I really don't know the answer to this:
Option A: It's a great film that couldn't get released properly - sold to a newspaper - everybody wins. Very high rating on IMDB - deserves to be seen.
Option B: It's a pile of pants but has Vinny Jones and Derek Jacobi in a comedy wig. I trust IMDB but these limited reviews and votes are just too hyped to be bona fide. Surely.... (?)
What is the answer? You decide...
So it's not being released in the cinema and instead it's being given away in the Sunday Mail tomorrow, but it's got a rating of 9.5/10 ???? (as of 15.Sep.07) And the breakdown shows that 58 out of 83 voters gave it 10 stars ??? Nah.
shareMy review of it is genuine. Of course, I didn't give it five out of five and say it was one of the best films of the year. It's just a good movie (in my opinion) that I enjoyed watching.
It helps if you liked Brendan Foley's previous movie, JOHNNY WAS, and are a Vinnie Jones fan.
http://www.bumscorner.com
http://www.myspace.com/porfle
I am not a Vinnie Jones fan, but the film is quite good, though not worth it's high rating.
shareNice little touches like the "Bent coppers" ringtone is "The Sweeney".
But let down by a few goofs. (and Vinnie's acting).
My jaw dropped when I logged on here and saw the score: 9.5 out of 10, with 83 votes. The film considered the best on the IMdB charts is the Godfather (which embarrassingly, I've never seen) which only gets 9.1. So a film premiered today as a free gift with the Mail, not a cinema release, not a limited release, not even straight to video, has already generated that amount of positive feedback? That's not hard to swallow at all.
share[deleted]
Godfather sucks. There I said it. Responsible for numerous idiotic movies about the mob. SUCKS.
shareI wonder how many of those votes are from sockpuppet accounts. Even the 5.2 it currently is is way too high.
sharenope... like the back end of a cow ... *beep*
shareFake reviews by studio and production plants are very common at this site.
ยง
Between the friends of the cast and the filmmakers, investors and some bod at the sales company that obviously are behind the 10/10s, I'd say maybe 5% of the ratings could be genuine. The ridiculously high rating and the first review that is written in fluent press release just don't tally with a film that's pretty mediocre and very badly constructed. It's not the worst film ever made by a long stretch, just an overlong film that doesn't seem to be aimed at any market and might just please the filmmakers' ageing grannies if they're in an undemanding mood.
"This time it's no more Mr. Passive Resistance!"
Yeah, I noticed the "press release" language in the first user review too! I also noticed that its author has never written a single comment or any other review. Hmmm.....
shareIt has a Sunday Night At the Movies TV mystery feel (think Columbo). I thought it was enjoyable, and for what it is, I gave it a 6/10. The frame of the Dickens story adds a lot to the enjoyment. Good music, too.
shareI doubt if any of the ratings prior to Sunday were genuine. This is a cast iron stinker. Utterly inept. The Director can neither direct nor write. The acting is ham (Vinnie doesn't cut it) and the editing poor. No wonder it was given away free.
Watch the rating plummet.
The fact that you'd compare it to columbo, one of the best shows of all time, is insulting
you know there is a problem when games are smarter than movies
Despite the 2.35:1 ratio, it feels uncannily like a TV movie. A 9.5 rating seems pretty unlikely, and the fact that about 65% of the votes are 10/10, is ludicrously fishy.
I guess it'll be interesting to see if next weeks Private Eye will have managed to get hold of the memo / email that went around the MoS's offices, encouraging their hacks to sign up and vote.
I only watched this after I saw the 9.5 rating on IMDB. Otherwise I would have passed it up. About 15 minutes into the film, I found myself thinking "How could this have scored a 9.5?" The acting is flat, the characters have no authentic emotion, and the beautiful seductress....well could they not have paid more to cast someone who is actually attractive?
sharei gave it 1 out of 10, yet the average is still 9.5
get voting! it needs a realisitic rating
Kinda suspect foul play myself with the 9.5 (100 votes)
Though its a good little view, touch tv drama feeling at times, but alot of fun. I'll give it a 7, well worth a view and ideal Sunday evening entertainment.
"Censors tend to do what psychotics do,they confuse reality with illusion" David Cronenberg
Load of old codswallop
share