How did this get an 8.6? That really just baffles me. What is it that you guys think was so great about this movie? I di
-
nzxt — 14 years ago(December 27, 2011 03:19 AM)
I have had never watched "Leon" before but being aware of it's cult status, I watched it yesterday.
Well, it's surely over the top like "Pulp Fiction" and other sexual-violent rampages of the 90's.
The fact that Leon and Mathilda just live next door to the grocery store was plain laughable to me.
She surely took a long time fetching some milk as in the meantime her family was killed off.
I felt most badly for the cops characters being entrapped under a corrupt law and jurisdiction order. -
DFC-2 — 14 years ago(December 27, 2011 05:54 AM)
The fact that Leon and Mathilda just live next door to the grocery store was plain laughable to me.
She surely took a long time fetching some milk as in the meantime her family was killed off.
Picking up his milk was what she offered, but not all that she had to do. She also picked up laundry (the sealed paper bag under one arm) and other groceries for her family.
Immediately after Leon talked with her, Leon entered his apartment and checked the clock, showing that it was almost noon. Stansfield's attack happened very quickly in real time immediately after that.
Also, the only people killed at the end were from Stansfield's assassination units (those giving no warning before firing to kill). His last tier of these goons went up the stairway behind Benny when Stansfield said "EVERYONE!" and they were the last ones killed.
When the police swat team got involved, they had different gear and used a flash grenade and tear gas. None of them died. -
CCRider01 — 13 years ago(May 09, 2012 03:55 PM)
"I lived next door to a little store once. That must make me a comedian, living in a laughable place"
Yeah me too, living next to a grocery store is not exactly uncommon, and certainly not something to nitpick a film over LOL. Leon is a great movie because of the unique characters and storyline and top notch acting, all of which were executed extremely well. In today's over hyped cultural environment of endless remakes and little creativity, Leon is a breath of fresh air. -
d-adrian-williams — 11 years ago(February 15, 2015 05:31 PM)
over the top?, what was over the top, have you seen ANY arnold swarzenegger movie? whats over the top about a htiman just trying to keep himself to himself stumbling across a drug related murder?, if at that time he'd pulled out a rocket launcher id agree but nothing unbelievable happens, what the hell are you talking about?
-
!!!deleted!!! (8778465) — 10 years ago(December 01, 2015 04:39 AM)
? I can name off the top of my head at least a dozen local businesses, including several grocery stores, with adjacent or are otherwise 'next door' to residential homes or apartments where people.. live. No idea what you're talking about.
-
vFiguraTi — 14 years ago(February 07, 2012 07:39 AM)
i thought the soundtrack was amazing and to this day, i still think this is portman's best acting performance. some of oldman's acting was a little cheesy, but it wasnt really bad enough to ruin the movie.
-
jasmith909 — 14 years ago(February 07, 2012 08:36 AM)
I think IMDb's rating ramped up your expectations. If you hadn't gone into it thinking you were about to see one of the greatest movies of all time, you probably wouldn't have been disappointed.
With that being said, I do agree that IMDb's rating is far too high. Don't get me wrong, I think Lon a good film, but it shouldn't have gotten an 8.6, IMO. I mean, it's rated higher than Apocalypse Now on IMDb's top 250. Better than Apocalypse Now? Give me a break. It was a cute movie, but it's not even in the same stratosphere as films like Apocalypse Now, Dr. Strangelove, Memento, Citizen Kane, American History X, Saving Private Ryan, Taxi Driver, Vertigo, The Shining, Paths of Glory, A Clockwork Orange, etc.. (all of which are rated below Lon on IMDb).
So, in sum, if you went into this movie expecting Apocalypse Now, or A Clockwork Orange, of course you're going to be disappointed. But overall, it's not bad. Just immensely overrated on this site. -
DFC-2 — 14 years ago(February 07, 2012 08:54 AM)
Just to be clear, the rating being based on input from nearly 300,000 people just like you, how is the accurate reporting an
over
rating? Is is because:- your vote should count more than others?
- you prefer sites with much fewer votes cast from specialized sources?
- you believe that rating films is an objective evaluation of inarguably weighted specific facets rather than a necessarily subjective evaluation of dozens of potential facets of appreciation?
If you choose number 3, please give the precise universal weighting of each facet of film appreciation.
There are many films I prefer to this one as well (check my profile) but I have no problem understanding that others could legitimately disagree with me often enough to take many of my favorites out of the IMDb 250.
Ultimately, isn't reaching a large audience with a multi-layered work that also entertains the harder and more-praiseworthy accomplishment than pleasing relatively few with characteristics that only appeal to them?
-
CCRider01 — 13 years ago(May 09, 2012 04:17 PM)
"As expected [
] . So the only actual objective overrating that is going on is your personal opinion of being worth more than others"
Exactly, there is no such thing as "overrated" when it comes to subjective matters such as film making. It is what it is, neither right or wrong, an IMDB rating is merely an overall or average score that reflects the opinions of a large group of people. Keep in mind that IMDB also uses "weighted average" to tabulate a films rating by implementing filters, the purpose being to minimize "ballot stuffing" and other shenanigans
Overrated (IMDB Definition):
When a viewer disagrees with the overall rating of a film and believes their own opinion to be more important and valid.
See: delusions of grandeur, narcissism -
jasmith909 — 14 years ago(February 07, 2012 09:44 AM)
And, just to be clear, I understand how IMDb ratings work. Perhaps you don't understand that these threads are for debating the merits of, and/or commenting on films? If you like aggregate ratings, that's fine, but in my opinion, stupid people ruin democracies. Art vs. entertainment.
So, you're perfectly within your rights to dislike my opinion, but that's all it is; an opinion.
Tell us why you like Lon so much, rather than arguing the inherent good of aggregate ratings.
As for reaching a larger audience; if that were the only standard by which movies were critiqued, Avatar and Transformers would be #1 and #2 respectively. But, the fact of the matter is, the vast majority of the population does not belong to IMDb (thank god), or else these ratings would be far more skewed than they already are (if that's a good thing in your mind, you're entitled to your opinion, once again).
But, I think one of the major problems with modern society is that most people seem to be more than willing to disregard expert opinion in favor of consensus. And not only will they disregard expert opinion, but they'll mock it as if someone who dedicated their lives to a particular profession is no more qualified to speak on the subject than they are. That's a slippery slope, IMO.
We can be relativistic about it, but I'd much rather read an expert opinion than an uninformed one. Go ahead and call me a hypocrite (being that I'm not an expert myself, and am voicing my own opinions on IMDb), but then again, I'd be the first one to direct someone to the AFI rankings, before IMDb's (that's not to say AFI's rankings are the end-all, be-all. But they are much more coherent than IMDb's).
Anyone can critique the operation of the Large Hadron Collider, for example, but if they're not physicists, their opinions won't carry nearly as much weight as a physicist's. See what I'm getting at? And yes, I understand art is subjective, whereas physics is (mostly) not, but there is a big difference between "informed" and "uninformed". And no, I don't always agree with the experts either, but I can respect their opinions (which is not always the case with consensus).
The point of my original post was this: if you go by IMDb's rankings, you might be disappointed. And that's what I observed in this particular case. Perhaps, I'm wrong, but that's the impression I got. Had the original poster watched Lon without any expectations, he/she might not have been so disappointed. That's all I was trying to say. I wasn't trying to bash the film. I was just pointing out the inconsistencies in this rating system (which is inherently flawed, given its simple format. For example, I wanted to rate Lon a 7.1, but had to settle on a 7, due to the lack of decimal points not very precise).