MovieChat Forums > Babe (1995) Discussion > Why such a low rating for a really good ...

Why such a low rating for a really good movie?

posted 13 years ago by RdVirus777
27 replies | jump to latest

Babe is one of my favorite movies of all time so I come here only to see the movie at a measly 7.0 I would probably give it at least an 8.5. I Know everyone has different tastes in movies but, there's not many people who thinks this movie deserves at least an 8.0? I mean am I missing something? I really believe this movie deserves to be on a top ten list of best family films. Anyone else agree?

We all go a little mad sometimes - Norman Bates

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tmaj48 12 years ago

1. There are some people who have given this movie a low rating because they
distrust its "agenda," believing it to be a screed made by evil animal rights
activists who are attempting to brainwash innocent children into adopting
a (gasp!) vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. So they automatically hate the movie.

2. It's not the usual dizzyingly paced, crude humor-laced kiddie movie that
generally passes for family movies these days, so viewers expecting another
"Revenge of Kitty Galore" or "Cat in the Hat" type of movie may be
disappointed by its gentleness and serious elements.

I'm not crying, you fool, I'm laughing!

Hewwo.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RdVirus777 12 years ago

Honestly who cares if this movie is trying to get people to be vegetarian? What are vegetarians, the scum of the earth? I personally eat pork. I couldn't live without eating ham but, if someone finds out pigs are intelligent animals and doesn't want to eat them or meat in general, I don't understand why that seems to be such a major deal. I judge movies based on quality and babe is one of the best family movies ever made and if people want to rate this movie low because of some screwed up belief than I feel sorry for how stupid they are.

We all go a little mad sometimes
- Norman Bates

[–] youresomodest 12 years ago

Tell me about your medical condition that requires you to eat ham.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PopSixSquish 10 years ago

^ Superb sarcasm & valid point!

[–] andy-todd-1 12 years ago

Because this is IMDB, where ratings are dominated by young men. I have nothing against young men. I used to be one.
To me (and others), Babe can best be described as "cute", "charming", and sensitive and intelligent. My opinion is that the 18-29 year old males that dominate ratings voting on this site aren't as likely to rate films of this type as highly as females or other age groups. They may still consider Babe a "Kid's movie" (even if they once liked it). I think E.T., The Extraterestrial (though more highly rated than Babe) also suffers a lower than deserved rating on IMDB for these reasons.
Regardless, those who like or love this movie, more than say Anchorman (also rated 6.9), can appreciate it for what it is - a classic, I think.

[–] IanDSmith 8 years ago

6.8 now. Don't make a family movie not pitched explicitly towards boys or any sort of romantic comedy and expect it to rate well on imdb, no matter how many awards it gets nominated for.

[–] snoho 12 years ago

Can't believe it's dropped to 6.9. Such a lovely movie with a lot of character.

[–] zannesuz 12 years ago

I agree it is very underrated at 6.9 but I agree with previous posts that imdb is predominantly rated by younger males that like to either see T&A and/or blood and guts.

[–] StarskyandChinaHutch 11 years ago

For my money I think it's a bit too high, actually. But I know the feeling, and it sucks.

[–] Scooby52 11 years ago

I think a lot of older films (not that I consider this an old film, but compared to the age of this site and widespread use of the internet it can be considered one) tend to have low ratings simply because people vote on them after seeing them 10 to 15 years after they were first released. In this case they ignore the fact that Babe had ground-breaking visual effects at the time and was just such a beautifully shot movie film compared to others at the time. Others have already brought up terrific points in regards to the younger age group that use this site and the fact it's not just a children's film, so no need for repeating.

I'm writing this signature in bold so people know it's a signature

[–] AniMartin 8 years ago

My son is nearly 7 and just saw this movie for the first time. He leaned over to me, and in an awed whisper said, "mom, the effects are amazing! I can't tell where it's animation and where it's live animals. Wait... Did they even use animation in this? How did they make them talk?"

Maybe more folks need to watch this movie with 6, 7, and 8 year-olds to catch the whimsy and sweetness of the story, along with the (very well done) effects.

[–] politicaldefiance 10 years ago

Because a lot of people who vote for movies on IMDB suck.

[–] Lucia2016 (647) 4 years ago

[deleted]