Statistics (votes) on this film?


If you click on votes after the 5.6 (or something) that this film got, it's like almost/around 22% giving it one, and about 24% giving it tens.

I haven't seen this movie yet, but I have seen the great Enron: The Smartest Guys in The Room and have heard good things about Taxi to the Dark Side. I would think that this movie would have a higher rating...

Conspiracy? Why so many ones (didn't this movie just come out)? Can anybody whose seen this film comment? Is it just a worse movie? Polarizing?

"Who do you think you are, Bill Clinton? You're a comptroller!"

reply

Very important information, but terrible, distracting presentation of that information.

My Film Ratings,Rankings,and Ramblings @ http://ministryoftruthfilmratings.tumblr.com/

reply

I assume that you're speaking of the film and not my rambling original post... (could go either way).

"Who do you think you are, Bill Clinton? You're a comptroller!"

reply

I'll second The Thin White Duke is he was referring to the film and not your question. It was a helluva story, but there were a few to many times where cute pop-song jokes and quick edits undercut the important stuff. Moments that were allowed to resonate in Gibney's earlier movies too frequently get drowned out here. It may not be worth your $10, but it's still worth your 2hours. If you miss it in the theater, watch for it on IFC or Sundance.

reply

I agree with you that this is very important information that everyone should see. It's also true that the editing made it hard to follow sometimes.

reply

Thank you for the responses.

Still, though, a 5.6? Worthy of the 1s that people are raining down on the film? Even the second time I saw Enron, I realized some of the "cutesy pop songs" and agenda through editing made it distracting. Still a solid 7-8 out of ten though, out of necessity alone to get this information out to a wider audience that would have no interest in reading these stories in (gasp) newspapers.

In summation, I understand the criticism in this thread so far, but do you feel the current rating reflects the quality of the film? Because a 5.6 doesn't seem like a film worth seeing. But if it's another informative film with Gibney's trademark "cutesy" editing at fault, I think it would still be worth checking out.

Opinions?

"Who do you think you are, Bill Clinton? You're a comptroller!"

reply

The bottom line is that many conservatives and Republicans are going to consider it an anti-conservative/anti-republican movie, and are going to vote it down accordingly having seen it or not.

Sad when people are so loyal to party that they consider it a negative thing to expose or discuss crookedness and corruption that embarrasses "their side," but thanks to talk radio and a powerful messaging wing that emphasizes loyalty to party over anything else, that's where the conservative "movement" is at these days.

Go to amazon, and you see the same thing with books that are considered "anti-conservative." Hell, Stephen King's "Under The Dome" has a big chunk of reviews that pan it and vote it down because the central villain is a crooked small town polician who's conservative.

reply

Yes, mattster 12. The Rethugs, most of whom haven't seen and won't see this film, gave it a preemptive "1," as if it were truly as bad as, say, Plan 9 or something. The same thing goes on at Amazon.com. Rethugs will give an obviously great work of left-leaning journalism (Naomi Klein's books) 1 star, while Dems will give Jonah Goldberg a "1," even though they haven't read it. (There is a difference there, though" Goldberg is not readable for rational people.) Not that Casino Jack is a "10," but it is certainly not a 5.6.

reply

Although I didn't like this film all that much because it didn't grab me the way other documentaries have, it definitely does not deserve all the "1" votes.
Those are most likely from conservatives who think the film is insulting their party, even if they haven't seen it.
I have found a lot of documentaries on IMDb have an unreasonably overwhelming number of "1" and "10" votes. Mindless people just voting because they think the filmmaker disagrees with them.

reply

This is IMDB. The rating system meanings nothing. Many people give a movie a 1 if they don't like it and a 10 if they like it. Most people don't think logically on the internet.

_______
http://AndroidsDontDance.tv
http://ThatWasJunk.com
http://youtube.com/PennsylvaniaPeople

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

As with most good documentaries, if the vote was artificially pushed down by initial attention of haters, eventually the vote will creep back up and find it's proper value.

This is now worth 6.7, I suspect in another year or two, it will probably stabilise around mid 7.5.

I gave it 9/10, because there are a few documentaries out there that make a much more compelling case (such as The Cove). This film was very good, but it lacked that compelling component.

The two end statements are the sad confession of pessimism:
-That the lobby business was 1 billion dollars bigger than the previous year
-That the courts just removed corporate spending cap on elections

It spells the end of democracy and the victory of the theocratic greenback.

***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**

reply

I rated this documentary a 10 --- In fact, I rated it one point higher than the film Casino Jack with Kevin Spacey. I also noticed that there are a lot of ONE ratings on the IMDb forums for almost ALL the films. I can't understand that. There is always something redeemable about a film. A one should be given to something that actually makes you sick, like for example a shakey hand-held camera by someone that does not know how to make films. I have never rated any film that I have seen a one, especially when we are not forced to see a film, we have the choice to select what we want to see.

reply