Like it or not, Rotten Tomatoes has become the most popular and recognisable metric for gauging film criticism (online or otherwise), but the review aggregator has always faced backlash, and this new report is not going to do the site's reputation any favors.
According to Vulture, a movie PR company called Bunker 15 paid a number of critics to add positive reviews of 2018's Ophelia, a feminist retelling of Hamlet starring Daisy Ridley, to Rotten Tomatoes in order to boost the movie's score. Apparently, the company went about recruiting "obscure, often self-published critics who are nevertheless part of the pool tracked by Rotten Tomatoes," offering them $50 for their work.
Ophelia’s production company, Covert Media, declined to comment, but Bunker 15’s founder, Daniel Harlow, responded with the following.
“Wow, you are really reaching there. We have thousands of writers in our distribution list. A small handful have set up a specific system where filmmakers can sponsor or pay to have them review a film.”
Not exactly a categorical denial!
Movie studios often downplay the importance of reviews, but their marketing practices tell a different story. Whereas pull-quotes have always been the norm, we've begun to see the "Fresh" tomato symbol and score take their place, often without much in the way of context.
“The studios didn’t invent Rotten Tomatoes, and most of them don’t like it,” says veteran filmmaker Paul Schrader. “But the system is broken. Audiences are dumber. Normal people don’t go through reviews like they used to. Rotten Tomatoes is something the studios can game. So they do.”
Schrader, a former critic himself, also takes issue with RT's system.
“I read some reviews of my own films where the writer might say that he doesn’t think that I pull something off, but, boy, is it interesting in the way that I don’t pull it off. To me, that’s a good review, but it would count as negative on Rotten Tomatoes.”
It's worth noting that individual critics decide whether their reviews will be marked "fresh" or "rotten" when they submit them. It's also worth noting that this is just one small PR company, and one instance of (supposed) review tampering - though there are likely to be others that have gone unnoticed.
Even so, the author of Vulture's piece makes no effort to hide their disdain for the aggregator, and many feel the article was written with the sole intention of fostering more negativity towards the site.