[Jay Bigz]

In the past, I would never bother with films if they were rated under around 5.5 on IMDB. I'd always assumed if 100's or 1000's of people had given it a low rating, then it was probably a mediocre or rubbish film.

In the last year or so I've noticed lots and lots of British independent films on there, with actors I liked, and decent sounding plots, but really low ratings, but started to check them out regardless, and discovered that most of them were actually quite good, and very undeserving, in my opinion, of their low scores.

It seems that alot of 'politics' come into play with these imdb scores, especially with independant films, with people cheating the system, rival production companies, and critics, either over or under scoring a film purposely.

Do you pay attention to imdb scores, and choose your films based on them? Would you watch something with a 3.0 rating or lower if you liked the actors/director/plot?

[quirkyquirk]

Nope.Everyone's got different tastes so it makes no difference to me what other people say including critics.Also alot of people make multiple accounts to get their favourite films rated higher.

[DeelyBopper]

I don't take as much notice these days that I used to. It seems all the big studio based movies get a decent rating anyway.

If it has dreadful scores though I'll read more of the reviews to see if the movie is something I think I could get any value out of seeing.

[Jay Bigz]

Originally Posted by DeelyBopper

I don't take as much notice these days that I used to. It seems all the big studio based movies get a decent rating anyway.

If it has dreadful scores though I'll read more of the reviews to see if the movie is something I think I could get any value out of seeing.

Yep - on the contrast, some of the 'highly rated' movies are a load of pretentious drivel, or an all out 'special fx' fest, with no storyline, or character development.

Feel a bit foolish now for taking these scores as gospel, and missing out on some pretty good films

[stvn758]

I prefer Rotton Tomatoes, even then I will avoid reading up if there is a film I am looking forward to seeing so the reviews and scores don't ruin my expectations.

[Philip Wales]

Generally if I'm watching a film and it's proving to be hard going (dodgy story etc..) I might look on IMBD and if the general consensus is that its crap, then I will probably stop watching it.

[Jay Bigz]

Originally Posted by stvn758

I prefer Rotton Tomatoes, even then I will avoid reading up if there is a film I am looking forward to seeing so the reviews and scores don't ruin my expectations.

Which is based on the 'critics' and not the joe public - even worse in my opinion. Critics have panned many great films, whilst the public have praised them, to the point where you start thinking it must be some kind of 'industry fued' where all the main critics decided to slate a movie for whatever reason....

One of my favourite films of all time, probably top 10, is vanilla sky, which has a 40% fresh rating....

[Ancient IDTV]

I do, but I probably shouldn't. Same goes for Rotten Tomatoes.

eg 'Metropolis' (1927) - Watched it for the first (and last!) time this week. I was looking forward to it. A few intereresting looking scenes, but it mostly bored the tits off me. Horribly overacted, even for a silent film. It's currently at 8.4 on the IMDB, and is 99% fresh on RT.

eg 2 'Funny Bones' (1995) - Which I really like, and have re-watched multiple times. Currently at 6.5 on the IMDB, and is only 61% fresh on RT.

[roger_50]

As long as you accept the imdb ratings for what they are, they're fine; a lot of film fans would die a little inside when seeing some of the films the imdb members have voted up there at the expense of other classics, but it's easy to just not take it too seriously.

A current popular film with a fanbase will do well on the list regardless of whether it's actually pretty average - but that's fine, since the list is largely influenced by what's popular and talked about.


I mean, Christopher Nolan could make a 2 hour film of nothing but his pet dog wiping its arse continuously along the carpet and it would still get in the imdb250...

Just take anything on the list with a pinch of salt.

[Lathamite]

Yes. IMDb ratings can be fairly harsh though so I'll generally give anything from about 6.7 a fair crack of the whip. Anything less, I don't tend to bother.

[YoungAtHeart]

A little bit.

Although I usually roughly agree with the IMDB ratings, there still have been films that I felt haven't been fairly judged. So I'll still give anything a go providing it appeals.

[indie.star]

I do a little bit. I'm currently working my way through watching all of the films in the top 250. I know that everyone has different tastes but I'm interested to see what is so good about them.

[Trsvis_Bickle]

Originally Posted by roger_50

As long as you accept the imdb ratings for what they are, they're fine; a lot of film fans would die a little inside when seeing some of the films the imdb members have voted up there at the expense of other classics, but it's easy to just not take it too seriously.

A current popular film with a fanbase will do well on the list regardless of whether it's actually pretty average - but that's fine, since the list is largely influenced by what's popular and talked about.


I mean, Christopher Nolan could make a 2 hour film of nothing but his pet dog wiping its arse continuously along the carpet and it would still get in the imdb250...

Just take anything on the list with a pinch of salt.

Ha ha! Yes, the fanboy influence is still there. There's something like 3 bleedin' Batman films in the top 100.. Then there's the frickin;' Hobbit franchise.

[CLL Dodge]

I watch movies, then go to IMDb to rate them, so I am unaware of the IMDb score before I watch.

I'm rarely more than a point out from the concensus score.

[Stansfield]

Originally Posted by Lathamite

Yes. IMDb ratings can be fairly harsh though so I'll generally give anything from about 6.7 a fair crack of the whip. Anything less, I don't tend to bother.

If I like who's in it and it's the type of film I enjoy....the ratings don't bother me.

And as they can be Harsh.....6.7 is a high number to start given films a fair crack at.

[Jay Bigz]

Originally Posted by Stansfield

If I like who's in it and it's the type of film I enjoy....the ratings don't bother me.

And as they can be Harsh.....6.7 is a high number to start given films a fair crack at.

Tis indeed.

You've also got to take into considering why people rated a film negatively too. If it's a crime/thriller with lots of violence and swearing then thousands of fogies might just give it one star because they were offended, dragging a score right down when averaged. The same could be said about any film, that features anything offensive.

You're gonna miss out on a lot of great movies that might be 'right up your street' by only watching stuff that's rated over 6.7 lol

[Syntax Error]

Originally Posted by Jay Bigz

In the past, I would never bother with films if they were rated under around 5.5 on IMDB. I'd always assumed if 100's or 1000's of people had given it a low rating, then it was probably a mediocre or rubbish film.

In the last year or so I've noticed lots and lots of British independent films on there, with actors I liked, and decent sounding plots, but really low ratings, but started to check them out regardless, and discovered that most of them were actually quite good, and very undeserving, in my opinion, of their low scores.

It seems that alot of 'politics' come into play with these imdb scores, especially with independant films, with people cheating the system, rival production companies, and critics, either over or under scoring a film purposely.

Do you pay attention to imdb scores, and choose your films based on them? Would you watch something with a 3.0 rating or lower if you liked the actors/director/plot?

I don't pay the slightest bit of notice to what film critics say or IMDB scores.

I read them, granted, but I don't let them sway me or decide whether I want to watch a particular film.

I've seen films that have been slated or received low scores that I have enjoyed & vice versa.

I like to decide for myself if a film is rubbish or not.

[Johnny Clay]

IMDB? To misquote Die Hard 2 (rating 7.1):

"Just the facts, Ma'am. Just the facts."

[finkly]

I use criticker if i'm looking for a recommendation. Now that i've rated quite a bit on there, the predicted score is usually pretty accurate.

[BastardBeaver]

I go to the User Reviews and read 2 or 3 of them. The well written ones usually give me a good idea of if I should check out a film or not.

[Muttley76]

Originally Posted by stvn758

I prefer Rotton Tomatoes, even then I will avoid reading up if there is a film I am looking forward to seeing so the reviews and scores don't ruin my expectations.

I like rotten tomato as well, though I don't base my decision to see a film on the ratings as such, but I like the site and find it a useful resource.

[sheila blige]

I don't pay any attention to the ratings on IMDb (in fact I don't take note of any ratings). I do find the IMDb site interesting though - and usually if there is a film that I'm curious and undecided to see - I'll look at some of the comments under the 'Discuss [insert name of film]' - you can usually get some decent info from there.

[PowerJC]

Originally Posted by Jay Bigz

In the last year or so I've noticed lots and lots of British independent films on there, with actors I liked, and decent sounding plots, but really low ratings, but started to check them out regardless, and discovered that most of them were actually quite good, and very undeserving, in my opinion, of their low scores.

These films are likely to only be rated by a few thousand people, so it won't be as accurate, IMDB has this problem with a lot of films. I have also seen it go the other way and films I thought were bad were over rated due to the small amount of votes.

With IMDB I treat it as advisory, If I really want to see something I will see it whether the rating is good or not. When it is good is when you can't decide what film to watch and you can pick the one with the highest rating.

I don't however read user reviews anymore on the site. Too many times have I been about to watch a film, read some user reviews then see one written by some idiot who just summarises the whole film, and drops a big spoiler in somewhere without marking it as such. It's also annoying when you scroll too far, see one of the posts from the message board, and the title of it is a big spoiler.

[Inkblot]

I take notice of them in the sense that I check them out for films I haven't seen or try to predict what they will be for films I have seen. But they are not, and can never be, a realistic sample of filmgoers' views. Particularly if they represent the opinions of the lunatics on the IMDB forums.

[Ancient IDTV]

I also tend to watch a film/tv series episode, then go on the IMDB to read through the comments and find out what happened to the cast members.