Why don't people use MetaCritic more than Rottentomatoes? I find it to be more useful, its bad grades are generally not as bad as RT, and its good grades are generally not as good as RTs.

I guess MetaCritics rating is just the same as Rotten's "Grading Average", but i think that using the average grade a critic has given a movie is more useful and helpful than seeing how many critics said yay and how many said nay.

Metacritics score is pretty subjective. They assign one review a score of 100 and another one 88 just by their general impression of the review, even though no where in the article the reviewer gave a grade out of 100. I use both rottentomatoes and Metacritics to get a sense how well a film is liked by critics.

I actually think MetaCritic is better. It doesn't have the huge swathe of reviews RT does, and like Xiayun said it is subjective, but the ratings aren't black-and-white, positive-negative like it is on RT.

I like metacritic but in general I find they have a noticeably smaller set of reviews. On RT they might have 130 reviews for a big hit and only like 20-30 on metacritic, even though they are a good 20-30 but still.

I think the "selective" side is a good thing because Metacritic only generally accepts mainstream reviews more often than RT does, on RT you get a swathe of unread filmcritics who are there only because they just met the requirems.