[sinbad8982]

I tend to rate the films either a point higher or a point lower (depending on if I like the genre) than the IMDB Rating so usually find anything above 6.5 is usually worth a look

[Lathamite]

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.

I should stress that, if I want to see something, the rating on that site is kind of irrelevant.

There lots of old stuff (particularly 80's films) on there which I would rate highly but languishes in high 5 or low 6 territory. However, newer films, I find, get a much fairer deal when it comes to lower votes. Yes, there are fanboys, but there are also downvoters as a result, so things level out at a score I'd usually call fair for a middling movie.

(obviously new bad films are ripped to shreds, often more vigorously than they deserve, and new good films are uprated far too highly due to newness, but I'm only really talking about films that are "worth a watch").

Do you have any examples of stuff made in the last ten years than has scored less than 6.7, that's very good?

[Ancient IDTV]

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which is currently rated 6.3, and is from 2008. I've watched it several times. I like it a lot more than Temple of Doom, and I think it flows along better than Raiders.

[sinbad8982]

Raiders is one of only a handful films I would give a perfect 10, Indy4 isn't anywhere near close to it

[Lathamite]

Originally Posted by Ancient IDTV

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which is currently rated 6.3, and is from 2008. I've watched it several times. I like it a lot more than Temple of Doom, and I think it flows along better than Raiders.

That's pretty much in line with general consensus and critical opinion. Personally, I think it's pretty generous. Seen it twice (once in the cinema). Not overly interested in seeing it ever again.

[Peter the Great]

Originally Posted by Jay Bigz

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....

It's the opposite for me. I personally trust the opinion of a critic more than the general public who will often like any crap if it has a high budget. I also think they are spot on about Vanilla Sky.

[degsyhufc]

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.

^ This
Also, many, erm more intelligent and considerate people might look at the ratings but not rate a film themselves so again you might just be getting obsessed fans who want to big up or belittle a film just for the hell of it.

[Sweet FA]

Nope, never. I only go on there every now and then to look up the synopsis of a film and never even think to look at its rating. The only insight I ever get into them is when someone links to/starts a thread on them on here...

[Jay Bigz]

Originally Posted by Peter the Great

It's the opposite for me. I personally trust the opinion of a critic more than the general public who will often like any crap if it has a high budget. I also think they are spot on about Vanilla Sky.

Well, I'd never trust the critics - it's all hollywood politics and business with those guys, as they all run in the same circles.

You agree with their vanilla sky rating, but many others don't - I've met loads of people, and read lots of reviews, that say it's a fantastic film.

Everybody has different taste, and perceptions of what is good, or not, which kind of ties in with the point of the thread - only you can make that decision for yourself.

[Lathamite]

Originally Posted by degsyhufc

^ This
Also, many, erm more intelligent and considerate people might look at the ratings but not rate a film themselves so again you might just be getting obsessed fans who want to big up or belittle a film just for the hell of it.

But the fact that every major film will have just as many people "bigging it up" as people "belittling it", means that it evens itself out.

The Nolan argument is boring, by the way. For every fanboy, there's a hater so general consensus is he's "OK". Do I think all of his films are faultless? Not in the slightest. But he's got an excellent track record. IMO, he hasn't made a bad film (and that's BAD, not "It's awful because other people REALLY LIKE IT").

I find The Lord of the Rings films incredibly dull, but I don't think people like them *a lot* just...because they're Lord of the Rings films.

[sheila blige]

Originally Posted by Lathamite

Do you have any examples of stuff made in the last ten years than has scored less than 6.7, that's very good?

I was quite surprised that 2012 has a lowly score of 5.8. I don't think its the best films of its genre but its a lot better than most. My husband doesn't really like going to the cinema that much but he took my son to see it (I've only seen it on DVD) but my husband thought it was very good (for my husband - that is as good as saying 'its one of the best films I've seen'). Personally I would have thought maybe a 7 to 7.2 rating is fairer but whatever - 5.8 is ridiculously low.

[Peter the Great]

Originally Posted by Jay Bigz

Well, I'd never trust the critics - it's all hollywood politics and business with those guys, as they all run in the same circles.

You agree with their vanilla sky rating, but many others don't - I've met loads of people, and read lots of reviews, that say it's a fantastic film.

Everybody has different taste, and perceptions of what is good, or not, which kind of ties in with the point of the thread - only you can make that decision for yourself.

i don't understand what you mean by hollywood politics? Very often it is foreign language and independent films that get good ratings and that is because Hollywood very often churns out the same mindless nonsense not because of politics. Of course it is all opinion but when the public give films a bad rating because they have subtitles I do in most cases prefer the opinion of a critic.

[Jay Bigz]

Originally Posted by Peter the Great

i don't understand what you mean by hollywood politics? Very often it is foreign language and independent films that get good ratings and that is because Hollywood very often churns out the same mindless nonsense not because of politics. Of course it is all opinion but when the public give films a bad rating because they have subtitles I do in most cases prefer the opinion of a critic.

A director who is disliked by the 'scene', a film featuring actors who have rubbed journalists up the wrong way, a director who is good friends with influential critics and their production is going to head with another big threat - Just a few examples of why critics would 'pan' or 'over-rate' a film - it's all a business, like anything else, and it's about cash at the end of the day. We're talking about 'movies' and 'hollywood' here - to think the inside workings are straight and honest, would be silly.

I'd listen to the public over critics any day of the week, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't consider the thoughts, or opinion, of somebody who reviews films for a living - however, just like reality television, you're not sure if what you're seeing is real.

[Stupid_Head]

No, IMDB is full of trolls - it makes youtube seem pleasant.

[Jay Bigz]

Originally Posted by Stupid_Head

No, IMDB is full of trolls - it makes youtube seem pleasant.

Tell me about - reading the comments section at the bottom of movies is certainly an 'interesting' experience. It never ceases to amaze how angry 'fanboys' or 'detractors' of certain films, or people, can get with each other over the subject. It's brutal, and rather worrying.

[Peter the Great]

Originally Posted by Jay Bigz

A director who is disliked by the 'scene', a film featuring actors who have rubbed journalists up the wrong way, a director who is good friends with influential critics and their production is going to head with another big threat - Just a few examples of why critics would 'pan' or 'over-rate' a film - it's all a business, like anything else, and it's about cash at the end of the day. We're talking about 'movies' and 'hollywood' here - to think the inside workings are straight and honest, would be silly.

I'd listen to the public over critics any day of the week, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't consider the thoughts, or opinion, of somebody who reviews films for a living - however, just like reality television, you're not sure if what you're seeing is real.

But could a director be disliked by the scene because they always make awful films? I have found no proof of what you are suggesting. You seem to think this is just because there are some films that all the people you know like but the critics don't. I know plenty of people who like the awful film "Pearl Arbor" but the critics gave it a panning because just like me thought it was a bloody awful film!

[rfonzo]

I do not take notice of their ratings at all. I only use IMDB for references and checking actors or actresses names.

[carefree_blue]

I like to browse IMDb including looking at the scores and contributing to them myself but I don't let them put me off watching a movie. Better to make your own mind up, especially when a fair amount of the users are moronic (you only have to check the message boards for proof of that).

[Rorschach]

IMDB no, I do however look at RottenTomatoes to see how a film went down with critics and audiences if I'm trying to pick between films to pay for on a Saturday night for.

This only tends to be an issue for those middle of the road films that I haven't heard of, as I tend to have a good memory for films that were highly praised on release (e.g. Source Code) and those that were completely slated (e.g. The Tourist).

My IMDB app is however always to hand for those "What was she in?" moments during a film.

[BcUhTrTyEeRdCUP]

I don't really take no notice because I like to see any movie through my "own" eyes!!! before I judge and think was that a good movie, alright, poor, what did I see
Because then I can go and see why they might give it an 6 when I might give it an 7.5
I am also don't relying on other to choose or make my mind up weather or not I should see it