Inspired, according to Kang's "About CRU" page, by David Hudson's excellent Keyframe Daily blog, the site has two goals. Here is Goal #1:
"To provide an alternative to the aggregated numbers of more popular sites. Rotten Tomatoes is good for people who want to see the highest number of critics included, but standards need to be applied. Not everyone should be counted. Metacritic works for people who are mainly interested in well-known publications, but they ignore many of the best sources for film criticism because they aren’t as recognizable (no MUBI, no Cinema Scope, no more J. Hoberman since he left the Village Voice). My idea was to synthesize the approaches of these sites: to filter out the majority of the online discourse, but also to be plugged in enough to include smaller sites that have valuable things to say."
Goal #2 is a link archive, including articles on films as they premiere at film festivals -- like Cannes in just a few weeks.
The site assigns 0-100 numerical grades to each review it collects, and gives numerical averages, Metacritic-style, to each movie featured; the current high score amongst the newer titles on the home page is "Spring Breakers," with an 86 (this week's "Iron Man 3" received a 62).
The idea of a very selective aggregator is interesting, as is the notion of collecting reviews based on the quality of the writing instead of the prestige of the outlet. I'm not quite sure how that goal fits with the scores, or what those numbers really mean if you're being extremely picky about who you include. Regardless, it's a good-looking, well-designed website. If you're looking for an alternative to, uh, me, take a look.
(Also if you're looking for an alternative to me: was it something I said?)
Read more of Critics Round Up.