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.

[–] Mohsen-Qassemi 12 years ago

Agreed! I gave it an 8. It was a very well-made film in every resepct.

Mohsen Qassemi

[–] ridge-m-1 12 years ago

The absurdly low rating says more about the wanna be film critics on IMBD than it says about "Ice Station Zebra".

The late Patrick McGoohan was one of the coolest actors from one of the coolest decades!

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

Action movie? There´s hardly any action in it and while the first 2/3 of the film things are kept more or less reasonably afloat - even though there´re some dull stretches - the final icy standoff is a total bore, dragging on and on with nothing happening except for actors standing around and delivering their clumsy dialogue. It seems this John Sturges guy´s really an expert at making stuff as unexciting as possible - his Marooned from 1969, for instance, is the most tedious and stale space movie I´ve seen. Add the generally unremarkable acting by everyone except for the sharp McGoohan as well as very awkward-looking special effects, fake looking set design & poor camerawork to the plodding pace and low energy storytelling and you have a movie that´s actually overrated at that 6,5/10 score. 6/10 is the highest I could possibly go - and now feel like I´ve been overly generous afterwards.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] uvl 9 years ago

I rated it a "6". If it wasn't for McGoohan's terrific performance, I would have given it a "3". Everyone around him was more or less a complete stiff (it worked for Jim Brown, but no one else).

And just for reference, I first saw this in a theater -- the Cinerama in L.A., I believe -- in '68, and I've seen it many times over the years. At the time, it was a nod to the Cold War, and was somewhat compelling because of it. But it just has too many weak scenes to be considered a solid movie in modern times.

[–] Critomaton 8 years ago

I just saw this for the first time and I agree. I think it's at least a 7.5. It was riveting through the first half. Second half seemed a bit more formulaic but probably wasn't at the time. I guess I was expecting a triple-cross by the end, like Patrick McGoohan knew Ernest Borgnine was a double agent and somehow switched the film on him so they gave the Russian commander a dummy anyway. But I guess the way it played out was probably more realistic and still pretty suspenseful.