A 8.2 rating really - The Best Years of Our Lives (1947) Discussion

[–] Gov_William_J_LePetomane 9 years ago

I saw it, and I give it a 6, which basically means I feel it's a good movie (5 or below is bad) but not much better than average, really. And it CERTAINLY doesn't deserve to be an 8 or an 8.2 or among the best movies of all time.

 HARUMPH!

reply

[–] HomerParrish 7 years ago

So, you're the one.

reply

[–] mxzt 9 years ago

I don't know if you noticed this but the US users compiled out of 14,882 votes gave this an average rating of a 8.4. And the the non US users compiled out of 13,320 votes gave this an average rating of 7.9.

Voters aged 18-44 gave an average rating of 8, that's from about 20,000 votes. Voters aged 45+ gave an average rating of an 8.5, that's from 9508 votes.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036868/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt

reply

[–] The_TJT 9 years ago

and nobody who ever saw it would give it less then a 10

Well I just saw it and gave it a 7. Good film but I've seen better.

If you wonder what was wrong with it, well nothing much but it's a matter of taste really.

Ok... it was too long, and so typical for its era, soapy with happy ending. I don't see what separates it from dozens of similar films in the 40s.
None of the characters really made a big impact on me. Homer Parrish story was the most different with his hooks, but somehow I kept thinking that his girlfriend was too good for him, even with hands. The girlfriend was just WAY too saintly with her attitude on the disability, as if it wouldn't matter in the slightest. Also, the whole character of Parrish was too calculated to draw sympathy for my taste.

Also, it was VERY predictable how everything came together in the end. I think three hours is a bit long if you know after first 30 minutes what's going to happen. It was very Hollywood-y and Americana.

I would say this film isn't quite top 250 material, although there are many worse in there so I don't have a problem with it. I admit it was pretty timely back when, but many films are.

The film was well made and formulaic, but what I really liked in it were Myrna Loy and Teresa Wright who did a good job and were easy on the eye, too.

reply

[–] hilaryjrp 9 years ago

I would say this film isn't quite top 250 material, although there are many worse in there so I don't have a problem with it. I admit it was pretty timely back when, but many films are.

It would be interesting to know your age or if you ever knew anyone who had served, been disabled, or died in military service.

reply

[–] The_TJT 9 years ago

It would be interesting to know your age or if you ever knew anyone who had served, been disabled, or died in military service.

If being of certain age and knowing someone who was disabled in war is a requirement to understand this film then it really isn't that good to begin with. It's not like you have to be an astronaut in order to be able to appreciate "2001: a space odyssey". This film isn't really nuclear physics, you know....

I'm of sufficient age and my grandfather (now dead) got wounded in WW2. I can appreciate the topic but I think they were overdoing it with both hands cut off and having a saint as a girlfriend who didn't mind at all. Ridiculous. And that was not the only story in the film btw.

I've seen a few films on the topic, off the top of my head... The Deer Hunter, Forrest Gump and Coming Home... imo all handle the topic better, except I didn't like the last one as much as a film despite the stellar cast (Jane Fonda, Jon Voight).

reply

[–] The_TJT 9 years ago

To put OP's question into context...

OP has given over 50% of the titles he/she rated a 10.
Hilaryjrp has given a 10 to 32% of titles.

That's absurd. Clearly they don't seem to understand the rating system at all.

http://www.garyshood.com/imdb/

reply

[–] Cairo-5 9 years ago

Perhaps what you don't understand is that they very clearly understand what they like. Maybe their inclination is not to conform to some self anointed "expert's" notion of how people should rate things, and not to rate every single movie they've ever watched, but to simply express their high regard for those movies that are especially meaningful to them.

You began by calling it a "matter of taste." Is your mind capable of grasping the fact that your opinions have no special merit and other people have entirely different tastes?

***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.

reply

[–] The_TJT 9 years ago

Perhaps what you don't understand is that they very clearly understand what they like.

Liking something doesn't mean it has to be a 10/10.

Maybe their inclination is not to conform to some self anointed "expert's" notion of how people should rate things, and not to rate every single movie they've ever watched, but to simply express their high regard for those movies that are especially meaningful to them.

Doesn't look that way since they have given other films small numbers...

I don't think either of them is vote manipulating per se, just putting into context the OP which claims that no one should give this film less than a 10... which I find utterly ridiculous.

Btw, why are you hiding your voting history?

You began by calling it a "matter of taste." Is your mind capable of grasping the fact that your opinions have no special merit and other people have entirely different tastes?

The fact that I called it matter of taste should tell you that I grasp that. Perhaps you should present this argument to the OP?

reply

[–] Cairo-5 9 years ago

Liking something doesn't mean it has to be a 10/10.

No, it could be something else depending on the person who is voting. But 10/10 is one of the many possibilities.

Doesn't look that way since they have given other films small numbers...

So if someone posts low numbers for some films what's the secret for knowing that this can't possibly be a situation where there are many other films that person hasn't voted on but would have given low numbers to if he/she had voted?

just putting into context the OP which claims that no one should give this film less than a 10... which I find utterly ridiculous.

Of course it's a silly statement. Hyperbole is inherently ridiculous.

Btw, why are you hiding your voting history?

What voting history? I don't vote on this board. I have no interest in these kind of rating systems. Maybe you should ask about things like this and get the facts straight before you make presumptions.

The fact that I called it matter of taste should tell you that I grasp that. Perhaps you should present this argument to the OP?

I would never think that no one who saw it, would ever give this movie less than a 10. Even a smidgen of experience with people in general should demonstrate that. However the OP in his enthusiasm didn't say anything that I felt a need to comment on. And neither did you until you started pontificating that other people don't seem to understand.

***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.

reply

[–] The_TJT 9 years ago

What voting history? I don't vote on this board. I have no interest in these kind of rating systems.

Yet we find you in a thread which marvels a rating for a film, in a site which is all about rating films. That doesn't make much sense to me.

And that imo also discredits one's board posts as well, as if they would want to hide their ratings for some reason. That's just my opinion though.

Also if everyone hid their votes then there wouldn't be point for cool IMDB rating comparison features, such as seeing correlation between your and mine ratings...
I often click a forum poster's (or film reviewer's) profile to see how their film taste compares to mine.

-

As for myself, I don't rate titles in order to influence rating for a film, I rate films for myself. If they at the same time influence the average then that is a bonus.
Note to Hilary: I can see that you're big fan of this film which is nice, my 7 actually means that I liked it and may watch it again...

My rating scheme goes roughly:

10 - All-time favourite (top 1%)
9 - Brilliant (top 5%)
8 - Great, may watch several times (top 20%)
7 - Good
6 - OK
5 - So-so, no need to watch again
4 - bad with some redeeming qualities
etc

For the films I've rated; IMDB average is 6,7 and my average is 6,5.

reply

[–] Cairo-5 9 years ago

I have no quarrel with your rating of this movie. Nor of your rating scheme, which I actually think is well thought out. I'm sure it works very well for you.

I would simply like for you to accept that other people are not deficient and their comments not discreditable if the way they participate and enjoy this board is different from what you prefer.

Otherwise it will continue to not "make much sense" to you.

***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.

reply

[–] hilaryjrp 9 years ago

"make much sense" to you.

This was a film that its producer--its very savvy producer--said he would have made if he didn't make a nickel profit. The Best Years of Our Lives is not an appeal to the heart through the intellect. It's an appeal to the intellect through the heart.

Our lengthy (and how!) discussions on "sentimentality" and generational differences in ability to "get" sentiment-- These discussions don't ever refer to the film making sense. With sincere respect to the commenter so steadfast in his/her "7": The Best Years of Our Lives should be regarded as music. Music doesn't--ever--make sense. If you don't like it, maybe you will find a film that affects you as deeply as this film affects many of us.

reply

[–] hilaryjrp 9 years ago

Cairo --

Thank you. Variables about ratings-systems make all ratings meaningless. I have *never* gone to the board of more than 1 or 2 films I hated--over the course of many years. I also don't waste time on boards of films I dislike or sm indifferent to.

reply

[–] Forlorn_Rage 8 years ago

I didn't care for Homer either. I always cringe everytime that scene with the guy at the sodashop comes up. I suppose we're supposed to sympathize with Homer and Fred when that guy starts talking about the "wrong" reasons we entered the war.

Even if Homer disagreed and was frustrated by him, there was no reason to strip off the guys American flag pin and physically threaten him. Homer even goes so far as to steal the pin after the guy is taken to the hospital when Fred savagely knocks him into the display case! Unbelievable. Whatever sympathies I might have had for either of these characters flew right out of the window after this horrid scene!

I agree with you about Wilma. Peggy was also too good for Fred (as much as I like Dana Andrews), but because these guys were veterans in a film centering around post-WWII, the movie portrays it as they were pretty much entitled to these girls' affections, despite how self-centered they were at times.

Look at what light Virginia Mayo's character is portrayed because she doesn't worship her poor veteran husband the way Wilma practically worships Homer. Wyler tried hard to skew my sympathies, but it didn't work. I liked Marie much, much more than I liked Homer or Fred. She was nasty at times, but then so were the younger men.

Thank goodness for film noir that counteracted these overly "patriotic" attitudes!

reply

[–] VValkyrie 8 years ago

Overly patriotic sounds like a good thing says the daughter of a WWII Vet, sister of a VietNam Vet & mother to a son headed for Bahrain.And, I like film noir.

reply

[–] Forlorn_Rage 8 years ago

Overly patriotic sounds like a good thing says the daughter of a WWII Vet, sister of a VietNam Vet & mother to a son headed for Bahrain.

... I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify what you meant?

And, I like film noir.

Good, so do I! For those that say this film is too syrupy and sentimental for them, film noir is they perfect counterpart for them!

reply

[–] HomerParrish 8 years ago

I gave it a 10, but 8.2 is very respectable. Even, excellent.

reply

[–] just1Hitch 8 years ago

Why give so much credence to a rating system where any fool is allowed to vote? I'd rather rely on those critics with whom I've often agreed in the past.

 Excuse me for talking while you're interrupting.

reply

[–] cultfilmfreaksdotcom 8 years ago

It should be "An" not "A 8.2" but as Nigel Tufnel says, that's nitpicking and you are right, it should be higher.

All Movie Reviews www.cultfilmfreaks.com

reply

[–] mwmtampa 7 years ago

This movie is in my top 5 all-time and at least a 9.

I agree that the ratings on IMDB are greatly skewed to favor more contemporary movies that the younger audience are partial to. And they are the primary voters, who for the most part dislike older/black and white movies.

That's why the overall movie ratings on IMDB are biased, and not an accurate depiction of their true ranking. The newer the movie the more points I deduct from the IMDB rating, and the older the movie the more points I add on.

reply

[–] hilaryjrp 7 years ago

There are some films it is obscene to even think of rating. "The Best Years of Our Lives" is an American Experience. Because the 1) young and callow; 2) young and cocky; and 3) young and ohhhh-are-you-gonna-learn, my friends, assign a number to this American Experience, I rated it a 10. To criticize this film is just not done.

It's just not done.

reply

[–] jdforyou1983 (1470) 2 years ago

I loved it myself

my rating 8.5/10

reply