A 1.2 rating? Really?


Pardon the vulgarity, but the AB-users who voted "1" (there are 188 of them out of 288 voters as of today) must've had a real hard-on for this movie. It obviously is not a prime example of a race-car subgenre, but it is entertaining. When I saw it as a teenager in 1960, the worst things about the movie, I thought, was the Eastman Color process, which seemed to emphasize the cheapness of the movie; also, some of the acting seemed amateurish because of the fact that some amateurs were used (like the kid that ate peanuts at the track). When I saw the movie on tv several years later, my opinion remained unshaken. I accepted the movie for what it was -- an action picture without arty complications.

I liked little racing pictures like JOHNNY DARK and this movie because neither aspired to be more than mere...well, racing pictures, although JOHNNY DARK stands head-and-shoulders above THUNDER IN CAROLINA as far as execution goes. I certainly enjoyed them a lot more than big budget pictures such as WINNING, or the two bloated pop features LE MANS and GRAND PRIX. Even the brief racing scenes in ON THE BEACH were more entertaining than those three movies.

If this movie had appeared on MST3K (and maybe it did and I just don't know about it), I could understand how that could mislead users into giving a very poor rating to the movie, although the users had only seen the episode of the edited movie, rather than the movie itself, as those users typically vote as though they had seen the movie rather than just the episode itself. I choose to believe, however, that the "users" who gave this movie a low rating did so in order to show how the voting can still be manipulated on imdb, although an effort was made within the past few years to clean up examples of ballot-box stuffing; after all, this site has users which have voted a routine movie (THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION) no. 1, which could be considered tantamount to voting it The Greatest Movie Of All Time. So, frankly, I don't give a big hairy about the 1.2 rating for THUNDER IN CAROLINA anymore, or the high marks the user-sheep have given SHAWSHANK, the 2 GODFATHER movies, THE DARK KNIGHT (!)...so, goodnight, Clarice.

reply

As far as rants go, yours is one of the more eloquent ones I've read. I'm a frequent voter, yet I give very few 10s and even fewer 1s, and it bothers me that these boards entice such knee-jerk reactions. Why am I not surprised that "Avatar," which opened this weekend, is now No. 21 on IMDb? Are there really only 20 films greater? Really?

Somehow, I think I'd like "Thunder in Carolina" more. Unfortunately, I haven't seen this film, but Connie Hines just died and it seemed like an appropriate time to revisit her career. So rest in peace, Carol Post, and keep fighting the good fight, crumpnose!

reply

Wow. Thanks for the kind words, sir.

(I saw AVATAR this past weekend, and it was obviously a crowd-pleaser. I guess I'm just getting too old and grumpy for movies like that, but I found much of it quite boring.)

reply

I suspect I'll see "Avatar" eventually, and I suspect I'll find it a pleasant diversion but not one worthy of the attention it's generating. I just caught "District 9," which was fun for about 20 minutes but got old fast. I see it's No. 98 on IMDb now. I think there had to be 97 films released this year alone that were better.

I wish there was a site for grown-ups to rate and discuss movies, because I feel out of place here.

reply

The more recent movies that are box office hits tend to rise to the top in accordance with their immediate popularity. It takes a while for them to settle into (a usually) lower position, sometimes as soon as a video release is available, or when cable or premium channels show it again and again and again.
I haven't seen DISTRICT 9 yet, but want to. If it disappoints me, I'll probably be harder on it than I would otherwise, unless my anticipation erodes significantly.

reply

I agree. This film doesn't deserve its 1.2 rating at all. I found this movie to be a solid and entertaining little B feature. Rory Calhoun was very good in the lead, with fine support from Alan Hale. Moreover, Connie Hines was quite the cutie, with simply amazing piercing blue eyes. Plus the race car footage was pretty exciting stuff.

"We're all part Shatner/And part James Dean/Part Warren Oates/And Steven McQueen"

reply

Watched this last night. Easily a 6, and I wouldn't have been surprised to see a 6-7 rating when checking it out here, but the 1.9 (as I write this) is ridiculously low. This may have been a low-budget, regional picture, but it's pro across the board. The people behind the camera knew how to tell a story and how to frame and edit sequences, and the people in front of it are a mix of pros and lesser-knowns who clearly took the whole enterprise seriously. I've certainly seen worse car racing movies from the same era.

reply