Ebert.
Just read Ebert's answer man column, wherein this movie is discussed. Congratulations on the publicity!
share[deleted]
It's also funny that Ebert's column says the movie was rated 8.8 and now it's down to 6.1
shareEbert pretty much nailed it. Also, notice that the first user comments (each raving about it, of course) on this film all appear to have been written by the same person. The user rating on this film (and many others on this site) is completely bogus. It was originally high because of the filmmaker's fraudulent votes and is now going down by people who haven't seen the movie retaliating. But they brought that on themselves.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
While I don't disagree that some tampering is entirely possible (and likely -- think of it from the POV of an unknown movie with no stars, trying to get attention in today's market), why would people need to "retaliate"? Is a small movie rated 8.0 on IMDb such a burden to folks? How about this -- did people give the movie a chance first before voting?! I got this from Netflix after I read the Ebert thing, and it's not an 8, but its also not a 1.
I also found good reviews for this movie (and bad ones) from professional places (like the Chicago Tribune, Boston Pheonix, do a google search)... did the filmmakers write THOSE? Is there so much hostility for people who got their movie out there from IMDb users?
Romius, I just noticed that you're one of only 2 users that posted comments on this film prior to yesterday. I likewise notice that your comments follow a strikingly similar format, writing style, and opinion as the other comment (by "tubthumper" or something like that) and both were prepared approximately 1 year ago. Strangely, your user history indicates that you have NEVER commented on any other movie in the history of this site (and "Tubthumper" has only commented on 1). I see that a new comment in support of the film appeared yesterday (1st time in a year)by a user, Terraphim, who ALSO has NEVER commented on any other film before. You likewise have several posts in this film's discussion threads yet have only posted in threads regarding only 1 other movie in this site's history. Terraphim has also chimed in with agreeing posts above, yet has never posted in any other thread regarding any other movie. Doesn't it seem a bit strange that supposedly objective observers would suddenly be so interested in an obscure indie film released over a year ago that recieved decidedly mixed reviews from a smattering of low to mid level critics, yet apparently have virtually no interest in commenting on any other movie from the history of cinema? Isn't it equally odd that the three users who meet this description are the same three that seem to share the same opinion in support of this film? You wouldn't happen to have some personal interest in this film, would you?
share[deleted]
So for my opinion to count I have to comment on other films? The fact is that anyone who defends the film you are going to think has intrest in the film. I like your little investigation though, it was cute.
I've never commented on any other films, so what? I've been checking up on the imdb page for this film since the Ebert mention. And I felt that the filmmakers were getting wrongly slammed by a bunch of people that have nothing better to do than troll message boards ripping apart work they haven't even seen because they're jealous of people that have actually produced something other than body odor.
[deleted]
You sound defensive, almost as if you're taking this personally. And no, Terraphim, that certainly does not invalidate your opinion, but it might call its objectivity somewhat into question. The fact is, if you look at nearly any other film on this site, you'll find that those posting favorable comments have usually shown interest in a wide array of different films. Yet, those posting favorable comments for this film have uniformly shown interest in just this obscure little film and no others. Perhaps this is just a statistical anomoly that means nothing, but it is extremely unusual and is circumstantial evidence that plainly seems to corroborate Ebert's suggestion that the filmmakers (or someone with a personal interest) have been misusing this site as a free promotional vehicle by posting phony votes and comments. And no, despite what you wanna believe, it has nothing to do with jealousy. Indeed, I think you'll find that many of the same users who've bashed this film have posted laudatory comments and votes toward many other more successful movies -- if this was actually based on jealousy,wouldn't they naturally harbor more resentment toward those wealthier more successful filmmakers? No, if there is user resentment toward these filmakers, it is not toward their "productivity" or success (has there even been much of that?), instead its toward the smarmy way in which it appears they may've manipulated this site and mislead its users based on purely personal motives. That is hardly a capital offense, and I'm sure other small-time filmmakers have done it as well -- they just were smart enough to cover their tracks a little better.
share[deleted]
I cannot tell you how happy I am that my board just turned into the single best investigation of fake reviews ever.
I'm exaggerating a tad, obvs. But still, I suspect that this is the same person posting in defense of the film (or two or three people who know each other and have some affiliation with the film).
[deleted]
Thank you for posting this, mrmclaugh7-1. In reading romius' first post, I was suspicious. In reading his subsequent posts, I was even more suspicious. I'm not going to 'retaliate' by giving it a low rating because I refuse to rate any films I haven't seen. But your questions and observations are dead-on. I like reading user comments for every film I see, and sometimes feel compelled to leave my own comments. While someone else's opinions won't necessarily sway my decision to see/not see a film, I think it's important that people post with integrity. Kudos.
share[deleted]
Kliep, thank you. And, Romius, I have no connection to the film and I'm virtually certain you damn well know that. Although it does appear that a correction is in order, unfortunately that correction makes these circumtances smell even worse: I mistakenly asserted above that you had commented in a thread regarding at least one other film because I didn't bother to read that other post; I now have and it turns out that your other post was simply a visit to the site of one of this film's actresses for the sole purpose of plugging this film (and no other that she's been in) by exhorting users to go see this film and then giving the exact dates, times, and locations where they can do so. How utterly remarkable that a detached and objective viewer would show such interest and just happen to be armed with such detailed information that certainly couldn't come from a mere viewing of the film. Its patently obvious what's going on here, Romius, and you make yourself look worse by continuing to post as if you're someone you're not. And, as for your claim that I'm striving to keep this post alive, I'll tell you what: if you and your alter egos quit adding to it, I'll gladly do the same.
share[deleted]
[deleted]