Creative Commons license icon

'Zootopia' reaches "certified fresh" status with 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes

Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (9 votes)

zootopiart.jpgZootopia is the best reviewed movie of 2016 so far, according to review aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes. It has a 100% based on 92 reviews as this piece was written. The movie, which deals with a furry world as explicitly laid out in the original teaser trailer, is perhaps the single most anticipated movie in the history of the furry fandom. It seems the hype may not have been in vain.

Rotten Tomatoes's "critics' consensus" for the movie is as follows:

The brilliantly well-rounded Zootopia offers a thoughtful, inclusive message that's as rich and timely as its sumptuously state-of-the-art animation -- all while remaining fast and funny enough to keep younger viewers entertained.

Some have noted that Zootopia is on pace to become the single best reviewed movie in Rotten Tomatoes history. The current record holder is Toy Story 2, with 100% from 163 reviews. The linked article points out that, while it is likely the movie will eventually receive a "rotten" review, a 99% or 98% is likely, and that a negative review is likely to come about because the reviewer disagrees with the movie's message, rather than the actual quality of the movie.

The movie's message, however, is one of the most praised aspects of the movie; multiple reviewers have noted that the movie is surprisingly timely. The movie features themes of prejudice and bias, using differences between various species of animals to explore this theme. Just last week, Oscar host Chris Rock's opening monologue addressed similar issues after the Academy failed to nominate a single black actor in the 20 possible nominees of the acting categories for the second year in a row, noting that while the Academy is not "burning cross racist," it could be described as "sorority racist."

Speaking of Oscars, the "O-word" has been popping up in reviews; the movie has been compared favorably to 1967 Best Picture winner In the Heat of the Night, which shared a similar genre (detective, not furry) and themes with Zootopia. Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun Times (who noted the movie is "one of my favorite animated movies, period") began his review with a prediction:

Just a few days after the stardust has settled on the 88th Annual Academy Awards, allow me to tell you about the first surefire candidate for a nomination for NEXT year’s Oscars.

The year is still early, and such predictions are mostly about the Best Animated Feature category rather than Best Picture, but with the still expanded category, it isn't out of the picture that Zootopia could become the fourth animated Best Picture nominee.

Or even, dare we hope to dream, the first animated Best Picture?

Flayrah will have a review of Zootopia out tomorrow; don't expect us to deviate much from the consensus!

Comments

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Should also point out the much more nuanced Metacritic has it at 81%, but that's still spectacular.

Your rating: None

Good movie.

Darker than you might expect though, this is no Madagascar movie.

Surprised it got a G rating, guess only sex and not violence earns a more adult rating now.

Should at least got a PG.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

It is rated PG.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

I love hearing this. Putting characters in real, threatening danger is a solid way to make you care about them. Also, I hope this does a little urban film noir stuff, which is wonderful in cartoons. Not sure I know of great ones like that since Roger Rabbit. I'm trying not to hear any spoilers in advance. The local furry private show maxed out a theater, there was even a lead on having it at Pixar's but not sure if their security would have been down with the fursuiting part anyways.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

It's about as noir as a Disney cartoon can get; more noir-ish than straight noir.

It is, however, in other vaguely defined genres, definitely a thriller; very suspenseful.

Your rating: None

Zootopia is NYC with Los Angeles suburbs and freeways.

Your rating: None

Y'know, if only life worked that way where you could get an average of 8.1 but be bumped up to a perfect score. Imagine how easy things would be. :3

I'm a different furry with different opinions.

Proud Staffer of VancouFur 2017~

Your rating: None

Well, the UK doesn't have quite such flagrant grade inflation as the USA, so 81% can be a pretty good result; at degree level, anything above a 70% is typically considered first-class. Of course, a few people still get 95%, but it's rare.

Your rating: None

FAAAAAAAAK, I just written a review! And it's a really good one!

Well, I'll be...

Your rating: None

You haven't been paying attention, Mister Twister. I've got comments all over the place saying Zootopia's a free for all. Submit it and I may even run it first (notice I didn't say who would write the review); that'll allow me to do a more in depth version later on in the week.

Your rating: None

INSERT EXCITED REACTION FACE HERE

*off to submit*

Well, I'll be...

Your rating: None

OHHHHH YEAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!!!!11!!1!

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

After so many years of shitty movies pandering to the lowest common denominator, I was blown away by how well thought-out the movie is!

The characters are absolutely fleshed out. As critics have pointed out, as cartoony as they are, they feel more real than actual movies with people! I think this is becoming my favourite movie of all time!

Your rating: None

A movie doesn't have to be shit to pander. The Force Awakens is a good example of that :V

I'm a different furry with different opinions.

Proud Staffer of VancouFur 2017~

Your rating: None

Outdated post now, Globe And Mail brought down the 100%!

I'm a different furry with different opinions.

Proud Staffer of VancouFur 2017~

Your rating: None

"Leaving aside amusing jokes about the wolves trying desperately to contain a group howl or sloths working as bureaucrats, animal behaviour is a troubling metaphor for cultural diversity...."

Talk about missing the point!

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

"Yes, the elegant [G]azelle has been sexualized."

Welcome to Hell, human! =P

Your rating: None

No, the headline is it reached certified fresh at 100%, not that it stayed 100% forever (and it looks like it hit triple digits with a perfect record).

Also, though, Devin Faraci of Birth, Death, Movies absolutely hated it; his review is very spoiler heavy as well. I guess he doesn't count for the Tomatometer, but, my God, there is some absolutely crazy stuff in this review (I'm not sure he gets "metaphors"). The man is convinced the movie is about the "crack epidemic" of the 80s or whatever. Artist's rendition below:

what_0.jpg

Your rating: None

I agree with a lot of what he said actually. People are too afraid to say anything negative, I saw one critic who said the film tended to get sidetracked from the plot but that was fine. Personally, if your film ignores it's plot, I think that's a strike. XP

I'm a different furry with different opinions.

Proud Staffer of VancouFur 2017~

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

How can you agree when you haven't seen the movie?

That being said, I'd really love to see you explain how the movie is about the "crack epidemic" from before you were born.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (1 vote)

Just reaffirms what I suspect. XP

I do my research, I know some things.

I'm a different furry with different opinions.

Proud Staffer of VancouFur 2017~

Your rating: None Average: 1.3 (3 votes)

Cassidy, you're grieving; you're in the denial stage right now. It's okay, I'm here to work you through it (I really can't wait for the anger stage).

Let's be completely frank, here; you've just been publicly humiliated. Your entire post history here, with a handful of exceptions, has been replying to every Zootopia movie with "I think this movie is going to suck." That's who you are; you're the commenter who thinks Zootopia is going to suck. Not "it's going to get one or two bad reviews", not "a few people aren't going to like it", not "it's not going to be perfect." Your ENTIRE reason for registering here has been to tell us, frequently and at great length, that Zootopia was going to suck. BALLS. Except, whoopsy, it didn't suck.

Now, "sucking" is subjective, admittedly, and I'm probably sure you'll end up hating it. I mean, it basically just pantsed you in front of the class. But, you know, when you get to nearly a hundred reviews before someone drops a kinda negative review on the site that collects these things, that's about as close as you can get to being able to definitively say, yeah, that movie didn't suck.

These are real movie critics, Cassidy. Not fake movie critics who scream on a YouTube channel and beg for money on Patreon (or, to be fair, me); these people work at this. For some of them, it's their job to do nothing but watch movies and then write about them in a manner that conveys whether or not they thought people would like it. Quite a few of them have probably gone to an actual film school. And they, to an overwhelming extent, said of this movie, "totally doesn't suck."

Are there problems with Rotten Tomatoes system? Hell, yes. Is it a system I kind of like regardless? Hell, yes.

Now, instead of just slinking off to a corner to mope, you're doubling down? What in the hell do you "suspect," Cassidy? That tomorrow morning, over a hundred movie critics are going to wake up with a raging hangover headache and be all like, "Man, what the hell did I give a positive review to last night? Oh, Zootopia; crap. This is so embarrassing."?

You staked your claim on this movie sucking, and you've got four reviews? One of which I POINTED OUT TO YOU? You will have five after I'm done ranting in this comment, plus maybe Sonious who doesn't understand metaphors. Okay.

Well, I've got 129 reviews, plus Mister Twister's, plus my own, plus, I've actually, you know, seen the movie (multiple times, and going straight back tomorrow), listened to the crowd reaction (nobody was booing, Cassidy, but rather the opposite), and I'm sorry, I'm still beating you. By a wide margin. So, you know, I'd post a link to a clip of a character shouting "SHUT YOUR TINY MOUTH!", but it's not up on YouTube yet, so you lucked out.

Hell, even your negative reviews help my case; nobody writes a screed as long as Devin Faraci did on nothing. Honestly, when Angry Birds gets a three thousand word essay on a liberaler-than-thou movie blog with a pretentious name complaining about how it, I don't know, is a sloppy metaphor for the OKC bombing, give me a call. And I love that he calls it the most "DreamsWorkian" Disney movie; he means that as an insult, but I usually prefer their movies to Pixar's crap.

You know what sucks the worst for you? You had the safe bet! There were warning signs; there are more directors attached to this movie than have won Best Director at the Oscars during the making of the movie, there are like, eight writers (last time I checked; I swear, they multiply like bunnies when I'm not looking), the movie missed the dump month death spot release dates by the skin of its teeth, and I haven't even actually liked most of Disney's recent movies. (I love to pieces how nerdy Byron Howard has been, but, honestly, I suspect Rich Moore is the reason I like this movie; he's literally the only director they have worth a crap.) And, even though you were saying it would suck, you didn't actually have to have the movie suck to win; I'd hyped this movie so hard that being just good would have, well, sucked.

You had a full house and it fucking nailed you with a royal flush! That's gotta hurt, Cassidy! You honestly have my sympathies, but you need to ... LET. IT. GO.

Frozen sucks, by the way.

One final thought, that has nothing to do with anything, but I was originally going to reply on my cell phone not logged in, and the captcha was the name of my kitty!

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

"Now, "sucking" is subjective, admittedly,"

-
"Not "it's going to get one or two bad reviews", not "a few people aren't going to like it", not "it's not going to be perfect." Your ENTIRE reason for registering here has been to tell us, frequently and at great length, that Zootopia was going to suck. BALLS. Except, whoopsy, it didn't suck."

"Frozen sucks, by the way."

It's subjective unless you say it?

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None

Not bad Diamond Man! And love the grammar!

Your rating: None

Honestly some of my grammar isn't perfect, but I don't think yours is either.
Despite a few legit spelling mistakes, I sometimes get called out for, rather mistakes, just for me not using 'fancy' words. At least from what I remember, one guy did that.

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None Average: 1 (3 votes)

Well, you are obviously making an effort right now; I finally maybe got to you a little, and, yes, we all make mistakes, but you really have atrocious grammar. I don't know if you're not a native English speaker, or, you know what, I really wonder a bit if there may be some kind of learning disability involved, and if either of those is the case, I'm genuinely sorry for that, you don't need that shit, but you did hurt me a little by deleting that article.

Because this is a team effort; you're the contributor, I'm the editor. Everybody gets rewritten. When Green Reaper was the editor, he re-wrote me. It's not about you, it's about us. Taking your story and changing it is what I do (when I'm not angrily and slightly inappropriately commenting). Once again, to everybody. Not just you.

So, when you deleted that article, you weren't deleting your story. You deleted our story. Because I work on every story on this site; every story is mine., not just the ones with my name on it. If I left, there might not be a Flayrah, okay. Technically, Green Reaper could step back in, or mwalimu or Huskyteer, but 90% of the content you have read on Flayrah for the past year has been edited by me. Don't take it personally.

I thought we had a great opinion piece together. I was proud of my work on that story; I was proud of your work on that story. People disagreed with the story; so fucking what? It's an opinion piece; people are supposed to disagree with it! And, no, the art wasn't great, but actually Green Reaper makes me jump through so many goddamn hoops there (it's got be this big and over here and blah, blah, blah for our fucking Facebook feed that was fucking broke for like a year), it kind of does suck. That's why I write so much bullshit before I even get to the goddamn review when I do one; the poster has to be so wide, and that means it has to be so tall, and it takes up so much goddamn space I have to just write and write and write so that it doesn't stick out awkwardly on the page.

But, you know, he's my editor, so I follow the rules because that's how the stories get made. It's, at the end of the day, his website, so his rules go, whether I like it or not, Diamond Man. Likewise, you're just a contributor; you're a step below me. You follow my rules. And what you do when you didn't like them? You went over my head and complained to my boss, and that is not cool.

So, yeah, I don't like you, Diamond Man. It is not because your grammar is bad (though, since I don't like you, yeah, I'm going to use that against you); I don't like you because you were terrible to me. I'm sorry I'm mean to you all the time; it's really not right, even with this reason. But unless you've got an apology of your own, you can go fuck yourself.

You have a good night.

Your rating: None

"but you really have atrocious grammar."
Oh yeah? Give me some examples still. I know my grammar isn't perfect and I was able to learn how to use SOME words, and maybe some structures, but I fear I get called out anyway JUST because of my own style (I.e. Not using fancier words, etc).

"Because this is a team effort; you're the contributor, I'm the editor. Everybody gets rewritten. When Green Reaper was the editor, he re-wrote me. It's not about you, it's about us. Taking your story and changing it is what I do (when I'm not angrily and slightly inappropriately commenting). Once again, to everybody. Not just you."
I already expect someone to possibly edit the article so I can't take all the credit. But by black and white, I thought I had the control to edit and/or request to delete it?
Honestly if you're complaining about me deleting (or put in private) the article, then WHY does Flayrah allow requests for deletion?

"every story is mine."
So you say it's "all of ours" then you state something that steals ALL credit?

"Don't take it personally."
By you just stating it's all of ours, etc? I don't think I do. It's just the website allowed me to control it, and allows me to request deletion.
What I DO take personally in a bad way, is that you insult me, and attack me for doing something I was allowed to do.

"I thought we had a great opinion piece together. I was proud of my work on that story; I was proud of your work on that story. People disagreed with the story; so fucking what? It's an opinion piece; people are supposed to disagree with it! And, no, the art wasn't great, but actually Green Reaper makes me jump through so many goddamn hoops there (it's got be this big and over here and blah, blah, blah for our fucking Facebook feed that was fucking broke for like a year), it kind of does suck. That's why I write so much bullshit before I even get to the goddamn review when I do one; the poster has to be so wide, and that means it has to be so tall, and it takes up so much goddamn space I have to just write and write and write so that it doesn't stick out awkwardly on the page."

First of all, "supposed" is like saying "People NEED to disagree with it; that it's bad for people to agree." Two, disagreeing depends. An opinion can contain good points but emotional whiny people who continues to fight for something that DOES cause problems was my problem with it. And third, what do you mean by art?

And honestly if you could remember, or hell, if I could remember, I think part of the reason why I deleted that article was because the pictures was kinda looking a bit off with the layout too. Even as a person with "atrocious grammar", I just found it kinda odd considering all the other articles I've read so far.

"But, you know, he's my editor, so I follow the rules because that's how the stories get made. It's, at the end of the day, his website, so his rules go, whether I like it or not, Diamond Man. Likewise, you're just a contributor; you're a step below me. You follow my rules. And what you do when you didn't like them? You went over my head and complained to my boss, and that is not cool.
This is Flayrah (or your own fault?). I tried to follow the rules that is PUBLIC (or was that another site?). I never 'seen' your rules and I didn't know you were going to edit it. If I could remember, I might of thought the other person was going to edit it.
And no offense, but a good boss would be nice to his fellow co-workers and not suddenly punish people for breaking rules that were INVISIBLE. Oh, and is it really appropriate to make up random rules and think it's cool to past unknown rules (especially without warning first) to people like that? Maybe I should just ask the owner if what you are suggesting is OK or not.

So, yeah, I don't like you, Diamond Man. It is not because your grammar is bad (though, since I don't like you, yeah, I'm going to use that against you); I don't like you because you were terrible to me. I'm sorry I'm mean to you all the time; it's really not right, even with this reason. But unless you've got an apology of your own, you can go fuck yourself.

You got it all wrong. I was never intending to be mean. Sometimes I stand up for my self against some of your asshole comments (Self defense) and if you are still referring to that article. I was just obeying what I thought was allowed.
This is your own fault, you are judging me for violating rules that DIDN'T EVEN EXIST.

If you continue to insult me, and continue to do other attacks, then no wonder many people hate you on here. For a good reason.
EVEN if I did something mean, two wrongs don't make a right.
Also, you OFTEN started fights with me recently. So no, I'm not going to apologize.
And I don't know why you bring that article out a lot when there is so many articles you edited and publish.. unless there was something SO special about that article I "deleted".

Bonus:
Just for the sake. I believed I overreacted to Fred that one time a long time ago he made that article about A&O 2, and how I commented.

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None

So do you ever notice that there are only, like, five regular users on this site, and think, "Well, that can't possibly have anything to do with the inaugural tirades I baptize them with, I mean, who doesn't love being told why the suck for a dozen paragraphs?"

Plus, it's not really fair to go after Cassidy for being contrarian when Rakuen is still around! :P

Your rating: None Average: 2 (2 votes)

No, casting shade on Zootopia, it's literally her thing.

(Otherwise, she's you, the sequel. I've replaced you, Equivamp.)

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

For those who like a little schadenfreude, Kate Taylor's Globe and Mail review, probably the worse of the currently two "rotten" reviews counted by RT, just got ripped to shreds by Jon Negroni: Snarcasm: Only Smart People Realize ‘Zootopia’ is a Bad Movie.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Another rotten grade on R.T. from Salt Lake City. The comments the reviewer is receiving are funnier than his review. As noted, it's not surprising the content of Zootopia is making some folks uncomfortable. Good!

Your rating: None

As noted in one comment, if anything's rotten, it's the site's black-and-white criteria. 2.5/4 isn't a bad grade; it's just not 4/4.

Your rating: None

I think that's one of the problems with RT. It seems odd to label something 'bad' when the rating is above half, it kinda ruins the true consensus at the end of that rating page you know?

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None

Why are people attacking him for having a different view on it? YMS did a great review in the movie, I suggest anyone reading this comment to watch his video Zootopia Quickie.

I'm a different furry with different opinions.

Proud Staffer of VancouFur 2017~

Your rating: None

So FINALLY that furry-in-the-closet YMS is reviewing it. I'll check it out when I get home.

Your rating: None

His review raises good points. I give his review a 6 out of 10 (solid C).

Your rating: None

Interesting side note; though Zootopia's score is much lower on the tougher MetaCritic (77%, from an average rating of a much more selective group of reviewers), it doesn't have a "bad" review yet there; the Globe and Mail review that finished the streak, plus three others, are "mixed", not "bad."

Your rating: None

I've seen some comments on here.. I like to say it's best to never depend on RT as a fact site since a movie can still have some issues in the end and/or other reasons. (Also, 2 people has now ruined the 100 rating)

Another thing I really like to suggest is that I think it's a bad idea to give out a title like this (Similar to how CB did that to another movie, but the opposite!) when it's very early.. I mean, it's very likely in the future that the rating WILL change, which has happened.

I didn't see the movie yet. I'm still kinda pissed off about that trailer from how they falsely portray the term "anthropomorphic". :P

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

Yes, don't you just hate it when a word is defined completely accurately like that.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

Umm it's not "accurately" because you don't need to 'stand up on two feet' to be anthropomorphic, you don't need to use computers, etc. to be anthropomorphic, and you don't need to wear clothes to be anthropomorphic. (Clothes is like based off an old belief for us humans anyway). It's an alternative to be one but it's not a requirement.

You can have a four legged wild animal (e.g. Lion) and still have human characteristics. Even a rock can be anthropomorphic.

Sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism -*
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphic

*Wikipedia can change, but this looks more documented though and may have further sources.

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

Of course it's not "accurately." "Accurately" is an adverb; those modify verbs, adjectives and other adverbs.

The word you're looking for is "accurate," which is an actual adjective, and can actually describe a trailer.

But you don't know the difference between them, like, at all, and this not a hard concept, like, at all, so the much more complicated questions of "anthropomorphic" and, for that matter, "accuracy" are probably a little beyond you. Besides, don't you have an article to waste my time editing your inability to grasp basic grammar of the English language out of before you go deleting it like a little bitch when people disagree with you?

Your rating: None Average: 2 (1 vote)

"Accurately" is the same connection to 'correctly', and I thought you were saying the trailer "correctly" defined anthropomorphism.

If you were trying to say something like "when they attempt to think they knew what it mean, but failed" or whatever similar, then my bad.. sort of.

"Besides, don't you have an article to waste my time editing your inability to grasp basic grammar of the English language out of before you go deleting it like a little bitch when people disagree with you?"
Do me a favor, cross, just leave the site and leave the idea of "furry "food" actually food. And FYI, I asked it to be deleted because of some picture issue, and yet, disagreement of that idea can lead to unfair "critique" that ruins the idea of "more" effort.
Don't get it? Because I'm pretty sure there is a difference between suggesting more effort, than taking an effort and ruining/changing it to something the artist(s) didn't even want.

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None

Weeeeellllll... It appears Zootopia's RT rating is back at 99% again.

Also I have to admit I have been frequenting Box Office Mojo recently....

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.

About the author

crossaffliction (Brendan Kachel)read storiescontact (login required)

a reporter and Red Fox from Hooker, Oklahoma, interested in movies, horror, stand up comedy

Formerly Wichita's only furry comic.