If you have NOT seen the movie it is TOTALLY UNFAIR to give it a rating!! I know several of you have given it a 1 rating WITHOUT SEEING IT!! On Yahoo. com this movie has a C+ user rating and on Movies.com it has a B- user rating. Which means it should have about a 5.5 to 6.5 user rating here. Please delete your rating if you have given it a 1 without seeing it!!
Thank you!
Nice try, chica, but it won't help. At this point, the bashers are just doing everything they can to try to drag it into the bottom 100.
I think it's funny that for all their efforts (500 fake 1 votes so far), they still haven't managed it...even though Bratz, which opened the same week, has already taken up residence as the worst movie of all time.
I really doubt that there's been an honest 1 vote cast on IMDb in the last three years, except by the people who rate every movie they see either a 10 or a 1.
At the heart of every cynical movie critic is a screenplay no one would option.
[deleted]
The movie ends up heavily penalized by the IMDb "weighting" system. If you look at the way the ratings are presented, the arithmetic mean (what most of us would call the average, where you add up all the scores and divide by the number of votes) is 4.4, yet the "weighted average" is 3.3.
Obviously, the IMDb system relies more heavily on the 1s--which, more than any other rating, are likely to come from people who have not seen the movie--than the 10s, which are almost certainly from people who have seen it.
I'm wondering if they shouldn't have a 5-point quiz that you have to respond to when you rate a film--a mini-test that proves you saw the movie. On the surface, it seems like a good idea, but I have no illusions that it wouldn't quickly be spoofed by the trolls and restore the IMDb rating to its current meaningless state.
At the heart of every cynical movie critic is a screenplay no one would option.
Eh, Ive been dealing with the public for years in retail and other positions. Applying that experience to a user rating system, and I take user ratings with a grain of salt anyway.... There are so many things lacking today its ridiculous; common sense, logic, personal responsibility, etc... So don't trust user ratings. Find a critic who historically has rated movies like you would have, and go with his recommendation for future movies.
shareWhat's funny is I've seen several movies *because* they were in the bottom 100 - in some ways, I think being in the bottom 100 is more difficult than being in the top 100, considering how many bad movies there are out there. ;-)
I will guiltily admit that even though Underdog had some themes I didn't like - bad guys must be ugly, pretty people must be good, property destruction is appropriate for a superhero.. I still loved Underdog.
the bratz that is the worst movie of all time is not the same 1 that came out that week. the worst movie ever is a cartoon bratz movie. the bratz movie that came that week however happens 2 be on the bottom 100 anyway just #40 not #1
shareThanks for the correction. I could have sworn it was Bratz: The Movie at #1 when I made my previous post--I even remember clicking it to make sure.
Maybe IMDb had a bug in the rating system at the time that applied the votes to the wrong movie, or something.
Proud denizen of your Ignore List since 2007.
I have seen Underdog and I gave it 1/10. Horrible family movie
"I never said all actors are cattle; what I said was all actors should be treated like cattle"
[deleted]
Just gave it a 1 rating based on some things I heard from people. Is this a live action or animated?
shareI don't know what's stranger...giving a movie you've never seen a 1, or lying about giving a movie a 1 for the purpose of a joke...
Meh. Points for a curious attempt at humor to the latter.
At the heart of every cynical movie critic is a screenplay no one would option.
I didn't lie but can you tell how I've voted? Seriously, I didn't know this was possible.
shareNah, I can't tell how or if you've voted. Your joke just seemed funnier with the idea that you hadn't.
You've got quite the Internet Clown act going, and I mean that respectfully. It's not everyone who can sweep into a forum and make clever, intelligent jokes about pretty much every thread.
At the heart of every cynical movie critic is a screenplay no one would option.
So do you do everything you are told?- you don't even know if it is live-action or animated and you are giving it a 1. GEEEZZ.....Just don't rate something if you have not seen it- maybe you think differently than your friends on things.....Just delete your rating or maybe if you believe close to 1,000 people on Yahoo Movies you will give it a C+ rating which I think is about a 5 or so here.
share[deleted]
Really, dude, you should only rate something once you've seen it for yourself. Otherwise it might be that you actually liked it and are doing it an injustice.
Plus a 1 is saying a film is purely without merit or entertainment value, which is quite rare, I've viewed and rated about 160 films this year, only one have I given a 1 vote to, maybe two got a 10.
I thought that the 3.3 rating was rather unjust. It's in no way a perfect film, but it is enjoyable. It's a nice family film.
I gave 'Underdog' a 10, simply to try and even things out a little.
I really don't think it's all that great. The last 1/4 of the movie was quite weak actually. 5/10
www.myspace.com/curtyman11
This movie earned the miserable rating I gave it. I will change my rating when INDB allows negative numbers. Thank goodness Wally Cox has passed away, if he saw what they had done to the real Underdog, it would have killed him. I can only imagine the people who actually liked this over acted piece of tripe never watched the original. The original was filled with subtle humor and understated slapstick. The original was written for adults, this evidently was written for 5 year old MTV addicts. The original was also devoid of people. But then I suppose the cretins who enjoyed this have never seen a shoe shine boy, either. Disney screwed the pooch on this one.
I’m open to the possibility it’s possible.
Is your mind open to the possibility it’s impossible?
[deleted]
I support chica. This is not a bad film. I know. I SAW it.
Wow, what a fine looking barbaque. Why doesn't mine look like that?! -Homer Simpson
[deleted]
oh stfu .
it sucked. with all the bells and whistles hollywood has to make this lame piece of crap movie. the cartoon was better . this movie sucked . if i could give it a negative ratign i would. you crybabies should be grateful its not at the bottom as sucky as it is .. PU sucks
I'd be a lot more grateful if the people who came in here bashing it had actually seen it. Instead, I have to deal with foul-mouthed dimwits who pride themselves in their own ignorance.
Proud denizen of your Ignore List since 2007.
I gave it a 2 rating, only because the only 1 I gave belongs to Dogville. I wanted to slit my wrists within the first 10 minutes. OMG it was so freakin' boring. My kids sorta liked it.
"Are you a real redhead? How do I tell if you're a real redhead?" - Dallas 'Dally' Winston
[deleted]
I think that the average rating it has right now is perfectly fairWell, it can only be "perfectly fair" if every vote for it is--like yours--an honest vote from someone who's seen the movie.
OMG it was so freakin' boring. My kids sorta liked it.
Surely then (as its a kids film) you should have let your kids review it? All these adults hating on a kids film I find very sad. Get your house extended and buy a 2nd DVD player and TV, that way they can watch it in peace whilst you watch the original in the front room. Jeez............Do you come in half way through Tom and Jerry and say in a loud voice "thats not realistic"??
I very nearly didn't get this for my daughter based purely on the IMDB score, because although I know these things can be flawed, I seriously hadn't considered over 500 people who had never seen it giving it a 1. Maybe I need to be less niave in future>?
Maybe they should have sold it better.....cause the Marketing looked like *beep* Of course the whole premise was stupid to begin with.....another Development idiot rehashing the past no doubt.
Movies are expensive, I want to be sold to go to the theaters. This film didn't sell me, in fact, it made me angry.
But I heard it sucked from people that did drag their kids to see it.....so that didn't help either.
This movie deserves a 1 because it blows.
shareTo those who are posting that have actually seen the film and are giving your heart-felt opinion.. THank you, the criticism is welcome, whether you liked it or disliked it. For those who have NOT seen it and are just riding on coat-tails of those giving their "worthy" opinion of a film they most likely haven't seen, but are bashing the film nonetheless, well, guess you will always be a "follower," and if that makes you feel good at the end of the day, where you take joy in criticising films you've yet seen, is just pathetic.
shareI've seen enough of the film to know I don't want to see it.
That work for you?
That's still not enough to rate it.
If you aren't man enough to watch it, you aren't man enough to rate it, simple as.
If you aren't man enough to watch it, you aren't man enough to rate it, simple as.Well said.
Man enough? It's called taste and choice. I didn't like the footage I watched and so I chose not to see it. I didn't even vote until I saw your stupid post to try and sway people to change their votes. And the film still looks stupid and cheap. Did you do the blue screen effects? Is that why you're trying to fight for this loser?
BTW good luck getting anyone here to listen to you. "Please change your rating"? You do realize the trolls and fanboys have been battling the 1's and 10's well before you came here to taut your film and will be here well after you give up your quest for ratings.
Give it up, you can't win an internet arguement......and you certainly won't get people to change their votes.
Just because a battle is fruitless, that doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting.
At some point, people will begin to mature enough that they'll realize that voting for something you haven't seen does nothing but destroy whatever value the IMDb rating might have.
As of right now, it's not even a reasonable measure of the opinions of the people who frequent the place, much less some sort of absolute list of "best movies." Those who continue to vote either to drag down or boost up a movie or show are damaging the credibility, and those who vote based on seeing trailers or just because they think a film is a bad idea are destroying that credibility completely.
What is the point of me marking a movie a 1 simply because, say, Paul Walker is in it? I don't care about Paul Walker, I won't see a Paul Walker movie specifically to see him, but if I vote 1 for movies of his that I haven't seen, it's just a petty attempt to tick off Paul Walker fans. I'd like to think I'm above that.
Proud denizen of your Ignore List since 2007.
Hah! That reminds me of an old Dopin' Dan comic book. Dan says to his Sargeant after getting caught with Marijuana "The only reason you're down on dope is 'cause you ain't man enough to smoke any of it yourself!"
I don't do drugs so I guess I'm not man enough. I have seen enough of the film to prevent me from shelling out $15 to go see something I'm likely to walk out of. In your mind though, that would make me 'unmanly'?
Nope. The film stays where it belongs...at the bottom of the heap....
I'm not saying you're not manly, just not man enough to rate it.
I haven't seen it.
I have only seen 1 scene from epic movie I know it's crap, but without viewing it I'm not going to rate it
I agree that you should see the movie before rating it, but I disagree that you can't have an opinion of whether or not to see the film in the first place. The subject matter and Marketing elements kept me from seeing this film.
Why does anyone care what other people rate the movies here anyway? If you enjoyed the film who cares if the entire world hated it? It's not like a 10 is going to make you enjoy the film more. If anything, I find hyped up movies that don't live up to high expectations are far worse to watch.
I saw Star Wars as a kid with zero expectations and it absolutely blew me away. I think if I went in being told it was the greatest film of all time(according to some) I wouldn't have enjoyed it as much. Snakes on a Plane, for instance, was all smoke and no sizzle.....and I was surprised how much I hated it considering all the internet hype.
Regardless, you'll never change the environment here, so enjoy the film, buy the DVD and move on.
I agree that you should see the movie before rating it, but I disagree that you can't have an opinion of whether or not to see the film in the first place. The subject matter and Marketing elements kept me from seeing this film.That's the only argument I've ever made on this board: if you see it, rate it whatever you want. If you don't like the promotional material and therefore choose not to see the film, recognize that that is the extent of your opinion--you don't have an opinion of the actual film, only of how it was marketed and what it appears to be.
IMDB is the place for fanboys and trolls, no arguement unfortunately will ever change that.
I do think when you ask people to change their ratings you run the risk of inciting a flame war. People here don't like to be told what to do, perhaps they need to grow up, but don't expect them to anytime soon.
Well, I guess I'm hoping that arguments like this one--which hasn't been a flame war, thankfully--will get some people to re-think their position.
A large part of the reason why more older adults don't post on these pages is because they're swarming with immaturity. If the scale begins to tilt toward a more mature attitude, maybe IMDb will attract more people with that attitude.
Yeah, it's my personal version of an Internet Message Board utopia, and you're right, it will probably never happen.
Proud denizen of your Ignore List since 2007.
IMDB isn't for adults or haven't you noticed?
I've stopped trying to change things here years ago when I tried to discuss classic films with someone who said that George Lucas was the only real classic director in film history.
Sadly, I had no response.
Well, I'd correct that to say "IMDb isn't used by adults."
As a result, it ends up with the chaotic nature of a playground, but there are ways to carve out places where things are discussed intelligently.
And, of course, there's always the Ignore List. Used properly, it can make the place look as desolate and post-apocalyptic as The Road Warrior.
Proud denizen of your Ignore List since 2007.
I agree. I gave it a 6/10, which by my criteria simply means "I don't hate it." The acting from almost everybody was flat - even the animators didn't even bother to give the dogs believable facial expressions. But overall, when you got Peter Dinklage giving it his all (and believe me, that little dude saves the movie), it's kinda hard to look at it in an entirely negative light. I also thought Patrick Warburton was pretty funny.
I know this was a relatively weak picture, but 3.3 it ain't. And it IS unfair that people rate films they haven't seen. Proof in the pudding: they made the wrong Bratz movie #1 on the Bottom 100. Yeah, put a direct-to-DVD animated film on there as opposed to the actual live-action film that no one went to see anyway (although by all rights probably deserves to be on there)...
What amazes me is that Hot Rod came in with better than a 6. I'm guessing the movie-haters didn't go after that one. I rated it a 4, which to me means, "I can't believe I paid to see this." I literally laughed just twice in the whole film...I think I laughed more during the trailer.
Proud denizen of your Ignore List since 2007.
I saw it and I rated it with a 4. It didn't like. It's not a good movie. Of course, it is not bottom-100 bad.
share[deleted]
Well, the trick with Manos is that it became famous as a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 episode, so most of my memories of it are having a good time watching a really bad movie.
The only hot girls that troll the Internet looking for dudes are crazy, hookers...or dudes.