How can this possibly have so many 1.0 ratings?

I watched it last night and I thought it was very well done. It perfectly captured the horrors of a family holiday.

Some maladjusted types vote that way as a means of 'redressing the balance'. Others just hate the film.

Oh whisky, leave me alone.

Be aware that IMDB have methods of weighting out idiots who persistently vote 1 or 10 and those whose extreme votes are clearly greatly out of kilter with the general consensus.

Edited to add, having watched the film:

In this case I thing a score of one would be perfectly justified from some. The director used a very experimental technique that would have made the whole thing pointless and unwatchable to many.

My "1" rating was entirely considered. There are different ways for viewers to rate a film, I guess, and it is not unusual for professional critics to have entirely opposing views.

1s and 10s are neither right nor wrong, but opinions. I can't see how anyone could give this film a ten, nor, in particular, how they could find any part of it hysterically "laugh out loud" funny.

I was rating it on the basis of "entertainment for the average viewer". In fact I see my own tastes as being slightly more sophisticated than the average, but nevertheless, I found nothing to like in this film.

1) It was pure observation, there was no plot, and what we were observing had no interest for me.
2) The characters were entirely unsympathetic and had no "back story"
3) The dialogue was stilted and entirely unrealistic.
4) Behaviours were unbelievable - for instance, after Rose left, no one mentioned her, when one or other of the "children" stormed out the rest of the cast hardly showed any reaction.
5) The location, which is entirely beautiful, was almost entirely wasted. Both the interior and exterior shots were uniformly dismal.
6) The whole thing seemed entirely derivative of certain Italian "art" films of the 1960s and 70s.

There was nothing, in other words, which *I* found attractive, interesting, or worthwhile about it. I might have to admit that it is a different classification of "bad" from, say, "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians", but I'm not a professional critic who has to find something interesting to say about eyelines or back-references or whatever. It's a film - I watched it - I never want to see it again and I thoroughly *do not* recommend it. 1/10 !

I gave it one point for the scenery. The movie was utterly boring. I kept waiting for a plot and there wasn't one. A complete waste of time.

It was complete and utter crap. It's someone trying to come across as all arty and ramming every possible cliche they can (clouds, silent shots of things, bits were people just do random stuff with no dialogue, etc). You can also tell that the clothes are from charity shops as Edward looks like he'd tried out for the role of Dr Who before this.

I also know that all writers try to speak to their audience through characters, but this was totally beyond. It's like she'd just decided to pour her entire stream of conciousness into the dialogue (including some "I'm so cool bits") and you can really tell.

This film actually makes Night Train to Venice seem worth of an Oscar. It's nothing but pretentious drivel.