It got a 25% tomato rating at rotten tomaotes while certainly not good, herdly ranks it in the all-time worst. There are many examples of movies with lower tomato ratings that heve been gognzo at the box office.
The question in the OP is similar to one I had - “Why did Pirates #2 make over billion at the box office when no critics liked it and no one in real life admits they enjoyed it.”
The disconnect was striking, I thought.
Note - I agree with previous comments regarding the IMDB. It’s a good site for data on movies; for opinions or discussion, not a good place.
I can answer for at least part of that. You see, I went to a pirate-themed party right beforehand, and copious amounts of rum were consumed by all, but especially by me. By the time we got to the theater, I was ready to stand up on stage and lead the audience in “A Pirate’s Life For Me”, which I did in full pirate costume, false parrot tied to my shoulder, stabbing with my plastic sword as though it were a conductors baton. And there was more rum amongst us in the seats.
At the end, I was so drunk that I couldn’t even walk home, but the theater’s only a few blocks from work, so I slept on the sofa for a few hours before going home.
I remembered almost nothing of the movie, so I had to see it again.
I agree. Every time I visit their message boards, I run screaming back here within minutes.
Not a safe presumption, IMO.
Save her.
For me.
…
What?
I haven’t seen Stomp the Yard, but I’d bet a lot of money I could find 25 worse flicks.
Not quite true, but close. Better to say that a lot of people need to have heard of it. In all likelihood, if one were to exhaustively compile a list of all of the movies ever, rate all of them, and pick the 100 worst, nobody here would have heard of any of them. But in order to make the list at IMDb, the movie has to have had a lot of publicity. And unsurprisingly, a lot of publicity will also tend to make a movie more successful at the box office.
I don’t understand comments like these because all these films are available at my local GooglePlexes. Knoxville, TN isn’t exactly the worlds movie capital, but every time somebody makes this comment, it’s about a film that played within walking distance of my house. And I live in the suburbs.
The movie in question was #1 because it was a new release and it had a built-in audience. To be honest, without seeing it I still have doubts that it is the 24th worst film ever made: that 60% sounds like a lot of score-killing going on.
This sort of thing goes on all the time at IMDB. I mean, 6% of the voters gave The Godfather a ‘1’, while 16% gave a ‘10’ for Little Man. 10% of the people who saw Titanic said it was a ‘1’, an amazing amount of dislike for a film that grossed $1.8 billion dollars its first go-around. 
I did not care for that movie. It insists upon itself.
I really don’t think they could have done a worse job of marketing The Queen. Most people think it’s an English historical drama, when it’s actually about Princess Diana’s death and has Tony Blair as a main character.
I suppose it doesn’t help that Helen Mirren was also in a different movie this year where she also played a queen and that was an English historical drama.
Well, the real answer is that I meant my OP more flippantly than it apparently reads. I don’t literally think that this is the 24th worst movie ever made just because IMDB users voted it so.
Having said that, I do give more credence to IMDB user ratings than you do. It’s the biggest, most comprehensive movie website, and in my experience its ratings are usually ballpark indicative of the quality of a movie, even if I (or the critics for that matter) wouldn’t agree with the list rankings it produces. (The Lord of the Rings movies among the top ten ever made? Not a chance.)
Good point about the marketing cause you’re right, I had no idea. :eek: I’ll check out a trailer.
Not necessarily; it’s based on ratings, not numbers. If only 10 people voted, but they all gave it one star, it’s gonna be there at the bottom of the list. This is why new movies always get a spike: you’ll often find brand new movies up in the top ten, with all the gushing first-nighters rushing home to vote on IMDB. The ratings tend to average out over time. I suspect we’re seeing the same kind of negative spike in this place, and this movie will probably not remain at the very bottom for very long.
I mean, look at the page: a full third of the bottom 20 are from 2006–the bottomest three are all relatively new. Surely that won’t remain that way, unless 2006 really is the very worst year in the history of movies. Which, OK maybe you’re right.
Anyway, only the truly bad films from previous years hold on in their fight to remain on the bottom of the pile. I don’t see all these 2006 movies permanently knocking *Manos *and *Glitter *out of the bottom 20.
Slacker writes:
> 1. Stomp the Yard (2007)
> 2. Night at the Museum (2006) - Saw all the funny parts in the preview already.
> 3. Dreamgirls (2006) - Musical + Oscar buzz = who cares
> 4. The Hitcher (2007) - Not in the mood for a spare horror flick
> 5. The Pursuit of Happyness (2006) - Annoyed by typo in title
> 6. Freedom Writers (2007) - If I want to see a whitey-saving-the-hood movie I’ll
> rent one of the 14 others available
> 7. Laberinto del Fauno, El (2006) - The what of the huh?
> 8. Children of Men (2006) - If the title by itself makes me think, I’m scared to
> see it
> 9. The Queen (2006) - Never heard of it
> 10. Arthur et les Minimoys (2006) - Can’t pronounce the title to ask for a ticket
If your point is that someone who has been going out of their way to not watch any movie advertisement, not to watch any of the entertainment programs, and not to read any movie reviews might react this way, you might have a point. Perhaps that’s true for some people, but I would think that it would take a lot of work to avoid all those things. You’re inconsistent though. How could you know that Freedom Writers is a “whitey-saving-the-hood movie” but not know that The Queen is about the current queen?
I can still understand that some people might prefer to see Stomp the Yard. There are some people for whom the setting in a black fraternity is all that matters. Could you explain to me why, though, you have so little knowledge of current film? (I don’t mean deep knowledge. I mean not seeing any TV ads or anything else.) And could you explain how you might still know that Freedom Writers is a “whitey-saving-the-hood movie” and that Children of Men is a movie that might make you think?
I read it as a joke about what someone’s thought process might be in order to get them to see Stomp the Yard instead of all the other movies.
Stomp the Yard is a surprise because there are some demographics that Hollywood tends to ignore. When something hits that demographic and makes a lot of money everyone becomes surprised.
The success of Larry the Cable Guy is a good example.
Not to jump on you specifically, but you might be lucky in this regard. In the county of which Fort Lauderdale is the major city, Pan’s Labyrinth was playing in exactly one theater, the artsy-fartsy one. Luckily I live 5 minutes away from that, but there are still plenty of people who easily live 30 miles away, and are STILL in a major urban area.