune. More detail incoming, however, as the other two Scientists have seen Dune and can give a more reliable review/rating.

[rottentomatoestheater3000]

CHALLENGE 2: Nic Cage

For the second challenge, we decided to try our hand at Nic Cage. A lot of these movies we’d already seen, but we dove right in anyway.

The List

1. Face/Off (1997)

2. Raising Arizona (1987)

3. Vampire’s Kiss (1989)

4. Con Air (1997)

5. National Treasure (2004)

6. Wickerman (2006)

The Findings

Preface: We had just done Con Air, but like, how can you say no when Con Air is an option? It’s Con Air.

1. Face/Off (1997). Tomato Meter - 92%.

Scientists Say: “I think I can speak for the group when I say this: we understand how this got this rating. We understand people have a boner for John Travolta, Nic Cage and John Woo. We understand people like convoluted and unnecessary plot lines. But this movie, guys? It’s not good. The only reason it got this high is because it’s a John Woo film with Travolta and Cage as each other, that’s it. It’s goofy in a not good way, it’s overly complicated when the solutions could be simple, and it’s so predictable Steve could call Woo’s signature doves-in-every-movie trope right before it happened. Yikes.” - J

Face Ratio: Often.

2. Raising Arizona (1987). Tomato Meter - 91%.

Scientists Say: “I think this was one of the few movies in this list that actually deserved the rating it got. The plot was good, the acting was alright, for once Nic Cage’s accent didn’t sound like he was actively trying to butcher it. If I were to reorder this list I’d put this movie at the top.” - J

Face Ratio: None.

3. Vampire’s Kiss (1989). Tomato Meter - 61%.

Scientists Say: “Speaking for the crowd again: Unlike Face/Off, we’re not entirely sure how in the hell Vampire’s Kiss made it to halfway down the list, let alone above Con Air or National Treasure. We watched this months ago and personally I’m still mad about it. It has no plot! There is literally no actual plot line besides Nic Cage thinks he’s a vampire and loses his marbles. It’s not even campy funny and the only good thing about it is the Meme Content, which should usually spell disaster. If you wanna know where that “I’m a vampire” meme came from, watch it. But watch it once, because it’s not worth a second viewing.” - J

Face Ratio: Like, most of the movie.

4. Con Air (1997). Tomato Meter - 55%.

Scientists Say: “As a group, we spilled our fair share of Con Air love in the Buscemi page, but honestly, it doesn’t deserve to be this low down. It’s better than Face/Off, and it’s definitely better than Vampire’s Kiss. It’s got its flaws, but it has a Plot, and people aren’t seductively touching each other’s faces.” - J

Face Ratio: Very little. 

5. National Treasure (2004). Tomato Meter - 44%.

Scientists Say: “This should definitely be above a 60%. Not only is it a classic, it’s got a decent plot, and Nic Cage actually does really well. Sure, the plot’s a little... odd, for a kid’s movie, but its more a Noir than an adventure. Also I might have a boner for good riddle content, but that’s Just Me.” - J

Face Ratio: Very little.

6. Wickerman (2006). Tomato Meter - 15%.

Scientists Say: “Honestly, this was enjoyable, if campy. Is it worth the 15%? Hard to judge. Is it terrible? Not really. I’d at least call it worth the watch.”

Face Ratio: Half the time.

Additional Findings

I found, though watching these, there’s a strange correlative property. The worse the quality of the movie, the more often Nic Cage makes this face:

For the record, that’s from Vampire’s Kiss.

[rottentomatoestheater3000]

CHALLENGE 1: Steve Buscemi

The challenge to kick off all challenges. The original list had an additional movie, because for some reason we thought we could make 7 in one day.

The List

1. Fargo (1996)

2. Big Lebowski (1998)

3. Spy Kids 2: The Island of Lost Dreams (2002)

4. Con Air (1997)

5. Armegeddon (1998)

6. Ridiculous 6 (2015)

The Findings

Preface: Going into this list, I (Johnny) had not see #1 or #2, which was declared a travesty. We’d all seen Con Air, but for an inaugural challenge, who doesn’t want to watch Con Air? I think most of us had also seen Spy Kids 2, but it had been likely a decade since, so none of us remembered it at all.

1. Fargo (1996). Tomato Meter: 93%.

Scientist Say: “This is one of those movies that keeps your on the edge of your seat, no matter how many times you see it, and for a first watch I was definitely hooked pretty quickly. The contrast of very homey, humble people with the kind of crimes you’d think won’t come out of that neck of the woods makes it a delight to watch and an accurate rating.” - J

2. Big Lebowski (1998). Tomato Meter - 91%.

Scientists Say: "I had literally never seen this movie before this challenge, and going in I was a little apprehensive. I couldn’t get Chris to summarize the movie well enough that I knew what I was going into, but honestly, I did enjoy it. I’ve seen it again since, and the more times you see it, the more it seems to grow on you.” - J

3. Spy Kids 2 (2002). Tomato Meter - 75%.

Scientists Say: "It wasn’t a bad movie. It was definitely an early 2000s kids movie, which says a lot, but it wasn’t a bad movie. Not having 3D Glasses meant it was also lacking the predictable punch that came with early 2000s movies that were popped in the everything is 3D now era, but honestly I don’t think that would have changed the rating that much. Buscemi was good, definitely, though in it very little overall.” - J

4. Con Air (1997). Tomato Meter - 55%.

Scientists Say: “Con Air got shafted in the critics department and is way better than a 55%. Honestly, Nic Cage is the only part to really fall flat, and replacing him outright would have made it a 80% at least. The plot is original, the dialogue could be better, but the acting is generally decent across the board. Personally, I’m desperate to remake the damn film, because it has the potential to be a big hit if someone could just write a decent one liner.” - J

5. Armegeddon (1998). Tomato Meter - 39%.

Scientists Say: "I definitely enjoyed this movie, though I get it’s low rating. I just tend to actually really like late 90s space flicks for the sheer fact that they’re 90s space flicks.” - J

6. Ridiculous 6 (2015). Tomato Meter - 0%.

Scientists Say: “I think I can speak for all of us when I say: we wish there was a lower than 0%, we really do. I’ve seen some hot dumpster fires of movies recently, but there was a level of Yikes Hard Pass that we as a group couldn’t ignore. Was it the racism, the sexism, the bad acting, or Adam Sander? It was hard to tell, because we honestly didn’t watch it. We skipped to the ten minutes Steve Buscemi was in, suffered the extended poop joke that probably would have only made a 3 year old child giggle and made most of us just plain uncomfortable, and then turned it off. If you value having a brain, don’t watch this movie.” - J

[rottentomatoestheater3000]

Frequently Asked Questions We Assume You’ll Ask

1. What’s your method for determining what movies go into what lists?

We try very hard making selections to do three things: One, we pick a majority of movies someone hasn’t seen whenever possible. If all three of us have seen a movie it likely won’t make the cut, because it’s about broadening our movie portfolios as much as it is about rating shitty movies. One or two will sneak in, usually, but only rarely and usually only if we haven’t seen it in ages. Two, we try not to repeat a movie across multiple lists, even if they’re really good. This came up at first wit Con Air, but we try very hard not to watch the same movie twice for the list purposes. It confuses data. Three, we focus on pulling a broad selection of movies from the lists to try and cover the entire 100% to 0% range. It’s not useful to pull four movies above a 90%, and then two under 10%. We try and make sure we’re hitting about one movie every twenty or so percent, dependent largely on the actor in question.

2. Why do you pick the actors/franchises/directors you do?

At least one of us usually really likes the actor’s stuff, or a movie they’ve been in, or something. Lynch is our only director, because Chris is a Lynch fan and I hadn’t seen any of his films. I’ve been curious about watching the Star Wars films in Tomato Order (rather than Release, Chronological, or Machete) and it’s sort of branched out from there. Any actor we can name, we try and think of lists for.

3. What’s your actual method for watching these things?

We usually meet up in the early morning having brought breakfast. Someone gets pizza halfway through the day. We don’t break until we can’t take it or we’re done. We don’t skip movies, ever, unless they’re entirely unwatchable (I’m looking at you, Ridiculous Six), and we try to start drinking only about halfway through the day. If we’re drinking before two, it’s a rough set. We then attempt to get dinner when we’re done if we have time and can physically stomach it.

4. Can I submit an actor/movie/director for you?

Sure! We don’t do singular movies, though we’ll consider the actor in question if you do provide us one. We have several lists ready to go at all times, and several more actors waiting in the wings, but we’ll always take on new challenges people want to see. If you do plan on submitting a challenge, please do so off Anon, so we can appropriately tag you in the post when it goes live.

[rottentomatoestheater3000]

Challenge Masterlist

All Rotten Tomatoes Challenges are 6 movies under one artist, director or franchise, ranging in Tomatometer score from Best to Worst.

ACTOR

Steve Buscemi

Nicolas Cage

Johnny Depp

Peter Stormare

Jeff Goldblum

Tim Allen (Coming Soon!)

David Bowie (Coming Soon!)

Jim Carrey (Coming Soon!)

Helena Bonham Carter (Coming Soon!)

Robert Downey Jr (Coming Soon!)

Anne Hathaway (Coming Soon!)

Samuel L. Jackson (Motherfucking Coming Soon)

Madeline Kahn (Coming Soon!)

Brie Larson (Coming Soon!)

Cloris Leachman (Coming Soon!)

Kyle MacLachlan (Coming Soon!)

John Malkovich (Coming Soon!)

Ewan McGregor (Coming Soon!)

Ellen Page (Coming Soon!)

Aubrey Plaza (Coming Soon!)

Keanu Reeves (Coming Soon!)

Christina Ricci (Coming Soon!)

Adam Sandler (Coming Far Too Soon!)

J.K. Simmons (Coming Soon!)

David Spade (Coming Soon!)

Kristen Stewart (Coming Soon!)

Meryl Streep (Coming Soon!)

Emma Watson (Coming Soon!)

Sigourney Weaver (Coming Soon!)

Gene Wilder (Coming Soon!)

Owen Wilson (Coming Soon!) 

DIRECTORS

David Lynch

FRANCHISE

Star Wars: A Challenge Story Part 1 (coming soon!)

Spider-Man (coming soon!)

Batman (coming soon!)

Jurassic Park (Coming Soon!)

[rottentomatoestheater3000]

The Scientists

Johnny (@crazythatcounts) - John has an eye for detail and experience in the theater realm, and that makes him an essential for good movie viewing. Plus, he’s likely seen that one weird movie you thought no one has seen before, and even more likely to not have seen that really popular thing you love a lot. Having him around means movies that otherwise wouldn’t make the cut, do!

Chris (@sp-ace-ship) - Chris knows a lot of very strange directors and has a good working knowledge of film and the original MST3K concept, an essential for any Scientist. His biggest strength, however, is that he’s got the best constitution of all of us, and is down for just about any movie at all. He takes his 0% scores just as well as his 100% scores, and he’s not afraid to tell it like it is when a movie is really that bad.

Steve (no tumblr) - Steve is the visionary of film knowledge and the guru of weird trivia. You need to know something about a movie? Ask Steve! You need to find a weird movie no one’s heard of? Steve likely has it. Need to win a trivia contest? Bring Steve, because he’ll know the answers before you can think of the question (true story). Every team of good movie Scientists needs a Steve.