IMDB user ratings that baffle you

Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (1990): 7.5

Oh, fuck you. Just fuck you. This is a comedy? Then where’s the goddamn funny? Most tedious piece of shit I’ve ever watched. This is something my high school drama club would watch and love, just because they like Monty Python, even thought the humor is nowhere near the same.

Ebert gave this piece of shit zero stars for a reason.


Personally, I’m baffled by the anger at Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead. I gave it a 7, so I guess I’m one of the people you ire’s directed at. I’d seen it on stage three times and wanted to see how the film adaptation turned out (it was was faster paced and the acting was excellent, but it glossed over parts the original script that were necessary, IMO, hence the 7 rather than a higher rating).

Tom Stoppard made fun of Beyond the Valley of the Dolls?

Anyway, I don’t get the high rating for The Shawshank Redemption. I like it, and I happily watch it again whenever it’s on TV, but ranking it the #2 movie of all time, above Casablanca, The Good, The Bad & The Ugly and The Seven Samurai? Please.

The Television Ghost, an experimental TV program done in 1931, got a rating of 4.0 despite the fact that no one has ever seen it.

I would rate ‘The Shawshank Redemption’ in my top 10 movies of all time.
I have not looked at the IMDB top 250 for a while. I am amazed that ‘Memento’ is at #26.
I liked that movie and it had a great idea behind it. I watched it again to really understand it. But there is no way it should be at #26.

The Godfather (1972) 8
The Godfather: Part II (1974) 8
Majo no takkyûbin (1989) 7
Pulp Fiction (1994) 1
The Shawshank Redemption (1994) 9
Wo hu cang long (2000) 1

These are the only movies I have voted for on IMDB.

I love this movie. Absolutely brilliant.

Now that I have looked at the ratings what baffles me is how The Godfather is number 1 in the top 250 and The Shawshank Redemption is number 2. IMDB states that, “For this top 250, only votes from regular voters are considered.”

If you look at the actual average ratings for the top 5 their actual raw averages are:

The Godfather 8.64
The Shawshank Redemption 9.02
The Godfather Part II 8.70
The Good The Bad and The Ugly 8.84
Pulp Fiction

The Departed 8.68
Pan’s Labyrinth 8.66
City of God 8.71

The ratings they choose to ignore sure change things.

Just curious, are you saying it deserves a higher or lower rating? (This is one of my top-five favorite movies of all time!)

I’d give Rosenkranz and Guildenstern a 7. It’s not a comedy, BTW, though moments of it are amusing. If I were to categorize it, I’d call it an existential tragedy.

I don’t get the high ratings for Alien (an incredibly stupid movie) or Gattaca (a movie to make you think – as long as you don’t think about it).

Hijack–that review for Gattaca is way off, from what I remember. Taking the points in order:
-There’s no reason to think that there’s not a movement to protest the condition of the In-Valids; that’s just not what the movie was about.
-The corporation may well have been right to try to withhold a job from Vincent; its moral ambiguity is part of what made the movie so brilliant.
-Genetic testing in the movie appears to have advanced to the point that it’s automated, almost instantaneous, and very cheap. Complaining about the technology’s overuse based on its current state of the art is silly.
-The idea that genetics can only do so much is clearly one not shared by the powers that be in the movie; that’s kind of the entire point of the movie.
-Changing the records wouldn’t help with any additional genetic test that Vincent gets. Again, part of the point of the movie is that with the advancement in genetic testing, we all carry our medical records within each of our cells. Unless Vincent’s going to pay a hacker to change his DNA, he’s got to do what he did.
-The car accident, IIRC, happened in another country; that’s why it’s not part of this guy’s computerized record. That was explained, as the reviewer would’ve noticed if he’d bothered to think about the movie.

Bad review!

A bunch of fanboys voted up Snakes On A Plane when it first came out. It originally had a 7.9 after the first week of release, and has been sinking slowly ever since (down to 6.7 now).

My vote for the OQ would go to anything involving Tarantino as a director.

Seems to me the reviewer is making a lot of unsupported assumptions about how the ship works, the capabilities it has, and Weyland-Yutani’s plans for the alien, then complaining because the movie doesn’t conform to his assumptions. He also takes the movie to task because the characters don’t make the 100% logical choice at every turn. Well of course: they’re supposed to be paralyzed with fear and dealing with a situation that they never imagined they might be in; they’re going to hesitate or make dumb choices.

I think a lot of times viewers rate a movie by seeing how closely the movie they’re watching compares to the movie they were expecting to see.

People were giving 1s for Little Man just based off the trailers, which resulted in Little Man fanboys giving 10s.

ETA: a (non-existant) Gilligan’s Island movie even had user ratings!

Freeway starring Reese & Kiefer has a 6.6 and should be much higher, as should two Audrey Tatou films, Pretty Devils (6.0) and He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not (7.3)- this one should be top 250, easy.

The thouroughly wretched and ridiculous Al Pacino (somnambulant and looking his age) and Tea Leoni (boring and typically vapid) vehicle People I Know has a 5.4, and should honestly be in the bottom 100. This was released in theaters in Brasil only I think.

I thought Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead was a solid B+ movie. Not overwhelmingly brilliant, but perfectly made.

There are lots of movies rated there by enthusiasts who give out 10s to their favs regardless of quality.

Old movies are a real problem. The people who watch them these days are lovers of old movies and they overrate them ridiculously.

TCM just started showing several movies that had been locked up in a rights battle for 50 years, as talked about in this thread.

One of them, Double Harness, was a pretty good, if unspectacular, adaptation of a play. It’s rated 7.0 on IMDb. That’s high, but the dialog sparkled and it had William Powell.

On the same day they played Rafter Romance, one of the all-time stinkeroos, a one-star movie with bad everything. IMDb rating? 6.9.

Now that’s worth starting this thread over. But Rosencrantz and Guildenstern? Not so much.

I saw it once on PBS. Fortunately, R&G died of boredom just before I would have.
It was kind of like sitting between two drunken philosophy students who won’t shut up and won’t leave.

No movie with both Ginger Rogers and Robert Benchley can possibly qualify as having “bad everything.”

All I was saying was that was the rating I gave it.

I might have said that myself before watching. But this was one of Benchley’s worst roles (or worst performances) and Rogers had no obvious charms. Even her legs looked stumpy and awkward in the shower scene.

The movie made Ginger Rogers’ legs look bad. How’s that for an epitaph?