MovieChat Forums > Assassin's Creed (2016) Discussion > Is it as good as the 9,1 rating is sugge...

Is it as good as the 9,1 rating is suggesting ?


No spoilers, please. I have played and enjoyed (a lot) the games from II to III, and I know the serie lost a lot of steam after that in terms of quality of writing and originality. Would you recommand me this movie ?


"I don't care what you believe in, just believe in something ! No matter what..."

reply

I did not see the movie yet ( i live in the netherlands so I have to wait to 5th of January) . But i can tell you that the 9,1 is to high. It wil have the same rating as Rogue one (8,2).

If you loved some of the games of AC then you will like the movie.

reply

I think what the current 9.1 shows is that the game has a lot of passionate fans and that the movie appeals to them. I'm sure that as the general audience sees it, the rating will settle in the 7-8 range.

reply

[deleted]

Almost all movies have ridiculous ratings before they are released. Look how only 400 people actually rated this movie.



reply

And I would guess barely any of them actually saw the film before rating it.

reply

BvS had something like a 9.5 and 10,000 ratings two weeks before it opened.

Ratings shouldn't be permitted before the movie opens. No one can give a legitimate score before they can possibly have seen it. That's just common sense.

reply

Well technically you aren't allowed to rate it until it's release SOMEWHERE.

But I think they should wait until it has WIDE release somewhere.

Or... allow anybody to rate it just like they can now, but wait until it's wide released to actually SHOW the rating.



reply

No one can give a legitimate score before they can possibly have seen it.

The thing is that advance screenings are shown (for the public and for critics).... so *some* (certainly not all... or even most) of the votes that have been put in could indeed be legitimate scores.

The other option would be, as you said, to hold off opening ratings until the movie hits it's first major release date. But, IMO, the problem would still exist. You would have zealot fans that would still uprate the movie (without having seen it) and you would also have zealot haters (for certain types of films... think Comic Book films where apparently one is not allowed to like more than one comic book company) that would downrate the film without having seen it.

Ultimately (IMO), the IMDb user ratings have not been overly relevant for years, not since Nolan zealotfans got it in their heads to massively downvote a number of very good classic films just so one of Nolan's Batman films could make it to the top of the IMDb 250 ranking - the ratings for major blockbuster films haven't really been the same since.

Nillindeiel

Agent Hill: ...Then aliens invaded New York and were beaten back, by among others, a giant green monster, a costumed hero from the 40's.... and a god.

Agent Ward: I don't think Thor is technically a god.

Hill: Well...you haven't been near his arms.


~Agents of SHIELD; Season 1 Episode 1 "Pilot"

reply

People rating a film 1 without seeing it is more of a problem than those rating it as a 10. The reason is that it's a no-brainer that those who rate it 10 will actually see it and that will give them the option of editing their rating if it doesn't live up to expectations while people rating a film 1 without seeing it are obviously not going to see it, they're just saying what they think of someone involved with the film or the subject matter.

reply

Pretty much. The overall rating will re-adjust itself out end once a wide release take place. People could always change their ratings later on for various reasons. This is one of the reasons why I don't take ratings on this website so seriously at times. Impulsive trolls and fanboys. The information from this site is about as credible as Wikipedia.

🎊🎄Happy Holidays!🎁🎊

reply

You're right, this site isn't legit, due to haters and fanboys/girls alike. It biaises the ratings. Sometimes it can be absurd, see "The Force Awaken", which was generally well-received by critics, yet when you take a look at the imdb page, 9 out of 10 people seem to consider it the worst movie of the decade.


"I don't care what you believe in, just believe in something ! No matter what..."

reply

You're right, this site isn't legit, due to haters and fanboys/girls alike. It biaises the ratings. Sometimes it can be absurd, see "The Force Awaken", which was generally well-received by critics, yet when you take a look at the imdb page, 9 out of 10 people seem to consider it the worst movie of the decade.


Nonsense. The Force Awakens is rated 8.2 out of 10 on IMDb, so what are you talking about?

reply

I was talking about the dozens upon dozens of hate-filled viewers reviews which contrast with the critics' opinion and yes, with the ratings indeed. You're right, my post wasn't clear.

reply

Well the user reviews on RT and Metacritic are also far from legit. So imdb is just as trustworthy.

reply

It's already 9.2!
This is crazy, how come it's going up? Usually ratings go down....so weird! I guess people really go with low expectations.
This is actually bad for me casue now I'll have high expectations :/

reply

You're a fool if you think the movie is a 9.1/10 when it was only screened to fans of the game.

reply

Considering it's only been screened, and the ludicrous amount of 10 rates, I'd take the 9.1 with the tiniest grains of salt for now.

reply

no, suicide squad had a 9.3 with 2000 reviews now its on 6.6.

reply

It means nothing. Every movie has this kind of start score with a lot of 10s from crazy fans.

reply

Except for original movies with no famous names involved. Because why could want to give them a 10 without even seeing them?

Nolan, I love you forever!

reply