Why Such a low Rating? - Lonely Hearts (2006) Discussion

[–] nko_123 17 years ago

Because it's only worth of 6 of 10. IMO.

reply

you're an idiot EMG Fin. GREAT movie

reply

[–] joe_frog 17 years ago

Probobly the only thing wrong with this film was the lack of tension building to the climax(not enough).The acting,the script,the realism of the film were all good. Not a great movie but certainly a good movie.8/10 would be much more accurate than 6/10.

reply

[–] sljones44 17 years ago

"Why Such a low Rating?"

Possibly because its been done before? Honeymoon Killers, Deep Crimson?

reply

[–] joe_frog 17 years ago

Many movies are remakes. Being a remake really does not hurt the appeal of a movie by their own merits if the previously made movies are not particularly well-known either.

reply

[–] carolchanning99 17 years ago

It's not really a remake. It is a movie about the same true crime story, written by the grandson of the detective.

reply

[–] King808 17 years ago

Wow, an 8? Thats pretty high. If you could give exact ratings on this site, id probably give it around a 6.8. IMO, if a movie has this taleted a cast, it needs to be very good. Much better than this. It wasnt bad though.

"The Usual Suspects" 10
"Cool Hand Luke" 9.0
"Breach" 7.2

reply

[–] Ryan-GSX 17 years ago

Well thinking about it now, I would agree with you on the 6.8. BUT! That would only be if James Gandolfini and John Travolta wern't cast in the main roles. I think that's what sold this movie to me, those two brilliant actors (love Pulp Fiction & The Sopranos).

reply

[–] mja9790 17 years ago

I thought it was about a 7 out of 10. The acting was excellent and it was an excellent cast but I agree that it didn't build up much to the climax.

reply

[–] joe_frog 17 years ago

The fact that there are so many people posting their #1great admiration for or #2disrespect for this movie indicates to me that it is likely to be an Academy award nominated film. Most movies do not garner so much extreme emotion.I stick with 8/10.

reply

[–] Zsazsa2003 17 years ago

The best acting was by the actors playing the principle characters - Jared Leto and Selma Hahak. Two of the best performances I've seen in years. John Travolta was good. James Gandolfini played his part too stereotypical and cheesy. He actually has little range as an actor and I think he brought John Travolta's character performance down with him. Leto should receive a nomination for best actor.

reply

[–] PirateLordJackSparrow 17 years ago

"James Gandolfini played his part too stereotypical and cheesy. He actually has little range as an actor and I think he brought John Travolta's character performance down with him"

I totally disagree Gandolfini did an amazing job, and has great range as an actor.

James Bond: Do you expect me to talk?
Auric Goldfinger: No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die.

reply

[–] Le_Beau 17 years ago

I thought Jared Leto and John Travolta were incredible in this movie, as they always are in their movies. I'm sorry to say, but Selma Hayek was not convincing as her character. Granted, it is better than her other performances -- but I just didn't buy it. I really liked the chemistry between Scott Caan and James Gandolfini, though. All in all, Leto was probably my favorite part in this movie.

reply

[–] spamking04 17 years ago

I think its a solid 6. The problem for me was the directing. It just seems Robinson doesn't have enough experience. The film was great in so many ways but it just wasn't concise enough, you don't really feel for any of the characters, the dialogue seems weak and the pacing just seems odd. Alot of people have also mentioned the lack of build up to the climax. I think the big thing though was that the characters all seemed so 2 dimensional. They don't really develop well, what you see is what you get. The cinemetography, the atmosphere, the authenticity, was all great but thats all superficial.

Although Robinson has directed some other works this felt like a first time effort to me. I felt the same way about Saw, it was a great story that had alot of potential the directing was just a bit too weak.

reply

[–] SamSanch3z 17 years ago

I thought this movie was bad. I rated it a 3/10.

First and foremost, the film's pace was far too quick and bounced around a lot back and forth, not smoothly. The acting was good and the directing was not bad at all, but other than that, the film was terrible. Gandolfini, Travolta, and Caan's characters where all bland and uninteresting. There is really not too much back story at all on either Jared Leto or Salma Hayek. Salma Hayek looks nothing like the real-life Martha Beck. Martha Beck was overweight and not pleasing to the eye and had trouble finding a partner which is why she was desperate and why she was led to the Lonely Hearts ads. I may be crazy but I find Salma Hayek beautfiul and fitting that criteria at all. At least with the real Martha Beck's case, its easier to follow a desperate woman finally finds someone that "cares" about and "loves" her that she gets lured in and obsessed with the man to the point where she would do anything.

The aforementioned HONEYMOON KILLERS does a far better job with the subject matter, though I'm still that big a fan of that movie either, but still a better film.

reply

[–] King808 17 years ago

To whomever said that this film will get ANY oscar consideration, you're an idiot.

"The Usual Suspects" 10
"Cool Hand Luke" 9.0

reply

[–] dandymandy 17 years ago

I just got through watching this on DVD also and I loved it. The one word that kept coming to mind was WOW - it really engaged me. I rated it a 9.

reply

[–] oso_travis 17 years ago

KiwiDirector,

I learnt to see the IMDb as a popularity contest. Some of my favorite films have infamous low ratings but I don't really care.

And I agree with ya, this was a brilliant film. 8/10 for me.

reply

[–] Ryan-GSX 17 years ago

Cheers travis

But yeah your right at the end of the day it just comes down to opinion, no matter how great/bad the movie is. It's still kinda mad though, we're giving Lonely Hearts an 8 whereas the guy at the top of the page there is awarding it a hefty 3/10! :s

reply

[–] SamSanch3z 17 years ago

I don't really understand how this movie has such a decently good rating really. Trust me, I'm no troll. I won't come in here and just say "this movie SUCKS!!!11" just to get a rise out of you guys, but I just don't really understand, how in this specific thread at least, it's getting such an overwhelmingly positive review. This movie really only his its style going for it, and that's about it. Todd Robinson does a pretty decent job the directing. I really wanted to like this as it had the same subject matter as Honeymoon Killers, and not thoroughly enjoying that film, I wanted to see if they handled it better, it did not succeed in my opinion.

I've proposed my reasons for not liking the film above, and again, I recommend watching Honeymoon Killers, a mediocre film, but still superior to Lonely Hearts.

reply

[–] Ryan-GSX 17 years ago

Yeah I know you're not a troll, but come on, your giving it a 3! Either you haven't seen that many films (this probably isn't the case) or you have extremely high standards. I actually think it would be completely impossible for any film to get a 10/10 from you. But hey, it's your opinion mate, we're all entitled to one.

reply

[–] kryp44 17 years ago

This movie is based on real people and real events; thus, it's failure. A gripping film which loses it's edge with the casting of Salma Hayek as the obese Martha Beck. Hayek is so freaking hot not to mention latino that if you know anything about the real "lonely hearts" killers the movie can't possibly work with her playing the psychotic 200 plus pound Martha Beck.

reply

[–] PirateLordJackSparrow 17 years ago

Great underrated movie defintely deserves more than a 6.8/10. I give it an 8/10.

James Bond: Do you expect me to talk?
Auric Goldfinger: No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die.

reply

[–] SamSanch3z 17 years ago

You guys are making it seem like 6.8 a bad rating. In no means is that a bad rating. Typically anything with a 7.0 or higher AVERAGE rating, is GREAT (while I don't always agree with it). There are plenty of superior films that have even worse ratings on here (i.e. Man Who Fell to Earth, Naked Lunch, They Live, etc...). To be honest, I know I very much disliked this film, but I knew after watching it, that it would have maybe like a 6.0 rating on here, so it surpassed my expectations on here at least.

Pretty much, it's like me saying Fritz Lang's M is underrated on here because I'd give it a 10/10, while it "only" has an 8.5 rating on here.

reply

[–] mushroom772000 17 years ago

i gave it a 8.

reply

[–] kissmenow1 17 years ago

With great expectations I rented this DVD and I was very disappointed. There was no chemistry between any of the characters, it bounced around like crazy and I have a huge problem with Salma Hayek. Not only is she not a good actress but actually a pretty bad one in this movie. How can they put her in the role of Martha when she is a "one act" actress. In any movie I have seen of her she is extremely out of place. Her best moves are stripping and her accent was very distractiing. I can't even phathom what casting was thinking in casting her. One of the 5 worst movies I have seen. And I have seen some real stinkers; Bewitched, Legally Blonde #2, Stealth, Stepford Wives 2nd version and now this one. I'd give it a 1 only because I think Jared at leat makes an attempt.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Devilz0 17 years ago

to say that salma hayek was miscast because her character is supposed to be unattractive and thus is lonely is justified, even if it is biased to say all beautiful people are never lonely, but to say that her acting was bad is completely not justified, she has probably given the best performance in the whole movie, and this is one of her best perfomances ever(beside Frida), and people should expect this movie to have a higher rating because it unrealistic for movies like disturbia(which was a fun movie) to get a 7.1 rating while this gets a 6.6

reply

[–] GrifterZed 14 years ago

Agreed about the Bewitched comment. But also have to say that a lot of this opinion (and I'm aware it's quite old, but I gotta give my two cents) is based in nothing about the movie. Attempting to say that a "liberal" is a type of person to only feels one way or another, or acts one way or another, is absurd. Just seems entirely too politically lead for me. Okay, so on with my opinion of the actual MOVIE... I think it's absolutely great. People saying it drags on, sure. You could say that. Because it's not going 500 miles an hour with the cinematography with explosions all over the screen. As for the directing, thought it was great. The acting was superb. I thought Selma Hayek gave the performance of her career in this. Playing the psycho jealous lover is perfect for her. She came across with an incredible intensity, and the general feeling that she'd be the sort of person who'd poison your birthday cake. Leto, nothing to say. He was fabulous, but that's a given. He's one of the most talented, young, up-and-coming's out there. He only has skyward to go from here. Travolta was Travolta. Good enough. Nothing spectacular, but did just fine. Gandolfini, he's typecast like nobody's business. I don't know if he has done that himself, or if the industry has done it for him, but he's always the same guy. However, it fit just fine for the movie. Caan was also just Caan. He's kinda the same way. The smartass, billy-badass-wannabe kind of character. I tend to like him, but it's always the same. Having pointed out some of the cons, the movie is STILL GREAT. It was moving, suspensfull, and at times completely horrifying. My humble, yet high set standard rating, is a 7. I consider that a very high rating. People are either too generous, or too strict. I consider myself fair, not an elitist snob.

reply

[–] trevor1979 17 years ago

Chinatown and LA Confidential have IMDb ratings of 8.5 and 8.4 respectively, and both are superior examples of period crime dramas compared to Lonely Hearts imo. I think a 6.6 rating for this film should be considered a good rating.

reply

[–] Minou77 15 years ago

I dont know why so low either.I give it a 8 out of 10.Im a big tony soprano fan,also john travolta since my younger days.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 17 years ago

Most people that give it a 6 usually have bad taste. if you ask them what they rate higher theyll say less deserving films. not only is this film really great it deserves more praise for everyone in it taking such a huge risk on the project. its been a trend lately that a lot of good films get low ratings. its sad, but in the end who cares what other people think.

Suffering? You Haven't Seen Anything Yet!

reply

[–] eve_balboag 16 years ago

how can you say this was a bad film? this wasn't any bad at all! i luved it! and of course i expect it to be nominated for an academy award. Salma Hayek was a exceptional actress and performed an outstanding role, she did it great in my opinion. I agree she doesn't look like the real Martha Beck at all, but neither did a lot of other actors performing real characters. And neither did Jared Leto, he is way hotter than Ray Fernandez. But he also did a great job, one of my favorite actors, and of course an outstanding performance in this movie.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 9 years ago

"It deserves more praise for everyone in it taking such a huge risk on the project".

Firstly, a work deserves praise when the risks it takes actually pay off; the risks themselves aren't worth more than a footnote. Secondly, what risks are we talking about here? The film has two bankable stars in the lead, replaces the fat n' ugly real life murderess with Salma Hayek in order to cash in on her looks and features a glossy period environment as a backdrop. Not exactly some gritty, down-n-dirty production.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply