MovieChat Forums > Ice Station Zebra (1968) Discussion > The IMDB Rating is a Joke!

The IMDB Rating is a Joke!

posted 17 years ago by lostinaction
21 replies | jump to latest

Sorry but I just saw the rating of 6.4 for Ice Station Zebra and is a joke! When people rate this movie of 1968 with wich movies they compare it. With the CGI Action Movies of today? For 1968 it is a great action Movie with good Specials Effects for this time. Where Eagles dare (1968) has 7.7 and The Guns of Navarone (1961) has 7.6. Both are great action Movies of their Time and both based on a Story by Alistair McLean. Ok the parts of the Story seems to be similiar to other typical McLean Stories, but that is the way it is. The Story is great and very suspenseful.
The Director John Sturges did a good job (at he did in most of his movies)and all the Actors around Rock Hudson did a good job too. In my eyes is Ice Station Zebra very underrated today and the IMDB ranking should be also between 7 and 8.

[–] arbilab 17 years ago

JMO, I think 6.4 is a little generous. Yeh, good story and good actors. It falls down visually though, when--being widescreen and replacing 2001 in Cinerama theaters--it should excel.

Even in 1968 (or 58 for that matter), nobody made movies with a locked-down camera and absolutely-static actors. 3/4 of it looks like a slide show.

The worst part was the ice shots. Wind sound effects but the snow didn't move and neither did the actors' hair or parka fur. They couldn't. If they put a fan on the set, it would have blown the styrofoam off the floor. Obviously shot indoors. Geez, the least they could have done was drive to North Dakota or something.

Loved Patrick McGoohan though.

[–] Moor-Larkin 17 years ago

Loved Patrick McGoohan though.

I have seen it said in magazines from the time, that it was his performance that saved the movie from commercial disaster. Earlier threads have explained that this movie ran hugely over-budget because delays caused by the Navy authorisations meant it was filmed almost twice, once with David Niven and Gregory Peck and then again with McGoohan and Hudson. Everyone got paid.........

S'no wonder the snow wasn't wonderful.

http://flickr.com/photos/11417707@N04/

[–] albertfoster 17 years ago

I also think that 6.4 is a bit low considering it was...
_________________________________________________________
Academy Awards, USA
Year Result Award Category/Recipient(s)
1969 Nominated Oscar Best Cinematography
Daniel L. Fapp

Best Effects, Special Visual Effects
Hal Millar
J. McMillan Johnson
___________________________________________________________

I guess the special effects and cinematography weren't too awful.
Hmm!!! guess it isn't JMHO.

[–] DillengerD 17 years ago

I think "arbilab" nailed it. - 6.8 is way generous. I voted only "3" which I feel it belongs. I don't compare it to today's CGI action movies... but compared to "Where's Eagles Dare" or even "You Only Live Twice" or "The Great Escape" It's very thin in plot or even some kind of fun considering the running time.

I'm 38, ( so you know I'm not a 'michael bay kid') and this is a film that was never in heavy rotation on TV or even home video. As a matter of fact, MGM let people vote if they wanted this movie released on DVD or not.

I had to check out the IMDB page, cause I'm sure someone would be defending it. And while it was nominated in 1969 for Cinematography and Special Effects, that doesn't mean time was good to it.

[–] Steamboy 10 years ago

On the contrary, the visuals were its strength, the production design was pretty neat with some sweet old school photography. What was terrible was the second half, how it all dragged on and how phony the confrontation with the Russians wound up to be. All the things they did at the end seemed entirely pointless. Couldn't he destroy the damn thing earlier? (answer: he sure could)

__________________________
www.1up-games.com Last watched: imdb.to/K4tvL9

[–] dragonofskies 16 years ago

I think it's a bit underrated. I give it 8/10.

[–] Shefhammer 16 years ago

Agree that the rating is a joke. Way too high. Needlessly long - this was as badly edited as antying I've seen in a while. All those indulgent pointless shots of the sub or the Russian planes that seemed to go on and on. It was like teh director was saying "hey we have some really convincing footage of Russian planes, take a look." Except it wasn't convincing, nor was it interesting and he could have conveyed the idea in about 1 second.

The ending is borderline incomprehensible. Characters start behaving in ridiculous fashion. I'm actually shocked I made it to the end. Don't know why I didn't give up long before.

Officially the best film website on the web: http://www.myfilmvault.com

[–] JuanMacready 16 years ago

This movie was AWFUL.

[–] richsass 15 years ago

I would rate this movie at least an 8. Great acting by one of my favorite actors Patrick McGoohan. Great visual effects and a decent cold war plot.

What are you gonna do? Kill me? Every body Dies. John Garfield (Body and Soul)

[–] DM-DAAN 15 years ago

Sorry, but the rating is way too high.

This simply isn't a good movie. Now I never slag off movies just because they can't entertain me, and I really wanted to like Ice Station Zebra, but I simply couldn't conclude otherwise.

For reasons, check posts above.

[–] streetlegal 15 years ago

I like this film but it's not-imo-in the same league as Where Eagles Dare or The Guns Of Navarone. The first half is fine with the scenes on the sub but the second part of the film is a lot weaker. The first time I saw it I was a little confused by the climax but it made more sense the second time round.
For me it's an entertaining film but one that could have been better with a shorter running time. However, didn't Rock Hudson consider this his best film?

[–] dadley 14 years ago

Maybe the book was feeble in the first place!

[–] mavrick45 14 years ago

As an avid film watcher I tend to have pretty low standards when it comes to enjoying movies. That is to say a movie has to be pretty bad when I say there are no redeeming qualities about it.
This movie was horrible. I would rate it just above G.I. Joe Rise of the Cobra.
yes, it was that bad.

[–] veidt05 12 years ago

Ice Station Zebra has a very good cast, good production values and an exciting setting, but the lack of suspense and adventure (and of course the poor pacing) brings the movie down. And also the lack of style is very surprising for a director like Sturges.