Why is the movie so underrated on IMDB?
-
nicksaviking44 — 17 years ago(February 01, 2009 10:54 PM)
By reading the majority of the posts on the "Terms of Endearment" board, I would say most of the posters are men. Let me repeat that; most of the posters on the Terms of Endearment board are men.
If most of the posters on chick flick boards are men, it should be assumed that for the most part most of the movie raters are men and we generally don't care for chick flicks.
That being said this was a very well made movie with terrific dialogue and acting. Too often when the Acadamy Award's best picture goes to a chick flick drama (Shakespeare in Love, The English Patient) the movie does not stand the test of time, but this one truely was the best picture of 1983. -
kimgamson — 17 years ago(March 06, 2009 11:53 AM)
I completely agree, it's simply one of the best films of all time and was nominated for several Oscars and should be in the top of the IMDB countdown. I never get tired of this movie and the chemistry and scting between all the characters is simply brilliant! Come on all you "Terms Of Endearment" Lovers, let's take this to the top where it belongs!
-
calmand2001 — 17 years ago(March 09, 2009 11:20 AM)
I'm a man who likes the usual action, horror, and thrillaramas just as much as the rest of them, but T.O.E. is, flat-out, THE chick flick of our generation (I'm 33). I've seen it probably a hundred times, and actually, I quit watching chick flicks around 2000, because I've seen enough to know that everything fails when matched up to the perfection that Brooks gives us.
The more you see it, the more you understand how it is the quintessential blueprint for this type of film. Every last detail means something on an enormous scale, and there are so many layers of this film, I've really only found a few things that I even question about how this movie unfolded.
And the main one is, (drum roll), I think the transition from Emma & Flap being newlyweds into the whole tie argument scene is a little awkward and almost forced. However, it is a long film.
But that's really all. -
Movester — 17 years ago(March 22, 2009 06:53 AM)
Me: male who likes action and loves this film. Following lyrics tell the tale:
I do remember one thing.
It took hours and hours but..
by the time I was done with it,
I was so involved, I didn't know what to think.
I carried it around with me for days and days..
playing little games
like not looking at it for a whole day
and then.. looking at it.
to see if I still liked it.
I did.
[]
The more I look at it,
the more I like it.
I do think it's good.
The fact is..
no matter how closely I study it,
no matter how I take it apart,
no matter how I break it down,
It remains consistent.
I wish you were here to see it.
I like it.
(King Crimson: Indiscipline) -
bstar56 — 16 years ago(July 19, 2009 05:31 AM)
Imdb ratings are, more than anything, a reflection of how much enjoyment and entertainment people get from a movie. It's really that plain and simple, nothing else. And the bottom line is that people don't find sitting through this movie as entertaining as they do one that is rated higher. There's nothing more to it. In my opinion, it's hard to say a movie is 'underrated' or 'overrated' on here. There are so many people voting that it actually is a pretty true reflection of the average enjoyment people get out of a movie; you can tell by some of the comments on this thread that a lot of people, probably more than in 1983, consider it a little sappy and overly sentimental. So that will bring the rating of it downbecause it doesn't as universally appeal to everyone as much a movie rated higher than this.
-
GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 — 12 years ago(July 03, 2013 09:25 PM)
I think this movie is more unknown than underrated. Only 27,000 people voted on it. Where as other oscar winners are rated higher and get a lot more votes. If you look at Shawshank there's over 900,000 votes on it and only 27,000 here. Then again there's a lot more votes on lots of other movies so I'm guessing a lot of people on imdb just haven't seen this or it would get more votes. I looked up the past of the imdb top 250 and apparently even before the TDK wars (people voting other films a 1 to put Dark Knight at the top) this wasn't even in the top 250 then. It's a shame.
"You want me to roll 6,000 of these!? What? Should I quit my job!?" George Seinfeld -
TheBoz — 12 years ago(December 06, 2013 01:43 PM)
Because its a pastiche of scenes that come to together to present nothing!!! I love quiet people films like Stanley and Iris, or Franky and Johnny, the Pacino/Pfieffer version, and Tortilla Soup.
But this movie was nothing but a bunch of actors scurrying around like around when the studio lights came on. Aurora is always pregnant and Emma calling night and day, talk to Flap, talk to Aurora it or to into it. One repetitive scene after another. They move here then move there, he is always late to class blah deblah deblah. And in the end. Zilch to go away with at the end of the film. Ive never seen Shirley Mclaine in such an out of steam character. A waste. And Jack Nicholson???? An older fatter Randall P McMurphy with brain intact. Thats all he was with a touch of Witches of Eastwick in his swagger. -
KyrKyr — 12 years ago(December 27, 2013 07:47 AM)
It's the proof that most IMDb users don't appreciate such brilliant films which are touching perfection in every aspect and is a result of collaborative contribution of acting, directing, screenplay, music
I believe this film is totally underrated. For me is one of the most perfect films and none every managed to even touch it.
Watching so many years the rating in this site I observed that most people cant control their enthusiasm. That's why every new film is released is rated so high and soon you can watch it in top 250 without even deserving to be high rated from some others. People don't consider this. Some others films though get low rating before even get released because people are so prejudice about them. It's been a long time since I stopped being rely on IMDb's ratings.
Cause its international!!! -
Just_Alex — 12 years ago(December 31, 2013 10:42 AM)
I gave this a 6.
I like the story, it's a movie focused entirely on people and their lives.
I don't like the execution that much, however. The movie tends to feel unnatural, the drama is always stylized, Debra Winger is always on "Debra Winger mode" (too many mannerisms, unnecesary little screams here and there, her usual quirky character), Jack Nicholson is in "Jack Nicholson mode" (suave, smiling little devil trying to seduce women, with a touch of maniac), Shirley MacLaine is always in "Actor's studio mode".
Scene after scene of the three leads trying to upstage everybody, like I said, this is a stylized drama, too stylized for my taste. I don't see people, I see actors trying to be as dramatic as possible, even when it's not needed. Nothing subtle. Oddly enough, I think the most realistic performance here, was delivered by comedian John Lithgow.
I do think, however, that this is a good, adequate movie.
My ratings:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur5531916/ratings -
DeerockFLA — 10 years ago(February 10, 2016 02:06 PM)
Its because the best film ever is apparently The Shawshank Redemption, at least according to IMDB. I don't get it. When Shawshank came out, nobody even heard about it until it started coming on TV every weekend years later.
The Ayatollah of Rock n Rolla! -
drewsturner1943 — 10 years ago(February 19, 2016 09:37 AM)
It's underratedthey don't make movies like this anymore. All the good dramas are on television now anyway. The mindless rabble will only flock to explosions, shiny things, CGI and the like at the theater. Most wouldn't have the attention span to sit through TOE nor understand it's meaning.