MovieChat Forums > La doublure (2007) Discussion > Why is this movie rated so low?

Why is this movie rated so low?


6.4?? Hot Fuzz is rated at 8.1. This deserves a 7.5 atleast? Went to the movie without any expectations and surprisingly had a few belly laughs.

reply

People are ignorant. They rated " hairspray" the stupedest movie w Travolta in drag, a noisy, loud, ploitically correct movie higher.

This movie is so good , same director who made" la Cage aux folles".In fact Hollywood noticed this movie and its being remade, to be released 2008 (later this year).Thre's no way it would be as good as the original.

reply

I actually enjoyed hairspray. It's not a great movie or anything, but it's not bad. I thought Hot Fuzz was really funny too.

And you gotta understand something. Hairspray has John Travolta, Michelle Pfeiffer, Christopher Walken and Jerry Stiller. These are legends with a built-in audience. Each of these must have thousand of fans who are willing to watch anything they are in. And since they are fans, they would probably be a little more linient with the rating. And there is Zac Efron. Knowing Disney's powerful marketing department, Zac Efron must have a few thousands screaming pre-teen little girls who would gladly watch anything he's in.

If you dont believe me, go to Dungeon Siege's imdb page and look up the breakdown of the rating. The average male rated it a 3.3, while and average female gave it a 7.5. The reason is probably because the star of the movie is Jason Statham.

I am in no way bashing the French actors, but being a star in Hollywood means being a known to the world.

reply

People are ignorant. They rated " hairspray" the stupidest movie w Travolta in drag, a noisy, loud, politically correct movie higher.

This movie is so good , same director who made" la Cage aux folles".In fact Hollywood noticed this movie and its being remade, to be released 2008 (later this year).There's no way it would be as good as the original.

reply

Gave it a 9. Really enjoyed the valet.

reply

To take your question seriously, the reason is quite simple: it is the least of writer/director Veber's movies, including the many he wrote but did not direct. It's a slight idea for a film, weakly developed and lacking the involvement and emotional commitment of his best work with Depardieu, Villeret, Pierre Richard and others. The beautiful model as leading lady is a blank -even the "making of" short subject indicates how casting of her role is crucial to making the film work, and in fact bad casting caused it not to work. Also, to compare it with another recent film teaming Dany Boon and Daniel Auteuil made by Patrice Leconte, "The Valet" has no impact whatsoever. It's a time killer.

So within the tiny universe of "Francis Veber films" this is in the lowest percentile. If a fan gives his best work a 10, then that same fan would give this one something closer to 5. And non-fans would hardly become converts after seeing such a trifle as their introduction to his work.

"Three quarters of what is said here can be completely discounted as the raving of imbeciles" - Donald Wolfit in Blood of the Vampire (1958)

reply

Really appreciate your response Lor. I think I rated this movie a 7 which falls in the timepass category (that is time killer for you in India speak) but I remember enjoying the movie a lot. I was comparing it to the romantic comedies Hollywood churns out and felt that this was rather refreshing. I did catch up with other Francis Veber films and I do completely agree with your comments.

reply

I think the ending (which made the movie seem like it ran out of money) was the reason so many people lowered their vote.

Marion Cotillard, Keira Knightley and Rie Rasmussen are the most beautiful women on Earth.

reply