For those who rated it a 1

I rated it 1. Its not that I don't enjoy these type of movies, but the ending ruined everything for me. It was a waste of time. I mean what the *beep* was that ending. It's like they don't know how to finish it.

If we have to use our own imagination for the ending of these movies then why would you make a film. we could imagine an entire movie in our mind with just the plot line.

Why are you so offended by people's opinions of the film? It's like defending Superbabies because John Voight was so good in it...the fact is critics scores are still just that at the end of the day...opinion. The fact that you're getting rumproasted because MUH TOM HARDY was in a film that was polarizing to people is sad.

People rated it a 1 because it was a snore. It is literally Tom Hardy in a car talking on a phone for 60 minutes, and the other 30 he is looking in the rearview brooding and making faces. Cool, Tom Hardy is a great actor, but don't cry about Bronson not getting a 10/10 TOUR DE FORCE just because Tom Hardy is good, it's because some...people....didn't...like...it.

It's pretty ridiculous to see so many rumproasted Tom Hardy fangirls complaining like their opinion is supposed to be fact and everyone is simply supposed to agree with it.

I absolutely have "reasonable objectivity" when I gave Locke a 1. Did the film set out to accomplish it's goal of being a car commercial? Sure. Is it more cringeworthy than a Matthew McConaughey Cadillac commercial? Yes. Did it offer any actual substance? Tom Hardy's performance sure...but other than that? No. It squandered an actor like Andrew Scott and made him LITERALLY phone his performance in. You want substance in a Tom Hardy performance? Watch Tinker,Tailor,Soldier,Spy, in the 5 minutes he's in the film he put in more work than he did in Locke.

I don't consider myself to be in the majority of people hating this film, it obviously got a 91% on RT which says that most of the people watching that movie lapped up the pretentious arthouse garbage minimalism and OOED AND AAAHED at Tom Hardy looking angrily in a rear view mirror for 90 minutes while talking on the phone, as are the people on this board mad that someone would have the NERVE to say something bad about this movie. You want to throw RT aggregates out like they matter? Avengers Age of Ultron has a higher aggregate score than some of the Marvel films that are debatably better...why? Joss Whedon is a God to hipster arthouse mouthbreathers. Spy got a 93%...why? Because no one wants to call Melissa McCarthy a fat untalented slob and Paul Feig a moron who will make 10 films of the same joke but people will love it cuz "muh feminism."

TL;DR Just because someone doesn't like the same movies you like doesn't mean you can bawww on about how your opinions somehow matter more than theirs.

[deleted]

People like that annoy me as well. They don't want the IMDb ratings to stand for what they are meant to stand for - an aggregation of the feelings of everyone who watched the movie - they want it to reflect their own personal views. So, it doesn't matter that this movie was was a 5 in their opinion - the average is higher than that so they have to vote much lower in order to best bring the average down.

Thankfully, IMDb is aware of these petty people and has procedures built into the algorithms to make their vote have less of an impact on the final ratings.

I usually rate the movies "1" to put it in my future watch list. After I finish watching them, I rate them properly.

As I say, messing with people's heads can be a lot of fun. You should try it.
- O.W. GRANT

I don't think this movie deserves a 1, but personally have only two different types of ratings I give to movies on imdb- 1's & 10's. Anything else I do not bother to rate, a mediocre film get's nothing. I figure if a movie is bad enough that I either cannot finish it or it has a terrible composition or message then I feel obliged to rate it a 1. If a movie is stellar in every way and truly draws me into its cinematic universe then I give it a 10. For me, that's it, either Bad or Good. Anything else doesn't stay on the radar. I think that 'Locke' was decent, but too inconsistent to be worth giving it a rating.. but I could see how some people have the inclination to rate this movie in either extreme...

but honestly if you want to watch a really good claustrophobic drama try the more recent 'Room'
or even 'Buried' starring Deadpool, that has a much better ending..

*****also your analogy of "a prepubescent pissing all over the wall high as a pineapple floating..." reminds me of the cherubs presenting their genitals to the protagonaist in the film 'Symbol'

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1410261/

(which I give a 10, incidentally)

Am I certain these superhero fanboys (that clogs up IMDB rating) rate these brainless superhero/action films 10/10 and anything they dislike 1/10 - they are worse than these Call of Duty "haters" recently

I completely agree with your statement. It is an IMDB problem in general to vote down films, even when not seen at all. Best - or worst - and certainly best remembered example for this was the Michael Jackson film 'This is it'. Meant to be for fans it ran in cinemas for a week. After several days, the movie still on show, it scored thousands of '1' scores. These people did not go to a cinema for a person they did not like, they simply marked it at '1'. As this did not happen in the old times of IMDB, late 90s, it is hardly surprising that the 500 lists pretty much stay in shape as they were. Would they start over today for a new list, hell would break lose.

Thought Locke was one of the most powerful films I ever saw by the way.