MovieChat Forums > Selma (2015) Discussion > Why did you give "Selma" a rating of 1?

Why did you give "Selma" a rating of 1?

posted 10 years ago by Red-125
196 replies | jump to latest

"Selma" is carrying an excellent overall IMDb rating of 7.7. Sixty-eight percent of people rated it 8, 9, or 10. However, a significant minority--almost 9%--of people who voted gave it a rating on 1. As I write this, that's 424 people who believe that this was a truly terrible movie. OK--we all have the right to our opinion. However, I'm curious about this.

My question to those 424 people is, "Why did you give this movie at rating of 1?" Simple question, and I'll leave it at that. Sincerely, Red-125

[–] poetcomic1 10 years ago

Maybe because it is slander and lies at the very heart of the movie. LBJ wanted to replace the Dixiecrats with Blacks voting solidly Democrat and that was his whole 'Great Society' plan and that is what he accomplished. To make the central drama at the heart of a movie into a BARE FACED LIE is....EVIL.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] poetcomic1 10 years ago

I said no such thing. LBJ was a manipulating SOB who boasted "I'll have these n______rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years". The LBJ programs destroyed the black family and institutions.

[–] Red-125 10 years ago

Dear poetcomic, Thanks for writing. I don't understand which part of the movie it is about which you're angry. Which was the bare faced lie? Was it about LBJ or Dr. King? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you. Your message just isn't clear to me. Red-125

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Red-125 10 years ago

Dear fairpenguin, Thanks for writing. I think that comment applies to some--but definitely not all--of the people who hated the movie. Red-125

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] peterwiik 10 years ago

This film was so badly directed:

- Boring repetitious screenplay
- Talk, talk, talk
- Very bad build-up to dramatic instances
- Lack of inner nerve (its all happening on the surface)
- Total lack of humour
- Clumsy editing
- Bad framing, which makes allmost every scene confusing
- Predictable use of music (except ending song, which is great)
- David Oyelowo looks like a commercial for hairspray (not very flattering for Martin Luther King, who we all love)

all in all; seems like a film which has been slaughtered by a producer who has taken over from the debut director.
Worst and most boring film for years!!

Hope some of you agree with me.

best,

Peter

[–] Red-125 10 years ago

Dear Peter, Thanks for writing. It's hard to believe that we saw the same film! Selma may have had it's flaws, but I'm astounded to hear you describe it as the "Worst and most boring film for years!!" However, I can see that you're writing as a disappointed movie-goer, not as a bigot. " De gustibus non est disputandum." Red-125

[–] tribek 10 years ago

It's just under 1k as I post this and anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows it's because a huge percentage of them if not the majority of them are simply nasty little ignorant, narrow-minded racists.

Racism is sadly still a significant problem around the world and one only needs to read the thousands of hate-filled racist comments posted on sites like Youtube, Liveleak, 4chan ..etc ..etc.

The irony is we are ALL Africans, and if it wasn't for the courageous and brave actions of Africans thousands of years ago scientists and experts believe the human race could have very likely gone extinct!!

[–] Red-125 10 years ago

Dear Tribek, Thanks for writing. I think you're right about the racism motivating many (but not all) of the people who gave "Selma" a rating of 1. I think the problem is that I live in a relatively racism-free bubble. None of my friends is overtly racist. None of their friends is overtly racist. (Obviously, sooner or later we'd get to the racist population, but I don't see them.) So, this thread has been a good wake-up call for me.

Having said that, I've tried to take down the hateful, bigoted answers. If I've missed any, please let me know. If you don't like a movie, give it a bad vote. No argument. However, my thought is that if you don't like the movie because of the skin color of the people portrayed, you have a problem, and you can post your racism somewhere else. Red-125

[–] brefane 10 years ago

It's a by-the-numbers historical recreation that actually lacks genuine impact;it's a strangely muted film and David O doesn't capture King nor does his Rev. King dominate the movie which may be appropriate; it is titled Selma not King. The scenes of King and his wife are nothing new and ultimately feel unnecessary.

[–] Red-125 10 years ago

Dear brefane, Thanks for writing. You point out some flaws with the movie, and certainly your position is reasonable. It's the "1" that I don't understand. (If that's how you rated it.) I can see--based on what you wrote--where you might give it a 6 or a 7, but why a 1? However, what I've learned from this thread is that some people give a 1 to a film they don't like, to have a small, but finite, effect on the overall rating. Others give a 10 to a film about which they're lukewarm, just to bring it up in the ratings. My method has always been to give the film the rating I think it deserves. Still, there are no rules governing how or why someone gives any film any rating. So, there it is. Sincerely, Red-125

[–] brefane 10 years ago

I never rated the film and yes, I agree it doesn't deserve a 1; it's better than that. Beyond the Poseidon Adventure is a definite 1, not Selma.

[–] Red-125 10 years ago

Dear brefane, Works for me. Red-125

[–] b-touch 10 years ago

I've never, not ever, seen a Hollywood studio film so awful it deserves a 1. And I've seen some horrid pictures.

[–] Red-125 10 years ago

Dear b-touch, Thanks for writing. What I've learned from all this is that some people are bigots. Some people rate a movie they haven't seen. Some people give only 1's or 10's. If they don't like a movie, they want to bring down it's rating. If they like it, they want to bring up its rating. There's no way to tell, of course, unless they respond to a message like mine.

I always look at the actual rating distribution. If 30% of people give the movie a 10, and if 40% give it a 9, I'm probably not going to worry about the 2% or 3% who give it a 1. Also, I check some of the written reviews, because most of the trolls don't bother with written reviews. They're just happy giving the movie a 1 and moving on. Sincerely, Red-125

[–] brefane 10 years ago

Never seen a Hollywood studio film so awful it deserves a 1? May I recommend Beyond the Poseidon Adventure (1979), Pretty Maids All in a Row(1970), Making It(1971) and Lost Horizon(1973).

[–] kenneth-85 10 years ago

Hi Red,

A refreshing thread! Nicely kept from spiralling into idiocy through simply being polite, well done. And interesting results.

But I have to ask... why did you give Being John Malkovich a 1?

Thanks,
Kenneth

[–] Red-125 10 years ago

Dear Kenneth,

Thank you for your compliments.

I can barely remember "Being John Malkovich," and it may be the only movie that I ever rated as "1." Here's my review:

Not my kind of movie
1/10
Author: Red-125 from Upstate New York
20 November 1999
" "Being John Malkovich" left me cold. Actually, it turned me off. The basic premise was interesting, but it was all downhill from there. This movie contains significant scenes of violence against a woman. This violence is gratuitous; it doesn't really stem from preceding scenes and the perpetrator is not portrayed as particularly reprehensible. Apparently a lot of people liked this film. I'm not sure what movie they saw. Can it be the same one I saw?"

Many films show violence against women, but most of them--at least the ones I see--depict violence against women as evil conduct, not as acceptable conduct.

I think that was what made me give the movie a rating of "1."

Red-125

[–] kenneth-85 10 years ago

Hi Red,

Fair enough. I also barely remember Being John Malkovich, and I didn't remember there being an aspect of violence against women. It's as good a reason as any for a 1 vote, though.

Godard's "Detective" was another that IMDB told me that I rated higher than you which you rated a 1. Honestly, I can't remember why I gave it a 5 -- it's another movie I remember very little of, but I do remember being pretty bored.

My ratings are very subjective; 5 is a kind of "I didn't turn it off" middle of the road, sometimes 4s are more enjoyable (I am fond of the so-bad-its-good variety, sometimes those are as high as a 6). I don't think I've ever rated anything a 1. 2-3 & the occasional "competent but ..." 4s are the only ratings I use for things I dislike.

Thanks for replying,
Kenneth