MovieChat Forums > Clueless (1995) Discussion > 6.9 IMDb rating ?? What a joke

6.9 IMDb rating ?? What a joke

posted a year ago by JasonMovieGuy88 (51)
32 replies | jump to latest

Please ignore the IMDb ratings. Clueless is an exceptional modern comedy classic and I still don’t understand how it can rate a 6.9?? Also I’m shocked at how many generation Z reviews there are stating the film is outdated with fashion and insulting. It’s a satire, based off an even older well known love story, and the costumes are superb!

It disgusts me what actually DOES earn great ratings today, and what is considered mediocre. I’m appalled at how bad taste has gotten and how sensitive everyone is now. Clueless is a 10/10 for me.

My own awards—

1995

Clueless

Award: Costume Design
Nominations : Best Picture, Best Actress- Alicia Silverstone, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Film Editing.

[–] fc31 (5368) a year ago

If it is satire then I think the rating stands, because I think most people liked it as rom-com. It failed miserably as satire.

[–] JasonMovieGuy88 (51) a year ago

You clearly didn’t watch the movie. It’s brilliant.

[–] Stratego (30497) a year ago

Maybe the poster is trying to be satirical or something???

[–] fc31 (5368) a year ago

No, Clueless was my favorite movie, and it is a great romantic comedy.

But it is weird people trying to view it as something else, are you ashamed for liking it as romantic comedy?

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7146) a year ago

I often do ignore ratings, but especially this one, coz Clueless is a classic and deserves at least a point more.

[–] fc31 (5368) a year ago

Romantic comedy can only go far, it is difficult to find one with high rating.

[–] Kowalski (75524) a year ago

THAT IS INCORRECT...GOOD IS GOOD...GENRE MEANS NOTHING.

[–] fc31 (5368) a year ago

Then find a romantic comedy with high rating, because I couldn't.

[–] Kowalski (75524) a year ago

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098635/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_8_nm_0_q_WHEN%2520HARRY%2520MET%2520SALLY

[–] Kowalski (75524) a year ago

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0125439/?ref_=tt_sims_tt_i_8

[–] Kowalski (75524) a year ago

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314331/?ref_=tt_sims_tt_i_2

[–] Kowalski (75524) a year ago

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2194499/?ref_=tt_sims_tt_i_12

ARE WE DONE HERE?🙂

[–] fc31 (5368) a year ago

Love Actually is also not romantic comedy, it is bitter sweet, there is sadness in it.

[–] Kowalski (75524) a year ago

LMAO...GLAD YOU BROUGHT YOUR RULEBOOK.

[–] fc31 (5368) a year ago

Do you really think a rom-com would show the husband buying expensive jewellery for a young co-worker girl, and got a CD for his wife?

[–] fc31 (5368) a year ago

Notting Hill was when both Hugh Grant and Julie Robert were big stars. It is romantic comedy, but I wouldn't say it's rating (7.1) is high, given the calibre of the actors.

[–] fc31 (5368) a year ago

About time I haven't watched, so not sure about that.

EDIT: reading the introductions it looks like having a time traveling sci-fi element, which is also not a pure rom-com.

[–] fc31 (5368) a year ago

When Harry Met Sally is not a simple romantic comedy, the R rating does make it less pure.

I mean without nudity do you think The game of thrones would have gotten its high rating?

[–] Kowalski (75524) a year ago

GAME OF THRONES SUCKS.

[–] fc31 (5368) a year ago

NO, IT DOES NOT SUCK.

Anyway, my brother thought it was boring too. You have to wait for the moment when Daenerys took over the Unsullied. That was when it became truly great.

Without boobs nobody would have waited for that long. I nearly given up on it.

[–] fc31 (5368) a year ago

I think when pretty woman only got a 7.1, what clueless got should be considered good enough.

My Best Friend's Wedding was so cute a movie, only got 6.3.

[–] Kowalski (75524) a year ago

I TIRED OF DEALING WITH YOU,MR.BULLSHIT.

[–] fc31 (5368) a year ago

That kind of name calling is low, even for you.

[–] Kowalski (75524) a year ago

YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT SLING BULLSHIT THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE THREAD...I THINK IT FITS...I STATED GOOD IS GOOD...GENRE DOESN'T MATTER...THEN I LINKED MULTIPLE FILMS WITH HIGH SCORES DESPITE THE FACT THAT I THINK THOSE SCORES ARE BULLSHIT AS WELL...AS FILM IS A SUBJECTIVE ARTFORM....YOU HAVE RESPONDED WITH A NOTHING BUT RULE CHANGES AND BULLSHIT...ALSO CLUELESS IS NOT A STRAIGHT "ROM COM" EITHER...IT FALLS INTO YOUR OWN WEIRD MADE UP AS YOU GO RULES.

CLUELESS IS A MODERN CLASSIC...END OF STORY.

[–] fc31 (5368) a year ago

Now who is full of crap ...

[–] Kowalski (75524) a year ago

STILL YOU.🙂

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7146) a year ago

While I understand that many people look their nose down at the genre, I still tend to disagree. Pride and Prejudice 2005 is still at 7.8, and I'd rank Clueless way above that.

[–] fc31 (5368) a year ago

I like this movie much better too, but people tend to rank the making of classics, at least serious ones, higher.

[–] Stratego (30497) a year ago

I'm not a big fan of comedies, but this one's a favourite of mine.

[–] Gd5150 (11747) a year ago

6.9?!

As if!

[–] xanthas (3215) a year ago

It deserves a higher rating just due to the fact that Paul Rudd is in it.

[–] greenvelvet (166) 6 months ago

It’s because it is mostly aimed to women and IMDB ratings are mostly done by men. You used to be able to compare male vs female voters but IMDB has hidden that now.

This article goes into detail:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-if-online-movie-ratings-werent-based-almost-entirely-on-what-men-think/