Well I don't know about a 10 but I definitely agree that the 6.8 seems a little lower than it deserves. It redefined the disaster genre in it's time. So many films have since tried to copy it but none have nailed the balance of character, humor, drama and spectacle in the way that this one did. It may not be a great movie but it's definitely a great disaster movie.
shareI think it's a 10 as well, I guess not everyone loves the movie but it never fails to entertain me no matter how many times I watch it and in the end that's all a movies job really is and there are movies in the top 10 which don't achieve that.
shareBecause it is just as dumb as the sequel.
Dumb plot holes and terrible CGi even for 1996.
CGI? What CGI??
This is one of the last blockbuster movies to be made with barely any CGI to it.
Everything you see, from spaceships, through the sets, to destruction porn is nearly completely practical.
The only extensive use of CGI in this movie comes in the climax, to clone stupid amounts of aircraft into the wide shots of the final battle, everything else is a clever use of old school SFX.
6.9-7.3 range..
shareBecause it's a *beep* movie full of cliches. No more than 5/10.
shareTotal vote average on this site is a 6.8. This movie is a 10 for sureHow? Don't get me wrong, I watch the movie all the time; in fact, I'm watching it as we speak. But I disagree that it's a 10, of all things. IMHO, a 6.8 is a relatively accurate assessment. It's egregiously corny, typically predictable, and not well written and directed. There are a few acting kudos: Judd Hirsch; Will Smith; Jeff Goldblum; and especially Robert Loggia, who if he wasn't should've received at least a nomination. share
A couple of years ago the rating was as low as 5.9. Now its almost a 7 its been getting positive ratings from a new generation of movie watchers.
shareCuz it sux. I gave it a 4.
My Vote history: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur1914996/ratings