How come this terrible movie gets a 7.0 rating? There are two possible explanations:
1. the movie company hired 40,000 people to give high ratings.
2. people who dislike this film tried to fool other people to waste their time as well. Apparently, I was fooled and I want my 2 hours back!
If I buy a pair of shoes in bad quality, I can return it. Why can't we get money back from this garbage?
Simple, you have terrible taste.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
I guess it might be my taste or it could be because the high rating misled me. If it is a 5-star movie I wouldn't have bothered to watch. And I am certain this is not a 1-star movie either. The reason I gave 1 star was because I wanted to pull down the overall rating a little bit to where it truly belong.
share
Actually, Hanna is an 8 star movie, but there are alot of idiots with no taste/knowledge in cinema, so it was dragged down to a mere 7 stars. I dont follow the ratings here either, but seeing what the masses say about film is quite entertaining nevertheless..
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
So you're not a 14 year old person on here pretending to be a critic because you like the movie? Makes sense. Neither am I. I am no idiot and I have plenty of knowledge of cinema.
I would no way call this an 8 star movie maybe a 5 or 6 and that's a big maybe. I keep seeing posts about how captivating this plot was and how great the action was. Really? I guess I've never seen a movie that has a genetically engineered person being hunted down by their creators executed in a very boring manner before either. The only action scene that I could even distinguish what was happening was the Eric Bana fight with the three agents.
It had redeeming factors though. Remember when Hanna easily escaped the facility, not easy because of the genetic alterations, but simply because of the design of the facility itself? If I had a secret facility out in the middle of a desert the first thing I would have done would be to make stadium sized rooms with strobe lights with a low tempo so it's pitch black most of the time and have the ability for an escapee to easily hide in one of the MANY nooks and crannies and gigantic ventilation systems.(Chris Farley could have fit with plenty of room.) She even had trouble crawling out of the top...she lost her gun in attempt to stay up, yet somehow she miraculously was able to leap up and catch a jeep going maybe 30 or 40mph.
I know you'll give me the standard angry user that likes a crappy movie routine of "Suspend your disbelief!" "It's a movie, man! Get over it!" Well ,no. That's unacceptable, I shouldn't have to cater to the idea that there exists a facility like this. I know I'm ranting here and I'm almost done, but hopefully some people will agree with me. Although I can think of a bunch of other things that bugged me I'll end with this. So Hanna being so cautious all of this time tells her new best friend that she can't divulge any information at all, except for one thing. No, it wasn't that she lived in a forest for 15 years. No, it wasn't that her father was a CIA agent that trained her. Instead she gives up only the most important piece of information possible. She told her where the meeting place was. I guess she wasn't as ready for the real world as she thought. Screw this movie.
I think the leap to catch the jeep was believable once we know she was genetically engineered to do things like that.I also do think that sometimes we have to suspend disbelief. But otherwise I pretty much agree. The movie had no point, or if it had one, it never made it. It is not something I'd ever watch again.
But SR was brilliant. She's going to be a great actress someday.
I agree with you on the rest but SR being brilliant? gimme a break. this movie could challenge no actor... it was hardly any kind of test.
shareShe already was a great actress when you wrote this, long ago.
The OP was a troglodyte.
And, “hardly any kind of test”? The sheer physical demands of the role were a test I defy you to pass. The training and commitment involved in her meeting them is beyond most people’s understanding. Add in the emotional challenges of playing a 16-year-old who is required by her circumstances to have an ingenue’s level of health, an Olympian’s level of fitness and skill, and the maturity of judgement of a middle-aged woman, and we have a challenge, buckaroo. Oh yeah, we have a challenge.
The point of the movie isn't the fact that Hanna is being hunted down by rogue CIA agents or her being a genetic superhuman. The point is exploring what it means to be human. Everything else is just the framework for discussing that topic. Does culture matter to humanity? How about relationships? Emotions? Are genetics what determine one's humanity? I found it ironic that the girl with the "super DNA" and who had been raised in the woods cut off from everyone but her father understood (in the end) humanity better than those around her. If the director takes license on a few things to tell that story well, I'm more than okay with it.
shareIf you feel like you need to give this movie a deep philosophical meaning that isn't there go right ahead. That would be like me making an argument that Jack and Jill wasn't another colossal waste of film because "Well, it promotes acceptance of your family and sticking with them no matter how crazy they can be sometimes". Sometimes you have to accept a crappy movie for what it is, and what it is is a waste of time.
share@Zephias Great name by the way.
The film is about this character's personal journey to discover the truth about who she is and the facts concerning her origin. There are of course fairy tale elements underpinning virtually the entire film, but I was personally reminded of the traditional western hero's journey in various mythological stories. Typically the central figure must carry out a difficult and dangerous task. The result is the figure finds out something important about himself and the nobility of his humanity, courage etc. Or you might look at the film as an unusual coming of age story.
What is a bit different and refreshing about the film is the way in which the director uses visual images to tell us the story and advance the narrative. One might say this is what good cinema should be about. But sadly, we do not see enough of it. If one focuses on the admittedly thin plotting structure, that individual will be disappointed with the result. However, the film-makers were very consciously more interested in using exciting images and motion to create the mood and propel the story.
Saoirse was very fascinating to watch in the film. She projected an ethereal aura, and she was very successful in making me believe she was able to easily kill but also have genuine warmth and innocence as well.
Hanna was a pleasant surprise in a year of so many very bad films.
You have good points, but I believe a movie should be judged on more than just artistic "intentions". A movie that would truly captivate me would be a movie that didn't distract me with obvious flaws. Is every piece of art perfect? No, but I'm merely looking at the big picture. One should not just try and visualize something, but also see what's in front of you. There is an obvious decline in the quality of movies as of late. Hollywood is just ready to crap out just about anything nowadays and maybe I expect too much, but is it too much to ask for this supposed "artsy" movie to "show" me something creative?
I think the opposite about the flashy images and motion in this way. It doesn't make it creative it makes it a jumble and maybe even confusing to the casual movie goer(Not that I mean to speak for everyone). It almost seems to me that they were trying to give this rather tired old plot no twist and instead add flashy camera effects in an attempt to make it seems like it was something that it is not. I think this mainly because of one of my first complaints. If this was a "coming of age tale" and this girls personal journey for information, then I believe that everything in the movie was far too convenient.
A movie is suppose to make me care for this character, see her go through hardships and triumph, right? but instead it just made me see plot advancement only through the convenience of certain key plot changing moments. Such as her escaping the base. She needed to escape and they made it way way too easy to do. After all of the girls second class CIA training, they needed the bad guys to be able to find her. So she tells her friend she can't tell her anything except for only the most important piece of information she could say. It was not my cup of tea, but I humbly respect your opinion.
@Zephias Although the director has been criticized as having show-offy tendencies by some critics, the escape sequence you are referring to uses strobe lights, spinning visuals of her face along with the kinetic music to try and give us a sense visually of how Hanna is processing what is happening to her and convey at the same time her heightened and intense emotional state. To me, the scene moves with a fast-forward momentum, full of sound, striking images and energy. Hanna as a whole IMO was made with the idea of appealing to a young demographic. The results from Cinemascore bears this out: the oldest demographic groups gave the film a poor rating, while the grades climb higher as one goes down to the very young age groups.
I'm not trying to necessarily change your opinion about the film because all of us don't react to film in the same manner. At least you advance your opinion carefully, explaining how and why you come to a particular conclusion. Too many times on these boards, I see stuff like..oh this just sucked...with nothing to back it up.
Regarding the particulars of certain plot details referenced in your last paragraph, I feel if the viewer is expecting everything to fit tightly plot wise with deeper background for certain characters, then that viewer will be disappointed. I just went along for a fun ride, realizing this very basic story has more to do with how such an unusual person would process and react to "our" modern world given her primitive upbringing. It is a different way to present the idea of how a young person must confront and deal with passing through a protective existence to face the "real" and complicated world.
It is very rare to have an actual discussion on these boards and not have it turn into some kind of elementary insult contest. I appreciate carefully constructed difference of opinion debates like this. Hopefully we will meet again (hehe)
shareI agree completely with you, Zephias.
I enjoyed the film up to about the middle but, beyond that, I became bored with it. I still hung in there though, hoping the ending would be worth the time, but it absolutely wasn't.
You were generous rating it at 5 or 6 in my opinion.
This is definitely not the first film I felt was overrated by IMDB. In fact, IMDB has become so UNreliable for my taste in films that I think this will be the last time I look here before I rent DVDs in the future!
This use to be one of the last movie sites that I respected. Metacritic hates literally everything in existence unless it's a video game made by Valve(Still can't figure that one out). I've never really checked out rotten tomatoes, but I might have to. Still though, I think the problem with the high ratings for this movie(especially if you've seen my debate here)is that people seem to be reading into this movie way too much. People are so quick to judge movies harshly, but everyone flocks to defend this one. We may never know why.
shareRe IMDB ratings I find them really unreliable early on. After 6 months or even a year has passed after release date I think the ratings generally find a level which is about right - but too high by 1. This will drift down to 6 at best.
As more and more people discover this site (and not just film enthusiasts) I find the ratings have changed over time. But I'm OK with that as they are all entitled to their opinion and obviously rate on quite different criteria.
I really like this type of movie, really liked the first half and loved the girls acting. She had something about her. I am quite good at suspending dis-belief usually as long as I feel it's not just sloppy filmmaking. So I was OK with her grabbing onto the speeding car etc.
But the film started losing me half way through, and their was some really poor scenes later on that left me very dissatisfied. It's as if the director lost interest or something. I almost laughed in the final few scenes. Cate Blanchett's death scene was terrible.
I gave it a 6 because I like this genre and style so much and for the girls acting.
You just kind of ruined part of the movie for me. I haven't seen it yet, but it'd be nice if you warned there were spoilers in your reply.
shareI would write a lengthy post pointing out just where you are wrong, but as it happens, I don't need to. Dr. Mark Kermode does a sound job of pointing out the films merits here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEIB5R_-NqY
It's our opinions. Who's to say who is wrong about the movie as a whole? I pointed out obvious flaws. I didn't personally care for the style. Sorry?
shareI'm guessing you never took any film classes, because you need to watch the movie again to see what you missed. People these days are taught to have everything delivered to them on a silver platter as far as movies are concerned. This movie isn't your usual generic Hollywood movie that the masses here have become used to, and I think that's what's got all the backseat directors here up in arms.
The first film class I took, started off with a showing of "On The Waterfront". The teacher then gave us a test to see if we were paying attention to the details. We all failed to notice most of what he asked us about the most simplest of things, which we would've seen if we had just opened our eyes.
Zephias, you missed a few things that soured your viewing of this movie. 1)Camp G, was a converted facility. It wasn't meant to be a security camp. If you're a foreign country you can't go around building a facility like that without somebody finding out. You take what you can get. This was some kind of abandoned ventilation facility. I know that for sure, because I've helped build these things. 2)The shaft leading to the manhole had a ledge at the top. 3)I find a lot of people making this mistake. The fight scene Erik has with the agents had at least 4, possibly 5 guys. At the end of the fight there are definetly 4 guys laying on the floor in view of the camera. On another thread a poster thought the fight was in a parking garage, which just proves my earlier point of people not paying attention to what the movies are showing them. Hopefully you'll watch this again with new and opened eyes and see how good this movie actually is.
Just the cinematography of this movie makes it worth watching. Don't let it just roll by your eyes.
"I was told by my father to gain the upper hand."
So, knowing about "ventilation facilities" and adding one more guy beaten down is suppose to open my eyes? You've given no incite or any kind of mind blowing info that could turn anyone around for this movie. Did you take high school film classes? Is that your major? Did they teach you about personal taste and having opnions? You apparently haven't taken enough classes to know a flawed movie or you're too caught up in liking what your teachers like. Not all flawed movies are bad, but I PERSONALLY do not like this movie. If that bothers you, then I don't care and neither should anyone else.
shareI was pointing out your errors on what you missed in the movie, and how that might've clowded your judgement, since you seem to be judging the movie on those errors.
I don't care if in your opinion you don't like the movie, but to say it's flawed and that's why you don't like it, that's a problem. The majority opinion, and money made, say the opposite. If it was flawed like PLAN 9 FROM OUTER-SPACE flawed, then it wouldn't be popular.
The cinematography, soundtrack and Saoirse's acting don't come any better in todays movies.
Somebody else, who was a famous film critic, disliked a movie because he thought it was flawed. That movie was STAR WARS. ;)
"I find your lack of faith, disturbing."
My errors? You spoke of the facility and the fight scene. Wow, you REALLY corrected me so much. I think you're giving a really bad example considering Plan 9 is so popular BECAUSE it's so flawed. I spend a better part of my time watching "flawed" movies because they're entertaining to watch. Such as "The Asylum" films. I'm sorry I don't belong to the majority.(Which I guess is what's important to you, but I don't tend to like things just because a lot of other people do. I like to have my own opinions.) Power to the critic as well. I love Star Wars, but if you don't think that it has some flaws then you're ignorant, or you don't notice because its STAR WARS and you're not allowed to notice.
What you still don't seem to get is that it boils down to personal taste. I'm not trying to start anything here. Get your head on straight, Boyo.
I pointed out, already, that I said nothing about your personal taste, just that you had some facts wrong. You seem to be the one alluding that people who like this movie are stupid and have no taste. Just look at the title of this thread, it's stating what I said in the previous sentence.
The movie got it's rating based on the personal taste of the people that watched it.
"I find your lack of faith, disturbing."
Sorry, but you're all wrong. This movie was really good. Objectively. Great cinematography, script, acting, action, the works. The reason for the low 6.9 on IMDB is because it's IMDB and it's full of trolls like you who scour other people's favorite movies voting them down to feel relevant. Nobody who is anybody reads these scores or pays them any mind; I dare you to find a film on IMDB that is rated above 7.0 that isn't overrated garbage. That's why you're on the internet voting and not out having a life, because you couldn't do any better. Those who can, create, those who can't, criticize.
I have yet to hear any legitimate criticisms of this film that weren't the result of children failing to pay attention to plot details, or right-wingers who couldn't stomach the pro-family pro-woman message of the movie. Grow up.
I.p. logged and flagged for spam.
I agree with you about the film wavelength121, but a score of nearly 7 out of 10 is a respectable score for any film. If we rate the best films ever at 10, then a 9 is excellent and an 8 very good.
I've posted here before in response to those who viewed the film negatively, and without going into a full explanation, let me say a number of viewers were expecting a traditional action film probable based upon the trailer, and others couldn't deal with plotting issues. However, the film should be seen as a sort of modern fairly tale or better still one that has mythological undertones.
As you've posted, the cinematography is very good, the action filmed realistically, and the acting is well done. Saoirse performance is compelling from a charisma perspective, and her ability to sell this complicated character who kills efficiently on the one hand but also shows us the human side of a teenager who is trying to understand her place in a modern world without the benefit of socialization skills is hugely impressive. The soundtrack is energetic, propulsive and fits like a glove with the visuals.
This is a film where one should just sit back and enjoy the ride.
I totally agree with you, wavelength121. The cinematography in this movie is way above what we're used to in the usual Hollywood, big budget movie.
And you certainly TOLD them. :)
"Adapt or die."
[deleted]
[deleted]
The action sequences were completely distinguishable. Watch The Hunger Games's fight scenes. Those scenes make Hanna's look like gold.
"Well, 4 out of 5 doctors agree that I am actually insane." - Hayley Stark
A little way into the movie I realized that this was just a live-action adaption of a fairly common Anime plot. I imgine that it was big with the Anime crowd.
I think find silly everyone in this thread who believes that the aggregate rating is wrong because it differs with their assessment. The aggregate is by definition correct, and a reflection of everyone's review, no more, no less. It's not the Oscars, not the result of judges, not something people even voted on, just some kind of averaging of all the ratings people made. It's a reflection of the entity that everyone makes up, and as such it's new information to individuals that are a part of it.
People often mistake aggregate ratings for "how much I will enjoy this movie personally", it really doesn't work like that. It is a rough guide based on the votes of people who could be bothered to rate it on the imdb.
A large number of those are the general public (as opposed to people in the industry, critics and film students) and people that chose to watch the film. A smaller number are those that found it randomly on TV. A tiny number haven't even watched the film but voted anyway (yes people do that), and an unknown number are over/under voting based on the current score in an attempt to adjust it to their satisfaction. Another small number are the experts.
You also have to factor in a form of voting expectations, if people think they should vote high or low they tend to regardless of how much they enjoyed the movie. Some genre's tend towards higher ratings than others too as do certain types of films (arty independent films for example)
Finally there is the age/gender ranges, I always find it interesting to see the breakdown of these, for example Hana is a lot more popular with Females under 18 (for obvious reasons).
I often find movies are around +/-2 from how I would rate them, so the way I look at it is that if I see something rated at 3.8, it's unlikely to be amazing and likewise something rated at 8.4 is unlikely to be terrible and if it's around 5 it is basically a gamble (and one I usually take).
--
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
The movie wasn't without flaws. I was very aware of the choreography in the fight scenes and after looking forward to hearing the Chemical Brothers soundtrack I was disappointed that it didn't seem to fit that well with the movie.
I'm sure others would disagree, but for me it didn't work and I actually think it went some way towards making the fight scenes seem very mechanical (and hence finding them noticeably choreographed). I'm not quite decided on a 5 or a 6. To be fair I use a harsh scoring system (5 is still good, just not good enough to bother watching again). Ronan was good, plot was okay if predictable. Visuals were good, but nothing really new or extraordinary.
--
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
I'm not an idiot. But I won't argue the point. I don't have to. I only need to point out that the quote you gave can also apply to yourself or anyone, for that matter.
I didn't hate this movie, and I have not yet rated it. But I'll be honest. Being called an idiot just because I'm not kissing the butts of the people who made this movie, makes me want to give it a one, like the OP, out of spite.
I WON'T-because I'm not like that. But it's tempting. There are far too many people who like to be rude just because they are hiding behind a computer, who wouldn't dare say some of these things to a person's face, for fear of getting a beat down.
[deleted]
[deleted]
the fact that you gave this movie 1 star gives your thread a self-fulfilling slant. yea, hard to trust the ratings if people are not giving honest assessments. maybe you just hate anyone disagreeing with you and will act like a child about the movie not having the rating YOU think it deserves. the reason IMDB works is because there's enough people reviewing to filter out people like you. is it science? no, but it's usually a pretty good *guide* to picking a movie to watch.
shareAbsolutely Pat! OP starts a thread calling the ratings into question, and then admits that he gave it a 1 to pull down the average. You can't have it both ways.
"There's poo in there" - Zack
how childish is that? because you dont agree with the average that everyone has given fairly you have marked it down to try and get it to a number that suits you. the world does not revolve around you.
you wouldnt watch a film based on its imdb rating? i hope you are some child somewhere, if you are older you might need to look at yourself and ask a few questions.
im just off to mark every film you rated as 10 with a 1 just to counteract your voting... no wait, i couldnt give a rats arse about the voting, it makes no difference whatsoever.
Who are you to say where a movies rating belongs? It's high because people liked it and rated it as such, if you watch/don't watch movies based on their IMDB ratings I feel sorry for you.
share[deleted]
Well aren't you a smart little boy. *beep*
share"And I am certain this is not a 1-star movie either. The reason I gave 1 star"
You ask why you don't trust the ratings and then point out how you don't give the movie a fair rating.
Its not terrible, but it could have been done better as many have suggested.
5-6 probably a fairer rating.
I can understand why it got a good rating because I often grade on a curve for certain genre films. "Hanna" is an action movie and provides a fair amount of action in an entertaining way.
shareIt's not just imdb, it's got ratings in the 60/70% range in some other sites too. I thought it sucked though. I was incredibly disappointed in it. It wasn't interesting at all and the soundtrack made me want to scream.
Visit my movie review site!
http://hesaidshesaidmovies.tripod.com/index.html
I've got this theory that either major studios pay sites like imdb to up their ratings to improve publicity or that they hire programmers to create thousands of dummy accounts to jack the rating up.
And that's the reason why these rating on these sites are so unreliable.
IMDB has a weighted rating system from what I understand and not all the votes count, basically IMDB chooses the people who's votes weight in and how they do so remains a mystery. Which means all these people who 1 star movies they've never seen, or to "even the field out" are doing so in vain.
Because sponges never have bad days.
But they are not. I've seen movies on here be rated with several ones, before they've even been released.
Obviously, it isn't in vain, or this wouldn't be happening.
Well one of the reasons why I think the studios may pay IMDb to manipulate their data or use bots to sock puppet account is that there's already been a few incidents where large amounts of votes suddenly disappeared, eg with The Game of Thrones where 10k votes were disappeared overnight.
I personally have had an imdb account for ages and I know that in quite a few movies that I KNOW I have rated have had their rating deleted. Plus through simple logic; given that music studios engage in similar payola activities all the time with radio stations and this is well documented, it makes no sense that with movie studios where much more money is at stake isn't doing the same thing with review sites to drum up publicity.
Anyways in my opinion this movie was pretty poor, especially compared to other great movies that have lower or similar ratings.
Votes being 'deleted' could be accounted for by people getting banned?
Shilling probably is being employed somehow, but I doubt that it exists on the scale or the effectiveness that you seem to imagine.
Born when she kissed me, died when she left me, lived whilst she loved me
Just because there is a record of a rating, doesn't mean that this rating counts toward the overall score.
Born when she kissed me, died when she left me, lived whilst she loved me
I've got this theory that either major studios pay sites like imdb to up their ratings to improve publicity or that they hire programmers to create thousands of dummy accounts to jack the rating up.
I rarely vote, either. The fact that the ratings really don't mean much, takes away the fun of voting.
shareSurely voting is just useful because it gives you a personal permanent indication of what you thought of a movie?
I've seen over 4,000 movies, and there are times that I honestly can't remember if I thought a movie was good or not, until I look up my vote on here. 'Fun' doesn't come into it, because I'm not interested in my favourite movies being the same as everybody else's.
Born when she kissed me, died when she left me, lived whilst she loved me
I don't know about that, but I do believe there are quite a few folks on here with multiple accounts. I also have seen so many times, people rating a movie before release, or rating a movie they admit they haven't seen.
Each individual has to decide for themselves. And there isn't a thing wrong with someone who has seen this, who hated it, or who loved it. It's about different tastes-not about one person being an idiot and another person being some cinematic genius who "gets it".
LOL
So now Holleran Company is a "mayor studio"?
This movie is a good example of how to make an action-thriller boring.
shareThis movie is a good example of how to make an action-thriller boring.
I agree with the soundtrack assessment 100%. I found the Music <---- !?!?!?!?!
jarring, annoying, frenetic. I just hated it. Is it correct to call the music techno ?
Anyway hard to feel very keen about daddy raising Hanna this way but that was what was written so what the hey. I would only give the movie a 5 because I didn't enjoy it that much but that's my personal reaction to the film, nothing more or less. We don't have to prove our rating just give it.
John Noble/Walter Bishop is the Rolls Royce of actors/characters
lot of chinese people who dig "gold" in WoW and makes extra cash liking a movie on IMDB??
shareI rated it 6. It is possible someone rated it 7 or 8. Not my cup of tea, but it's up to them. I was rather dissapointed by this film, honestly.
"That was a courtesy flush. I'm not actually done yet"
i personally loved it. good plot. good action. i gave it a 9.
shareI gave 8/10. A great movie. I would like know more about Marissa's character. She is a great villain. Marissa is a psychopath. If we had more Marissa the movie would be excellent.
shareI personally loved it. Thought it was one of the best of the year. An excellent, captivating character piece. The plot was subtle. The writing was absolutely beautiful. Best of all, it made sense. 9/10
share`same here, i also give overrated films v. low scores to drag them back down to where those *beep* belong haha`
Well then, I won`t say you`re an idiot, cause that`s rude, but you`re easily misled. If you think your 1 vote is going to skew 50,000 other votes, you should repeat high school math. If you think there aren`t also people artifically voting high because they want it to be higher, you should think more about the statement you just made. If you aren`t aware that IMDB filters out high and low values that are obviously in there to skew the data, then you should look into that too.
The very best thing you can do for the rest of us is grow up, rate things how you truly feel, get on the boards and be honest about what you think about a film. You may as well just come on and say `worst film ever`, which I also abhor.
For me, I liked this film, pretty good action, interesting premise, in general. I wasn`t sure about the genetic manipulation thing, or exactly why they left the cabin in the first place. What was it they thought they were going to accomplish exactly?. Especially if you`ve seen the alternate ending on the dvd, you might wonder even more. I did enjoy the discoveries and the counterpoint of being horrified by electricity and technology while being essentially without fear when facing her persecutors.
I wish you could do half ratings, because 7 seems low, but I`m not sure a full 8 is warranted, but I think I`m relating it to school marks where 80 seems quite good and 70 is sort of average.
"There's poo in there" - Zack
If IMDB filtered out high and low scores only there to skew the data, as you said..then there would not be voting allowed on movies that haven't been released yet. Especially votes of 1 and 10. I see it all the time.
IMDB ratings, no online ratings, can be trusted. If you like a movie, great. Like it. But pointing to any "official" site or critic or ANYTHING else, is not proof of anything as to the quality, or lack of it, of a movie.
I would guess that your opinion is based on a male viewpoint. I saw Captain America and Super 8 also this week, and I thought Hanna was by far the best for action sequences, music, and developing interest in the characters. Being female, I particularly enjoy movies where women excel in action (kick male butt), some of my favorites being Jennifer Garner, Angelina Jolie, Charlize Theron, Milla Jovovich, and I did like the fight sequences with Saiorse Ronan. I would characterize this movie as perhaps more of a chick flick. So I would rate it highly, too bad you can't appreciate the character development and details in the movie.
shareSorry, didn`t mean to imply that you could not rate it as a 1, or a 10, what I meant was that, if you take all the ratings and calculate an average, you won`t get the same number that IMDb has calculated. This is because their algorhythm includes filters to weed out numbers that are statistically significantly different from the average span of the ratings.
Here`s what IMDb has to say on the subject:
IMDb publishes weighted vote averages rather than raw data averages. Various filters are applied to the raw data in order to eliminate and reduce attempts at 'vote stuffing' by individuals more interested in changing the current rating of a movie than giving their true opinion of it.
The exact methods we use will not be disclosed. This should ensure that the policy remains effective. The result is a more accurate vote average.
Back to my words:
If you look at the breakdown of the voting for Hanna, you`ll note that half of the raters gave it a 7 or 8. There`s quite a drop for the 9`s but not much of a subsequent drop for the 10`s indicating some over rating by some people, assuming the data was normally distributed. On the low side, it`s even more obvious. There`s a nice data curve with the 5`s about half that of the 6`s, and the 4`s half of the 5`s and so on down until you get to the 1`s which are suddenly almost double the 2`s, when they should be more like half of the 2`s, suggesting that about 700 people did not vote properly.
Please understand that this is a purely statistical view of the data, and does not take into account that feelings are hard to measure, as opposed to hard data like age or height or weight, so it`s bound to be skewed. But until IMDb interviews all of us and applies a weighting to each of us individually to determine whether my vote should be worth more or less than your vote, stats is all we have.
Cheers -
"There's poo in there" - Zack
Some morons also vote only two ways, 1=bad and 10=good.
True, but that is easily dealt with through imdb's weighting, for those voters their 1 and 10 votes probably count as if they voted 4 and 7 instead.
--
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
[deleted]
Not really, it's just that wannabe-critics adore this kind of wannabe-artsy movies.
Personally, I've stopped trusting ratings a long ago, and Hanna doesn't deserve a 7 in any way, period.
Boycott movies that involve real animal violence! (and their directors too)
Hanna was complete style over substance. It might as well have been a feature length Chemical Bros music video. It doesn't deserve anything close to a 7.
It was nicely shot, edited, acted and had a lot of potential, but a good film, it is not.
Art is a lie that tells the truth.share
http://twitter.com/solmaquina
Hanna was complete style over substance. . . . but a good film, it is not.
I disagree.
Here's my reasons:
Mainly because it doesn't look like any other recent American action film, and more importantly, actually looks like a *beep* FILM instead of a video game cutscene. There's a vivid range of full spectrum color, none of that teal and burnt orange crap. The image looks like film grain, without that obnoxious digitally processed plastic sheen. There are some nice long takes and a blessed absence of continuous shaky cam and ADHD editing. Really effective Chemical Brothers score. Cinematography so good that at times it reminded me of Chris Doyle. Good performances by Saoirse Ronan and Eric Bana. A not necessarily good but imho fun one by Cate Blanchett, Tom Hollander coming across like a combination of Eddie Izzard and Klaus Kinski. The best abandoned amusement park I've seen in a film since the 60s. A one-against-three fight scene done in a single take with the camera at a decent distance from the combatants (when was the last time you saw that in an English language film?). A lack of heavy-handed exposition and a commendable willingness to convey key plot points visually. The best Fairy Tale feel since early Neil Jordan. A cool Euro vibe throughout, with a refreshing lack of American pop culture referents.
Yes, there are flaws and not everything makes sense and some things are left unexplained. But I had a damn good time. If only QUANTUM OF SOLACE had looked like this and been this visually coherent.
And I think it's *beep* to say that the film "wannabe-artsy movie." It's an action, pure and simple, just one with a nice retro/Euro feel and a decent old-fashioned sincerity, with no smugly winking hipster douchebaggery about it. Joe Wright's visual flair is used to "take the stuffing out of prestige pieces," and his talents are used to give us an action film that looks fresh, visually coherent and propulsive without being being spastic or frenetic.
Like your post Jill. I will read it again. It is dense in a positive way.
shareI think there might be a third explanation:
3.) Some people just just have different tastes than you do, and maybe you're honestly in the minority. No conspiracy. Just math.
You didn't like it? Okay. Life goes on.
Actually I have a taste as the mainstream most of time. It's just until recently I noticed the rating is sometime off too much. Usually I prefer a movie based on good script.
shareIf the rating is "off" (according to your reckoning of a given film's worth), by definition it means your view is not the mainstream one. If you'd give a film a 4/10, and it has a rating of 7.4, it just means MOST people like it more than you. While it may seem "off" to you, that's the price we pay in a democratic system.
share I've come to distrust IMDB ratings in the past year, maybe more.
It seems to be getting worse on new movies, as in unreliable.
This movie, Hanna, could have been great. The raw material was there. There
was a story that was there.
Yet it was a major mess by the end.
I wanted to like the movie so much as the story line I find compelling but
they managed to munge the actual story so badly, and the ending was so absurd
with the main CIA protagonist acting out of character, that I
couldn't muster more than a 6 rating for this one and I had to push myself
to grant it that much.
The more I think about it the more it seems only worth a 5 and that is because
of the poorly executed story of a damn good underlying idea and plot.
I'd not fault the director, nor the actors. It was writing and a failure
to fully visualize the story that could have been.
As for IMDB. I have come to the conclusion that either the majority
of voters these days are some sort of easy to please mindless trolls or
it the pool of active voters is poisoned by corporate jack asses.
I think it is the latter.
I say that not based soley on the voting record I see for this movie alone, but for a good number of movies released over the past year or two.
I think it is that people are extremely easy to please these days. The bar has been lowering for most successful mainstream film for some time now. However I really did enjoy Hanna and I gave it and 8.5-9/10
share