Hudson Hawk, widely panned, is fun; just refuses to take itself seriously. * iMDB: 5.7/10 * RT: 30/100 * Metacritic:17/100 I don't care. That's what I think of any film rating system. It's a report, but not the experience itself. See also: the Southland Tales, The One (2001), Lost Souls (2000). All are, objectively, bad films. And yet... I remember them to be re-watchable. This [write-up](https://www.thelimelight.app/blog/rotten-tomatoes-vs-imdb-vs-metacritic) is on a site for and app and ends up shilling for that app, but it makes some useful points, confirmed by my years of poking around: > Trust Metacritic most for prestige drama, arthouse cinema, and Oscar contenders. > Trust IMDb most for genre films. > Use the Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer as a quick pass/fail for critical reception. > Use the Rotten Tomatoes Audience Score cautiously. Full disclosure: I don't have the app, don't want the app, and don't care about the app. Also, I skimmed the article in 2 minutes while watching my kids bounce on a trampoline.