Only 7.1 ?!? Why such a low rating ?!?

[fgadmin]

pfgpowell-1 — 14 years ago(April 01, 2012 12:32 PM)

Because at the end of the day this is a certain kind of fictional rubbish

[fgadmin]

Gus-69 — 16 years ago(April 16, 2009 07:46 AM)

Some people consider it boring, historically inaccurate and not as emotionally compelling as other Spielberg flicks.
I rated it 7/10, but it could go up to an 8/10.

---

Cinephile Empire:
http://imperiocinefilo2.blogspot.com/

[fgadmin]

jewell0990 — 15 years ago(August 08, 2010 09:34 PM)

Not as emotionally compelling to skinheads and racists and trash, I see.

[fgadmin]

Marx_Bros_Fan86 — 15 years ago(January 12, 2011 04:23 PM)

I'll tell you why: Matthew McConaughey. You have Djimon Honsou as a slave, Morgan Freeman as a free black man, and Anthony Hopkins as a former president, and the main character is Matthew McConaughey??? How boring.
The Indians are coming! Quick, put your scalp in your pocket! -Groucho Marx

[fgadmin]

herbsuperb — 15 years ago(February 02, 2011 06:48 AM)

This is actually one of only two movies I really like Matthew McConaughey in. The other being A Time to Kill. I think he plays a good attorney. Hopkins as usual steals the show though.

[fgadmin]

Marx_Bros_Fan86 — 14 years ago(February 19, 2012 02:07 PM)

Oh wow, I'm sorry I missed your response! It's been a year lol. My point really wasn't that Matthew McConaughey the actor was bad, but that of all the characters in the film, he's really the least interesting. All of the other characters had more compelling stories than McConaughey.
The Indians are coming! Quick, put your scalp in your pocket! -Groucho Marx

[fgadmin]

construct — 14 years ago(February 04, 2012 05:21 PM)

I personally think the rating is about right. I, myself, gave the movie a 7. It is a very good, high-budget film that hit the marks for mass appeal. But it is still a very easy movie. It reenforces generally held views about the evils of slavery much like
Schindler's List
reenforced generally held views about the Holocaust. Apart from the particulars of the story itself, it didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know, and it told it in a pretty strident tone as though I didn't already know it.
Edited to add: I just checked my rating for
Schindler's List
. I rated it 10. That was no doubt solely because both Schindler and Goeth were presented as fairly complicated characters with significant moral contradictions. Perhaps I rated
Schindler's List
one point too high.

[fgadmin]

The-Road-Warrior — 13 years ago(August 18, 2012 12:32 AM)

Because it's pretty damn average and has nothing to make it stand out in a sea of historical dramas.
And yes, it's also rather boring.
And all of a sudden nobody can think of anything to say

[fgadmin]

Zuider_Zee — 13 years ago(September 27, 2012 11:29 AM)

It is historically inaccurate; another piece of Spielberg schmaltz. A rating of five would do it justice.

[fgadmin]

cj71378 — 13 years ago(September 27, 2012 07:44 PM)

Some of my favorite movies are historically inaccurate. Not much evidence that Salieri hated Mozart other than a few rumors 200 years ago (all actual historical evidence indicates otherwise), but 'Amadeus' is a nearly perfect film in my eyes.
For the record, I thought 'Amistad' was very well done and quite underrated.