so, this was at "7.3/10 from 15 users" and is now at "5,9/10 from 37 users" and 2 "external" reviews praising this as awesome.
let me guess the reality: some lousy indie flick that gets hyped and shilled by the people involved, so naive movie viewers get tricked into checking it me, that will be at 2.1 by 200 viewers in a month or so.
not falling for it. not this time.
"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh
[deleted]
thanks for the info. that's exactly what i expected. no wonder they are shill-marketing it. i just don't get what people get out of doing this? is there really a profit to get out of it? how?
"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh
Jon_Death is welcome to his opinion (which seems to be that not only does he hate this film, but the actors involved and the movie industry in general), but I thought the movie was fine. If anything it was better than I expected. It wasn't a great film and it had its flaws (Logan Huffman's performance being one of them), but I liked it.
I saw Complicity based on the trailer. I can't recall ever watching a movie due to the IMDB rating, but then again I've only been to Rotten Tomatoes maybe three times and Metacritic once, so it's not really my practice to consult online ratings before seeing a film.
I agree! I thought all of the cast was solid. I really liked Heather Hemmens too.
sharenot the point. good that you enjoyed it. the point being: directors and friends shilling on the imdb instead of putting together a proper film. this was shillvoted to 7.3 and look where it is now: 3.7 from 141 users. obviously the plan to trick people into watching dosn't work. it never does or worse makes people angry. is that worth the procedure? obviously no. so, why not spare the effort and concentrate on making a compelling film?
"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh
You assume that the filmmakers failed at "putting together a proper film"
and imply that the film is not compelling. I disagree with you on both points.
Whether people involved in the film "shillvoted" it to an initial high rating I don't know and have no way of either proving or disproving. Honestly, it doesn't matter much to me either way, though I hope that the current rating does not dissuade would be viewers from watching the film and deciding for themselves whether or not it is entertaining.
well, as much as i distrust any rating system, let's be honest, i have seen a gazillion movies in my lifetime, but never have i seen a film that was awesome, that did anything less than a 5.0 rating here. i never saw a film, thought it was great and afterwards looked it up here to find out that people thought it was a complete stinker. yes, there were cases where is disagree with a 5 or a 6 or even a 7, but if a films gets well below 4 it usually is pretty accurate. most films are debatable, but if you end up with a 3.7 you can be sure that you failed. apart from that you can not give it cinematography bonus point since everything that you can find about it online looks like crap.
this would not be a problem, if this film was meant to be a spoof. look at all the scyfy carp and the asylum movies. it is crap, but they know its crap and they market it as crap. fair enough.
"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh
if a films gets well below 4 it usually is pretty accurate. most films are debatable, but if you end up with a 3.7 you can be sure that you failed.
lol. ok, now we are getting a bit ridiculous, aren't we? the good old "everything is relative, especially in art" hollow wannabe argument. good for you, if you liked it.
wow, i just saw this:
"Examples of Opinions:
This movie is terrible.
This movie is a masterpiece.
This is the most offensive movie ever made. "
holy crap, you are lumping everything you can come up with into this, right?
so, if professional critics and a huge majority of moviegoers consider a film a "masterpiece", a statement that sums up the measurable matters of scriptwriting (craft), acting (craft), sound (craft) .. etc, which is an opjective factor, a professional view on quality of craft, is the same for you as the purely subjective matter of being offended by a films language and/or subject matter? wow. now that's what i call ignorance.
good for you, though. science has proven that your people live much happier lifes.
"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh
Everything is not relative. That is a deeply irrational view which I do not support or promote. OPINIONS are relative.
I and three other people eat a burger. I think it's terrible. The other three think it's one of the best burgers either of them have ever eaten. A professional food critic walks in, orders and eats the same burger, and declares it terrible. Which one of our opinions has magically transformed into fact?
Like with food, people have different tastes in art, in film. What if a film is enormously popular and acclaimed in one country but not in another? Who's right and who's wrong in that case? What if a film is treated as mediocre upon release but decades later comes to be regarded as a masterpiece? Was the initial majority right or was the later majority? What roles do gender, race, age, and socio-economic background play in all of this? Treating opinions as facts is as irrational as declaring all things relative.
Wow, OP's projection of the rating for this movie is pretty much spot on. It's now at 4.1/10 from 176 users.
shareIt's a damn terrible movie!!!! I usually laugh when people say those involved with the movie uprate it. With this movie that is exactly what happened.
shareHaha; very possible! Could also be current events can influence peoples' feelings about the movie or just a simple coincidence.
http://i61.tinypic.com/2v3j8gp.jpg
http://i62.tinypic.com/2yjufbk.jpg