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
-
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). -
DFC-2 — 14 years ago(February 07, 2012 02:42 PM)
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.
Funny, I don't see either film anywhere on the IMDb 250 list, much less as one and two. You would think that if the general audience you despise loved those films as much as you thought, their collective voice would make a showing. All I do see is someone with an inflated self image who despises the lower orders he is forced to endure on the same planet.
Tell us why you like Lon so much, rather than arguing the inherent good of aggregate ratings.
Here you go:
http://www.imdb.com/board/10110413/board/thread/2406531
The point of my original post was this:
What you claimed and what i jumped on was that the film was overrated, which is a childish and ridiculous statement. The rating is what it is.
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.
I would agree with you if we were talking science. The idea of the wisdom of crowds was precisely different experts from different fields analyzing the same problem from different perspectives.
However, the appreciation of art, (especially for a complex entertainment art form like film with input from so many different kinds of artists) is not a science and cannot be tested as a science. It is impossible to have an expert judgment, just an educated palate that is as likely to enjoy asian martial arts films as Jean Luc Godard or to fully despise both. Many despise
Apocalypse Now
. Only ignorance and arrogance combined with a complete lack of humility and perspective assumes otherwise. That is why I, politely, gave you the long-winded option 3.
It wouldn't have mattered what forum for any film I had read such a claim, even if I hated the film. The rating is simply what it is. It is not over or under or in between. Of course, I have no problem with you parsing your personal rating with some system to which you ascribe great logic. I might not like it, but it would not be overrated or underrated, it would simply be the rating you gave it. -
d-adrian-williams — 11 years ago(February 15, 2015 05:44 PM)
well jasmith90s i agree with the rating in fact i give it a 9, it has action it has emotion and those two dont come hand in hand and the story was original, never seen a film like this since or probably never will, ive seen loads of films that make me say thats trying to be die hard, or thats trying to be this or that, you cant say that with this, its original and when people rate it highly its because they regard it highly as do i, and your point about EXPERT opinions, movies came BEFORE movie critics, remember that if i didnt watch any movie a critic panned then there are certain movies i would never have got to enjoy, critics are human they are us, just because someone went to film critic school all that means is they can tell you what panoramic shots are or baboozle you with idiotic words that make themselves feel important, when u watch a film be human dont be a robot.
-
dylank381 — 14 years ago(February 25, 2012 12:44 PM)
My thoughts exactly. I liked the movie but it's nowhere near some of those you listed. The rating and the acclaim made me think it was going to be amazing and i was more than a little disappointed
"This is a $4000 sofa upholstered in Italian silk. Its not just a couch"
"ITS JUST A COUCH!" -
externaltestaccount — 13 years ago(February 27, 2013 06:59 AM)
For me, this movie is on a par with most of what you listed. But that is personal bias. For example I think Taxi Driver is overrated, but I think Citizen Kane is not.
And just so you know, this is so much better than the cheese melt that is Saving Private Ryan - now THAT is an overrated movie! -
d-adrian-williams — 11 years ago(February 15, 2015 05:37 PM)
saying a movie doesnt deserve the score because other films you like better have lower scores is ridiculous, just because YOU rate a film higher doesnt give you the right to say 30,000 others are wrong, it just means maybe a few of those people didnt agree, thats just the way it works, ive seen movies above die hard, terminator 2, which i rate highly, but the status of a movies score isnt dependeant on what I alone think, get it dude?
-
jonathan-m-stone — 10 years ago(May 15, 2015 02:24 PM)
In my youth I thought Apocalypse Now was great. Not any more. Some great scenes, but ultimately pretentious (especially any elongated version).
Leon is the better film IMHO.
But everyone is entitled to their opinion. -
dreaminginthemidnighthou — 14 years ago(February 09, 2012 10:44 PM)
Blueeyes13 I totally agree with you!
I watched this movie and wasted 110 minutes of my life! It was predictable, the plot was so soft that I saw everything coming, which is always boring in a movie. The thugs weren't believable at all. Surely other people should realise it just isn't a cult classic, a Pulp Fiction, a Fight Club, a Natural Born Killers, a Twelve Monkeys,or anything near the class of any of these films. Just because it is French does not automatically make it subtle, briliant, arthouse, and a classic. It just doesn't rate, my god it was so weak that the video staff member agreed with me and gave me a voucher for another movie.
I just don't want to waste anymore time rating it. Please don't see it, it's as weak as a wet dish cloth! -
DFC-2 — 14 years ago(February 10, 2012 03:16 AM)
Note: dreaminginthemidnighthou deleted the second copy of his post but the contents were identical to the one above it
Surely other people should realise it just isn't a cult classic, a Pulp Fiction, a Fight Club, a Natural Born Killers, a Twelve Monkeys,or anything near the class of any of these films.
Don't give up! 3% of IMDb viewers dislike this film (rating it 5 out of 10 or lower).
Of course, 16.5% dislike
Natural Born Killers
, 5.9% dislike
Twelve Monkeys
, 5.8% dislike
Pulp Fiction
, and 4.8% dislike
Fight Club
, but there are people like you for every film. The small percentage of low ratings have everything to do with what this small minority is able to see, and nothing to do with the quality of this or these other films. What makes you special is that you and a very few others have such a high opinion of yourselves that you feel a need to crow about it in the forum for the film you dislike (not once but twice
). -
ickarumba — 14 years ago(February 11, 2012 12:07 AM)
The soundtrack was so bad
Really? Are you serious?
Eric Serra's soundtrack for the movie is absolutely beautiful.
Take a listen:
The soundtrack is one of the reasons the movie is so great. The scenes fit the music and vice versa.
"Ballad for Mathilda" is used when the audience is introduced to Mathilda for the first time (when she is sitting on the edge of the floor). The scene is tranquil with a hint of innocence, which the audience welcomes after the massacre of Fatman's goons.