5,7? Really!?
I'm amazed that this movie has a 5,7 rating. I found it slow, predictable and bad acted (Michael Douglas excluded!).
Edward Cullen (L)
And you think a 5.7 is a good rating?
shareNot the highest rating I know, but still above average. This movie deserves less.
Edward Cullen (L)
It was a good rating considering that Michael Douglas was great in this film. He was a charismatic villain as Mark Hunter.
share5.7 is below average. 5.7 out of 10 is the same as 57 out of 100. When was the last time you took a test and scored a 57 and you got a better than average grade?
How I rate movies: 5 stars=F,6 stars=D,7 stars=C,8 stars=B,9 stars=A.1-4 stars are very bad.
Your system is really stupid. It is like stars, sp what does a test have to do with it, a horribly ignorant analogy. If you have 5 stars for a hotel you rate them 1-5 stars, with one being the worst, 3 being average, 5 being the best. In IMDB you have 10 stars with 10 being the best and 1 being the wost, 5 is average like the other guy says. In your system you give the worst grade of F a 5, that is just dumb. How can you say 1-4 are very bad, F is bad and you have it a 5, so you are basically screwing up all of your ratings. Think of it this way 1-2 is very bad, 3-4 is bad, 5-6 is average, 7-8 is good, 9-10 is very good/excellent. Now you have just had your class in how to rate, hopefully that helps you.
shareI have to agree with your reasoning, but you have got the numbers totally wrong! first of all, you can't be real objective with those ratings...like 1-2,3-4 u can't evenly space them out to label them as good or bad or anything else! I'm sure there are not many movies in here that are rated less than 2 or more than 8. The top 250 in IMDB's all time list contains only 3 movies having a rating of more than 9 but the rest 247( or more like 'Crash') have a rating of 8.0-8.9! Which brings to my second point- your scale is integral which is not the case with IMDB's normalised ratings! And you certainly can't read too much into these numerical ratings. I, for one feel that any movie rated 7 and above can actually be considered anything from good to once-in-a-lifetime movie! For example, 'Brokeback mountain' and 'Transamerica' both in the mid 7's are really good movies that are once in a lifetime movies because of the nature of the themes they handle! Moreover, the density of films is not even, i.e there are more movies between 5.5-7 than there is between 7-8.5.
Btw, I was ok with the rating 5.7 given to this movie- a somewhat decent thriller with bad screenplay and glaring plot holes overcome by a somewhat inconsistent yet effective cast! And i agree with the review as well - the story had lots of potential to be molded into a suspenseful thriller but failed because of unbelievably stupid writing!
5.7 is below average. 5.7 out of 10 is the same as 57 out of 100. When was the last time you took a test and scored a 57 and you got a better than average grade?
How I rate movies: 5 stars=F,6 stars=D,7 stars=C,8 stars=B,9 stars=A.1-4 stars are very bad.
I intend to invent a rating system and hold everyone else to it too. It looks like fun. share