One of the problems with IMDB is that film promoters get cast, crew and everyone involved to vote on the site and write rave reviews.
I only came upon this little gem when I was reading the reviews of the new Rambo film. It gets such rave reviews I thought there was something wrong. So, I checked out the review on page 14 or 15 (of the reviews section) and Lo! and behold! Some crew guy is explaining where all the rave reviews are coming from.
Another thing that bugs me about IMDB is how "The Shawshank redemption" can score in the top 5 films. That really bugs me. Really, really, really bugs me.
Never mind "Buono, il brutto, il cattivo, Il". That's just deliberately put there to irritate me.
1 edit
Originally posted by rbmorrisThe only ratings you can't really trust are new releases: 2007+.
Is this what you were looking at?
http://www.imdb.com/chart/top
I have some serious problems with that list.
------------------------------------------------------
edit - Ratatouille scored higher than Cool Hand Luke, The Deer Hunter, Annie Hall, 8 1/2, Philadelphia Story...Harold & Maude?
edit2 - A know it's based on user ratings, not critic's ratings.
edit3 - Thanks a lot. You've just made me mad at EVERYONE!
Only people really interested in the movie will have seen it, and so it may be temporarily inflated.
What to hell does this mean? "edit2 - A know it's based on user ratings, not critic's ratings."
Surely being guided by 60,000+ critics is better than being guided by 1 over-opinionated critic? Click here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382932/ratings to see a breakdown of the ratings for Ratatouille.
1 disagreeable choice does not render the site useless. [EDIT] Oh, I think I get what you're saying. The list isn't ordered by which movies are better compared to each other. The ratings are based on each individual movie.
D
Originally posted by shavixmirYou know f all about film-making.
Never mind "Buono, il brutto, il cattivo, Il". That's just deliberately put there to irritate me.
The things that make a good film aren't just the dialogues, the story or the acting. In fact, the essence of what makes a director great (and therefore, a movie as well) is in none of these things.
Originally posted by PalynkaWell thanks for that. You know, I didn't realise there was more to a film that just dialogue.
You know f all about film-making.
The things that make a good film aren't just the dialogues, the story or the acting. In fact, the essence of what makes a director great (and therefore, a movie as well) is in none of these things.
However, what you may have failed to notice in your over-eagerness to score a cheap point here, there or somewhere, is that I was talking about dialogues. Hence the comments.
For example, if I was talking about special effects, I would probably have dropped a hint of Star Wars and if I was talking about story lines I would probably mention the BBC's 1970 adaptation of War & Peace. I wasn't. So I didn't.