I'm just curious why in the world anyone would do such a thing. Is this on the level with Manos, Hands of Fate or Plan 9 From Outer Space ? No, I think this is more along the lines of Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and The Seven Samurai.
shareIf you look at the user ratings it tells you exactly who would rate this a one. Females under the age of 18. Hmmmm... And what is wrong with Plan 9 From Outer Space!
share[deleted]
[deleted]
A bit off topic, but I see that at least five messages in this thread (one above, four below) have been "deleted"/sanitized/censored (please choose one) by an anonymous administrator.
This may have very well been a good thing. Maybe they were all offensive and seditious enough to lead to the overthrow of the American Constitution, but we'll never know.
IMDB wants to keep these discussions clean, and I have to confess there are times when I feel that’s okay with me. But it also deletes a word that 64 percent of Americans admit they use ( http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/28/profanity.ap/index.html ) . Here, let me show you: Here are four words:
Fornication
Under
Cardinal
Knowledge
The first letters of those words spell out *beep*
I didn't bleep that out, IMDB did automatically.
Deleting a word that two-thirds of Americans elect to use seems a little undemocratic, doesn't it? So if they are pulling that out, why were the above comments removed? (No, I didn't write any of them, I just happened to notice them, and they seemed like a lot to delete.)
I'd like to ask IMDB to give at least a brief explanation of why comments are deleted ("because of TK") and an email where the person who did it can be reached for further questions. I'm not saying offensive comments shouldn't be removed, I'd just like a little explanation and accountability when they are.
Okay, back to our regularly scheduled comments....
(P.S. I rated this a 10)
[deleted]
your analogy about drivers doesnt fit this context. Secondly, if you disregard someones ideas based soley on the use of a single word, i suggest there are probably a great many people that would disregard yours based on your pretencious elitest attitude alone. Enjoy that, it goes both ways.
Now, if you're disregarding someones ideas, because that person is "trolling," flinging infalmitory statements without reason, or even if they're just making outrageous claims without any evidence, this is a differnt story entirly.
However if this isnt the case, I'm sure you'll find that for every one person that discards someones ideas soly based on THAT word, you'll find someone disregarding yours for YOUR attitude. Least thats the way I've always seen it. And yes, I love this movie.
[deleted]
The U.S. Constitution protects individual rights by limiting the powers of the government. The prohibitions regarding limits to free speech are placed on governmental bodies or entities acting on behalf of or in the employ of the government of the United States or its individual States. Since IMDB seems to be based in the United Kingdom and does not seem to be acting on behalf of, or under any charter from, any government they would be exempt from the 1st Amendment issues placing curbs upon languages it deems unsavory.
Who ever said IMDB was a democracy? It's a source of information on films and the people who make films and provides a forum for what is hoped to be civilized discussion of film & people who make film... and for those people to express their opinion of same in a civil manner.
Sure, you can say what you want in any way you want but people who run boards are under no obligation to carry every curse word or offensive tripe you care to type. They have the right to censor their own boards... as it belongs to them... not you... not me... not any of the other contributors (trolls and non-trolls).
I hope this helps.
Well this film does polarize people. They either love it or hate it. There are few in-betweens. It usually stands better on second or third viewings too, since it is so subtle.
shareStupid people.
shareIdiots, yet interestingly 38 of the 'top 1000' voters, whoever it is that that group comprises.
shareHa, that is funny that 38 of the "top 1000" voters would give this film such an absurd rating. I could see why some people would dislike this film, but to hate it and give it a 1. I've never given any movie a 1, a few 3s and 4s but never a 1. Even if you don't like b/w French subtitled films and didn't understand or enjoy the story, the technical merits alone make it hard to give it less than a 6. I guess having a clue or good taste are not requirements for being a "top 1000" voter.
shareDoes anyone know what the requirements for being a "top 1000" voter are? I think it is a good idea to have a group of "top 1000" voters, but without knowing why these people were chosen, the category has little meaning.
sharethat to be a Top 1000 voter, these 1000 people have cast more votes for movies than anyone else on the site. All it means is these people cast a lot of votes. Nothing more. This "rating" doesn't mean these people have taste, and, as is the case, we can see that at least 38 of them do not. Who knows, they might be Biker Boyz fans and that's why "they don't get movies like this one" (quotation marks for mere effect).
shareIf the top 1000 voters are just that, they probably spend more time voting on IMDb.com that watching actual movies (I don't know if that would include TV shows). Do the Top 1000 voters even know that they are part of this group? It takes very little time or effort to vote on a film or TV show, as opposed to writing reviews for them. Perhaps IMDb.com could include in their statistics the top 1000 reviewers. These are the people who have probably watched a film more than once (or at least scanned through their DVD/VHS tape after watching) in order to write a review. To vote, one could go through any list and just assign numbers without ever viewing the film.
shareThis comment is full of contradictions.
You decide that the top 1000 voters "probably spend more time voting on IMDb.com that watching actual movies" - So don't deserve any accolade.
But you think the top 1000 reviewers are better. When you yourself say that reviewing a film takes considerable more time than rating it. So obviously any top 1000 reviewer would spend EVEN MORE time on IMDb - instead of actually watching the films.
What point are you actually trying to make?
Either way - I assume the top voters are those that bother to individually rate every episode of TV series. Which is fair enough - but not exactly relevant to their taste in films.
[deleted]
I would concur. I find it positively alarming that all three of those movies are among the top 10 all time according to IMDb users. Everyone can have their own taste, but I think there needs to be some sort of perspective placed on this, lest we forget that Titanic was in the top 5 a few years back.
For that matter, I reserve a vote of 1 for the most truly vile things inflicted upon mankind. Battlefield Earth and Plan 9 from Outer Space aren't worthy of a 1, because I at least looked on with a humored horror. It's when films are overwrought with pretentiousness that I think it's truly necessary.
Having said that, there's more than a few best picture nominees throughout history that I feel earned a 1 or a 2 for their profound lack of subtlety. Though I wasn't nearly as blown away with this movie as I expected to be, I still couldn't see giving it less than an 8.
I agree with most of what you say, Mr. Kearns, although I believe Plan 9 and Battlefield Earth are truly deserving of 1 ratings. Taken as films in and of themselves, without consideration to the personalities behind them (Ed Wood and John Travolta), these are very bad movies!
I'm hoping the "Top 1000" group is just an artifact of when IMDB first started, when there were not that many people using the site. With the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people voting on the site now, one would have to watch 5-10 movies a day to be a Top 1000 voter. The only people I can think of who have that kind of time are professional movie reviewers and people who have not actually watched the films on which they are voting. I too was not blown away by ROTG, but to give it a 1 says more about the person casting the vote than the movie itself.
i loved lotr i would give it a 10/10 for the whole epic, for rolg i would give it a 9/10. so i sorry to digress...
sharePersonally i do not see how any one can give almost ALMOST any film a one. because i can say this even really bad movies i find something that i like. Like ID4(independence day) was bad and i know it is but its got great visaul effects and cool battles.
I guess only ignorant people can give this film a one but im only 16 so what do i know.
http://theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top100films.htm
number three film of all time
Show me Potato Salad!
Practically every film on this site has at least a few "one" ratings. From "Lord of the Rings" to "Pickpocket" to "The Passion of Joan of Arc." Of course some people who give extremely low votes are fanboys who have some sort of grudge against a film/director/actor or whatnot (especially when you get to films on the Top 250,) but everyone has a different rating scale. Some people only give one or two "10" votes, others give that to almost every film they like, and those same people may give "1" votes to every film that they didn't enjoy. I personally have a hard time giving a "1" to any film that has any sort of artistic value what so ever, even if I didn't enjoy the film. There are many "great" films I didn't much enjoy, such as "The Searchers" and "His Girl Friday," but I wouldn't ever give them a "1," just because I recognize that the influence such films have had and the good acting, directing or whatnot. If I didn't enjoy "Citizen Kane" (which I do) I wouldn't give it a "10," even if it is an incredibly well-made film. At the same time I would never give it a "1," since, even if it didn't "captivate me," it's impossible to deny its' influence on cinema. I think some people don't really look at the "artistry" of a film and just rate it on how much it entertained them. Which may or may not be a bad thing. Not everyone is obligated to like every single classic out there.
Of the 300 or so movies I've voted for I've given about thirty "10" votes and only two "1" votes, for "Baby Geniuses" and "Space Mutiny." Which, in my opinion, were terribly boring and had pretty much no artistic merit.
I really liked "The Rules of the Game," though it's not one of my favorites. I gave it an "8" vote.
Note: The above comments are exclusively my opinion.
---Respect---
This has come up in other films and there are NUMEROUS people who proudly admit they rate everything 1 or 10. Which rather misses the point, and also ruins the rating algorithm since IMDB /seems/ unaware of this and to not do anything to discount the votes of these jerks.
sharehi. i am a top 1000 voter. i have been a member of the site since 1997. i am a voracious reader and cinema-goer. i have two master's degrees and work full-time. i still make time in my week to knock down at least 5 films. on good weeks, i see ~7-12. i wish it were more. for three years i have been marathon training, too, so get all the images out of your head i suspect might be there!
i'm 32 and married. i have voted for something like 4000 films on this site. i gave ROTG a 9. i saw it 14 years ago on a criterion laser disc and it seems i saw it last week.
i'm afraid knowledge of cinema and tolerance for forms other than the forms you place first in your heart do not count toward membership in the 1000. it is simply number of votes. i vote for every movie i see without fail. once i determined by looking at the "my movies" feature that i have given a 10 top only 2.5% of the films i have voted for. i can't stand voters who vote 10 or 1 and nothing in between. the vast majority of my votes are 6s and 7s, which signify to me "average" and "slightly above average."
i can't think of any 1s i have tossed out - i tend to enjoy very bad films quite a lot. i've been kicking around an idea for writing a book about coleman francis for about five years.
anyway, that's me. don't hold us all in contempt.
"Rampart: Squad 51."
sorry about the random coleman francis statement. i re-read my post and that was a little strange. but i love crap films so much i want to write a biography of the man who made ed wood look good.
speaking of ed wood, i think GLEN OR GLENDA? is an unintentional masterpiece. absolutely amazing. PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE bores me to tears. i have never been able to sit through it in one go. it's like watching paint dry. but it's nowhere near a one.
"Rampart: Squad 51."
I believe that Ed Wood's outragous movies like "Plan 9 from Outer Space" or "Glen or Glenda?" or "Bride of the Monster" have all become "classics" by now. They are so hilarious to watch that they can almost compete with some really good comedies. So because of it, I would never rate these movies a 1, but rather a 7 (because of the laugh factor).
sharein that case you need to go back to school and get a master's in math...bcus out of 10, 5 is average not 6 or 7...looks like u gotta go thru 4000 films and re-rate them otherwise u r a LIAR!
shareMaybe people who love rabbits.
share