I am wondering if anyone can tell me how this pile of garbage can have a rating of 6.8 on IMDB?
I came across this movie on cable, and with a cast I mostly like, decided to give it a try. After 15 minutes, I went in IMDB and saw the lofty score, which baffled me.
I went back to the user review section, and was amazed at not only the low scores given by almost every person who rated the movie, but the anger this movie generated by people who paid good money to see it. Not only did they waste their money, but I lost count of how many people wanted their 2 hours of life back.
Many reviewers had the same question I had, which was “how is this movie rated so high?” For every nine “1” rating, there was one “9” or “10”.
This didn’t seem to be an age thing, either. I have seen a few movies which I just didn’t find humorous, but could accept that I was not the target demographic. This movie inspired anger and hatred by every age group.
I decided to do some more digging, and was amazed at the numbers… This movie brought in over $100M, which simply blew me away. The budget on this steaming pile was over $30M, so someone decided it was worth the investment, and they were right.
But there was nothing redeeming in the first 15 minutes, and from what I have read, it never gets better. Which brings me to my questions.
just how accurate are the IMDB user ratings? I assume if I continued to read reviews, I would get closer and closer to the release date, and find more and more 8, 9, and 10 ratings. But nothing recently, and I paged through a number of pages looking for some of the ratings that would offset the low numbers I saw. I assume the reviews are in reverse order, so the most recent post is at the top. Is this correct?
Are sites like IMDB slammed by studio employees with phony reviews, to bump up a movie’s ratings, thereby increasing hype, and driving people to see it? This would make sense to me, however I would think this would only work for so long, before word of mouth and social media got the word out how bad this thing was.
3). Anyone see this movie, and if so, what was your impression?
My full disclosure… I couldn’t make it further than 15 minutes. However, I spent close to an hour reading user reviews. I then spent about 45 minutes reading actual critic reviews, and I was astounded at how positive most of them were. It was almost as if no one had the guts to slam a movie that was so obviously bad. Is this a case of the emperor has no clothes, or was this one of the best comedies of the last decade?
I thought it was pretty funny–it was worth a rental at least. If I had to guess (Occam’s razor and all), I would speculate that it received a high rating because more people liked it and gave it a higher score than people who hated it and gave it a lower score. As an aside, is 6.8 on IMDB a high score?
Humour is very subjective. This movie is one of my favorite comedies of the last couple of years.
I’m perhaps equally baffled as you. Do you like other Rogen / Franco / Hill comedies, but not this one?
How far in the action is 15 minutes in? You need to get to where they settle down in the house after the apocalypse has started, the stuff before that is just setup.
It’s basically a bunch of inside jokes that rely on you knowing the actors. I am terrible at recognizing actors, so I didn’t get anything out of all the cameos. But my husband caught all of them and found the entire movie hilarious.
I don’t agree with that either. Apart from the party in the beginning, it’s pretty much just the same 6 guys in the house, and the jokes are not related to who they are as actors.
Some people thought it was funny. I did. I especially liked “Michael Cera,” “James Franco,” “Emma Watson” and “Channing Tatum.” “Jonah Hill,” “Craig Robinson” and “Danny McBride” were pretty funny too. Comedy is subjective. I loved these characters, and the actors did a good job of playing them to me. The actors were all brave and great sports about their roles, playing “themselves” but not really themselves. I enjoyed the descent into bizarroland even before the Apocolypse. Once it was clear what was going on it was even funnier to me. I can’t explain it, it just was. I was practically on the floor laughing at “James Franco” screwing up his Rapture.
Count me in with the likers of this movie. It wasn’t Citizen Kane (which was boring as hell, btw) but then it wasn’t trying to be. A decent way to spend a couple of hours on a weekend afternoon. And I dislike most of the actors in the movie, too. Didn’t make it any less funny.
Don’t like the humor fine? But I wonder how you could a) not notice any other movies that critics liked a lot more than you did, and b) not notice that IMDB scores are sometimes very inaccurate, and rely on things like politics or opinions about the director.
It was the best of the 3 apocalypse films that came out at the same time - the disappointing “The World’s End” (higher critical rating than I’d expect personally) and “Rapturepalooza” (also starring Craig Robinson(!), this time as the Antichrist).
I have enjoyed almost all of Rogen’s movies, and I liked most of the cast on paper. The only person in the cast that I absolutely cannot stand is Jonah Hill, but in an ensemble cast like this, he wouldn’t keep me from watching the movie. I just don’t find him funny.
Maybe I need to give this one more chance. The last scene I remembered was Cera hitting Rhianna’s ass, and she slapped him across the face.
I didn’t know anything about the movie going in. I heard of it, but that was it. When everyone was using their own names, I figured it was something written by Rogen for a bunch of his buddies, and I think based on what I have read this was true. As I understand it, most people played exaggerated versions of themselves.
According to the IMDB notes, it was estimated that between 50% and 75% of the movie was ad-libbed, and from what I saw in the first 15 minutes, that seemed accurate.
I don’t know. It was supposed to be a comedy, but I didn’t laugh once. I was more annoyed. It felt like I was watching a bunch of smug assholes, filming a movie of inside jokes, and not a movie with an interesting storyline.
Seems everyone who posted so far enjoyed it, so perhaps I just didn’t get this one. I like to think I have a good sense of humor… I am not a prude, don’t have many “off-limit” subjects when it comes to comedy, and think I am pretty open-minded when it comes to comedy material. Edgy is fine with me. And like I said, I have enjoyed most of Rogen’s stuff.
Oh yeah, for sure! I love this movie, but I don’t think there was anything funny in the beginning. I think it’s mostly there to setup the drama between Rogen and Jay.
Yeah, I wouldn’t say that is everything but it was a large part of it. I got most of it (loved Michael Cera playing the opposite of the role that he is pretty much typecast in now) and loved it.
I thought it was okay for a watch. It wasn’t hilarious but it didn’t make me actively angry either. There was a few decent laughs in there.
Agreed that the whole thing felt like a bunch of buddies making it for shits and giggles among themselves and then deciding to charge people to watch it. That’s cool and all (and is pretty much exactly how it went from what I understand) but that won’t rise above “It was okay” to anyone not part of the whole experience either by being a celebrity or being really into these guys to appreciate all the in-jokes.