I thought this film was brilliantly made. It has over 90% fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes and at Metacritic of 75 (one of the best reviewed so far this year). Why such a low rating here?
shareNot a lot of votes, I imagine few people have seen it that come here and vote.
I agree, the movie was excellent. The downside of IMDB is that anyone with an account is allowed to vote on movies and the fact is that many people will vote a movie down simply based on a bias toward the premise/actors/director, etc. Because of this, many movies are unfairly voted down.
It would be nice if there was some sort of several question quiz about a movie one should have to answer before being allowed to vote or comment on it. That way only the informed would be allowed to have a say. Of course that would never happen because then uninformed people would get pissed that their invalid opinions aren't counted...
Ignore Republicans; then you rob them of their lies having any influence. http://foxnewslies.net/
I agree with you completely about the IMDb ratings. I just wanted to add, for example, that you have the UNDER 18-yrs-old voting on R-rated films and dramas that they might not have the maturity to fully understand and then those voting for a film they have not seen. Take ALL the ranked films on IMDb. The #1 ranked "The Shawshank Redemption" has 20,915 people that rated it a ONE (out of ten), and the #2 "The Godfather" received 27,203 votes of ONE. There is almost no reason to rate a film a ONE, because there is always something redeeming about a movie, ESPECIALLY, when the viewers chooses what THEY want to see. There are some genre of films that I don't like, but I do not go to see those. The ones I CHOOSE to see, if they are "bad" they would at least deserve a FIVE rating, because how bad could it be to give it less than that?
shareYeah and I also feel like a lot of members look at voting in two ways; if it's good it's a ten, but if they didn't like it it's a one, with no in between. You see it on the reviews of films quite often, just tens or ones handed out without any real thought. Imdb ratings are pretty bs IMO.
shareIMDb should keep track of voters that continually vote movies a "1" and after, say 10 or so they should no longer count their votes. Same with 10's although a bit more lenient. They do only count regular voters in the top 250 (whatever that means).
shareThey would likely need at least a part time employee to do that due to the fact that it's not as easy to write that kind of thing into the programing of a website as people may think. You have to pay programmers a lot of money and it takes big servers to run a site the more complex it gets. While I would LOVE to have the job of stopping idiot raters and reviewers, I doubt they wanna shell out the mula for such a thing.
shareWhat I want to know is why it didn't get a wider release?
shareWow, you've shown your bias in your signature line, but seriously, just because someone doesn't like a movie, their vote/rating shouldn't count?
Uninformed people? Take a quiz before giving an opinion on a movie? Duh, it's an opinion, it's not a life or death matter. My opinion is that I didn't like this movie, and I didn't have to watch the entire movie to know that. I'm still voting on it, will still read other reviews, will still look at the 'Goofs' which are things I customarily do for all movies.
And by the way, there is no logic to the reason for a high or low rating on Rotten Tomatoes vs IMDB, none at all, because very few people go to several web sites to research a movie, they normally rely on the OPINIONS of friends, or the Star Rating System on Comcast, and you'll notice that none of the movies on LMN for example aver achieve even one star.
The opposite is a worse problem. I feel far more movies are UPVOTED than downvoted.
It's a strange rating system when people prefix a 6.8 rating with the word 'only'. By any reasonable standard, a rating of 6.8/10 should be considered perfectly reasonable. But in IMDBland, anything with less than about 7.5 is considered low.
Having said that, I actually agree with you on most points. IMDB rating are truly messed up and useful only as the roughest of rough guides.
My own personal opinion is that films shouldn't be eligible for the top 250 until they are at least 5 years old, but that's a discussion for another day.
Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds
It's totally stupid! It's the same way with "Me and Orson Welles," where it has a 6.8 on IMDB but and 85% from Rotten Tomatoes critics (but also 59% audience).
What is it about those films that wards people off? Is it the subject matter? Shouldn't be. Yeah "Me and Orson Welles" is about the director and "Bernie" is a small town murder, but those can't possibly be that unpopular of topics. If we can have films about Julia Childs be Oscar nominees, surely these films could get love.
Is it the actors involved? Possibly. Yes Zac Efron has not had a stellar career, but this was one of his better performances. Yes Jack Black has had some tremendous stinkers, but this was perhaps his best performance. If people keep paying for Adam Sandler films (thankfully that is declining), then surely these guys can get some audience who will like it.
Is it the tone? More possibly. "Orson Welles" is no doubt a very light toned movie, but that should be a strength for a film. It has marketability, charm, likable characters and a mostly happy ending. It still also manages to have a focused approach to the art of stage production. "Bernie" definitely runs the gamut of tones, but that I think is also a strength. It can be very funny, very sad, very thought provoking and even very emotional at different points. That should be the thing that people should be happy to rave about!
Are they bad movies? I say no. They are nowhere near my favorites, but I say they are quality productions on a whole. "Orson Welles" has a charming cast, an uncanny Orson Welles impersonator, good story progression, good production value for being lower budget and one of the best theater performance scenes I have seen in a long time. "Bernie" has stellar actors, a disarmingly sharp story, a great small town feel, a thought provoking moral quandary and some really great laughs (still love the map of Texas bit!). Each have some shortcomings, but I could never deem them "bad movies" to rate this low.
I have no idea why they are so low. I don't think a lot of people have seen them and the ones who have probably expected something else or are not the critical audience. It's just sad...
The man, the mind, the master. That's me!
The simple truth is that most "average moviegoers" have been so inundated with crap that they wouldn't know a good movie anymore if one bit them in the ass. Check out some of the comments on this site about Drive sometime. It sucks because there's "not enough driving" and because "it's just people standing around talking." If you don't like a movie, fine. It just would be nice to know where the opinion is coming from.
shareIf there was ever a post I could hit a "Like" button on, it would be yours, sir. People have just seen so much crap they don't even know what a good movie is...AMEN. I liked this movie...love it? Not quite, but I did like it a lot. It was entertaining, funny, good acting and had an interesting story of morality to it. What more do you need out of a movie? Have I give a movie a 1? Yes, but only once or twice. Same for a 10. I gave this a 7.
If you ever want to see IMDB voting at its worst, just look at Furious 7. Last I checked it was like a 8.1
The movie was so bad I just could not take it, it was a cartoon. But it's not my taste. I might have given that a 1...can't remember...
Dave "Crown Time" Blankenship for Time Man of the Year.
literally just finished watching this and found it really enjoyable (I've given it an 8/10). My question to you is what did you find funny about this film? I've noticed its listed as a black comedy as well, however I can't see it. I personally thought it was quite creepy and made me feel a little uncomfortable.
I'm not trying to troll at all, just wanted another opinion. thanks.
p.s. I don't usually like Jack Black, but thought he was great in this!
I really enjoyed the movie.
It's not that I do not like Jack Black, but I never go looking for his films for some reason. I'm glad I found this one.
Massive piece of crap. 6.8 is highly overrated.
shareHmm, wonder the story of YOUR life would be rated...
Ignore Republicans; then you rob them of their lies having any influence. http://foxnewslies.net/
I just watched this last night and voted it a 6/10. The acting of Jack Black was stellar and the best of his career but not Oscar worthy like some people are claiming. The acting all around was pretty good but their was just something about this film that didn't captivate me the way it should have. It was just kind of boring I guess and that is why the rating is lower on IMDB compared to critical consensus. This happens to many of the critical favorites that aren't exactly the most exciting films for the average moviegoer.
shareI agree this movie would have been better if they shortened it by 20 minutes,
too many scenes are too long with things that actually adds nothing to the
story or characters, maybe it is meant to be documentary like?
Well as a comparison I wonder if that many ppl today rate The Dark Knight like
a top-10 movie of all times today...
His performance was perfect. It was definetly Oscar worthy. Seemed like the role he was born to play...
-----------------------------
“My God! It’s full of stars!”
Totally agree with you. I give it a 6 or maybe a 5. Jack Black sucks.
shareHmm, by the looks of this board, the movie might deserve a second chance from me. I turned it off about five seconds after the talking head shot. I really dislike that format, and I get enough of it from Parks & Rec (and what feels like decades from The Office, ugh).
If I'm in the mood for a documentary, then maybe I'll check it out. Anyway, I don't downvote (I don't vote, period, until I've seen a movie), so I can't help you with the low rating, unfortunately :)
I really liked it.
I was tossing up between a 7 and an 8 and went for the 8.
I agree it is significantly underrated on IMDB's score.
I would never vote on a movie I hadn't watched - except if I had given it a solid try to watch and just couldn't take it.
Even then, I think that 5 = just bearable. Anything over that is a plus, anything under that means it is just unwatchable.
I rarely give anything under 5 because I just wouldn't watch anything that bad.
"They who... give up... liberty to obtain... safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I rated it a solid 7 stars, and really enjoyed it. I feel a movie has to be truly exceptional to get beyond an 8 star. I feel 6.5 to 7 is a fair rating for this movie. As enjoyable as it was it won't be to everyone's taste.
--------------------
Duty Now For The Future
I personally wasn't a fan of the mockumentary style. I felt the story was interesting enough that the townspeoples' love for Bernie and all the other plot points could have been illuminated just fine through a standard movie progression. Every time I started to really get into it they cut away. Pretty frustrating.
share6.7 now. A lot of people gave it a 6, 7, or 8. Few extreme votes, but the tail from 5 down to 1 is longer than the tail of 9 to 10.
Schadenfreude is dead? Good.