MovieChat Forums > A Most Violent Year (2015) Discussion > Never trusting imdb ratings again

Never trusting imdb ratings again


First Foxcatcher and now this, i only watched both because of the imdb rating and i just cannot believe its rated so high, i guess if a movie has good acting it must be AWESOME because thats all this movie had, literally NOTHING happens, just like foxcatcher aka a whole lot of nothin. I could not beleive the whole movie was about buying a piece of property, 2 hours of trying to buying a piece of propery and the movie gets a 7.5? please someone explain what was so good about this movie

a violent year and i think i saw 2 maybe 3 "violent" scenes if u even wanna call getting punched in the face violent.

reply

The movie sucked, but critics and pretentious cinephiles love to praise boring cinema. If a film is slow and hard to understand, then there must be something there that only a very discerning eye can catch. It's BS. I call it the "'Emperor's New Clothes' syndrome.

reply

"Cinephiles" don't love this movie. I think the praise 'A Most Violent Year' and 'Foxcatcher' are receiving is for the acting not for the overall film. This happens every awards season.

'A Most Violent Year' and 'Foxcatcher' both lack any real drama or tension. The challenges the lead characters must overcome aren't very interesting or uncommon. Theses stories did not need to be told.

reply

I think the praise 'A Most Violent Year' and 'Foxcatcher' are receiving is for the acting not for the overall film.


I agree with this, although I didn't particularly think the performances in this film were that strong. They were decent, sure, but they weren't noteworthy. Having seen Foxcatcher too, I would say Steve Carell is just about the only thing worth seeing that film for.

I found this film very neat and tidy but, as you say, there was no real drama or tension.

reply

[deleted]

This thread perfectly shows how people's film expectations have become influenced by today's prevalence of CGI, outlandish action sequences, and contrived melodrama.

When a movie comes out that actually conveys real life struggles, with an air-tight script and beautiful acting, they dismiss it as boring. Sad.

reply

This thread perfectly shows how people's film expectations have become influenced by today's prevalence of CGI, outlandish action sequences, and contrived melodrama.

When a movie comes out that actually conveys real life struggles, with an air-tight script and beautiful acting, they dismiss it as boring. Sad.


this post proves that you like to categorize people to make it simple for yourself..
and it proves my point that there is a big crisis in the movie industry today where a movie just by good acting and directing get praised into the sky,
watch more movies and classics is my advice to you

reply

Oh I watch plenty of classics. Too many, actually.

But agree to disagree.

I just simply think there's a huge difference between "boring" and "engaging." To each their own.

reply

This thread perfectly shows how people's film expectations have become influenced by today's prevalence of CGI, outlandish action sequences, and contrived melodrama.

When a movie comes out that actually conveys real life struggles, with an air-tight script and beautiful acting, they dismiss it as boring. Sad
.

Sadly, you are correct. Go look at the messageboard for MOST WANTED MAN as well as FOXCATCHER and MOST VIOLENT YEAR. Three of the better movies this year, and they are trashed on imdb by folks who think TAKEN PART 9 is what a crime movie is all about. Unfortunately, that's what you get with a generation brought up on hyper action and special effects overkill.

reply

This not the case. For my self, I admire drama that respect viewers. For instance, I enjoy watching Ingmar Bergman philosophical themes, love Kurosawa's original deep ideas (e.g Stray Dog), love Stanley Kubrick thoughtful works. But this movie does not give me that impression, neither reflect the level of even a convincing cinematic work. Besides, one can feel that someone bribed imdb to label it as an action movie just to attract as many viewers as they can.
But hear me everybody loudly: This not an ACTION movie. NO WAY!
If it's good and special piece of work, then why describe it as action at all! It seems like fraud, and who did that does not have the confidence of the making of this film.
In addition, I really did not feel the acting was touching or even fortunate. Oscar Isaac was not bad, but nothing so special in his performance. Jessica Chastain was bad and made some mistakes. Albert Brooks was below bad in a way I thought he was just reading the lines. Although the story could be somewhat interesting, but the director killed any chance to make the work more appealing. If this is the new genre of "reality", then we better wait the apocalypse soon. Cinema is an artistic entertainment, so it is a combination of art and entertainment, no one should stray away of this course.
In normal cases, I would give this movie 5 or 6 marks, but as long as treachery of "Action" is there I give it 1. If the "Action" genre is removed, I would give my 5 normal mark.

reply

So why exactly are you judging a movie based on how an outside, independent source chose to categorize it? How exactly does IMDB's decision to classify it as "action" affect the actual quality of the movie?

reply

It does not. He's just pissed.

reply

How facile to immediately categorize anyone who doesn't love this film as part of a generation only interested in CGI and "hyper action". Talk about a sweeping generalization!

I'm a film buff-I started watching independent films in small theaters in NYC in the 1970's and watch TCM religiously. Isn't it enough for you to simply state why you enjoyed this film without putting down people who did not? I find your reaction pretentious and childish - In essence you're saying--because we did not enjoy the same film as you, we lack a certain taste level and further, we all must be part of a generation, "only interested in CGI". This has become the go-to on IMDB-rather then providing a short critique of why you enjoyed the film, put down people who did not. Yawn.

Please get over yourself.

reply

Icy,

The fact is that many critics of this film do present indications of preferring the CGI loaded kind of film. You may think that does not apply to you, but it is a common enough situation that it is fair to remark upon.

reply

I disagree.

reply

I agree.

reply

Agreed.


* I killed god! Well... me and the internet did.

reply

[deleted]

I was responding specifically to the OP's hyperbolic complaint that "nothing happens" in the movie, which is as big of a mischaracterization as anything else posted in this discussion.

But it's cute that the mere mention of CGI got you all riled up.

People's standards for what constitutes a compelling drama has clearly changed over time. That's the only point I was trying to make, which clearly went over your head.

You get over yourself, buddy.

reply

I figured this would be a movie in the genre of the movies I grew up with: Goodfellas, the godfather movies, once upon a time in America etc...


Compared to those movies, yes, barely anything happens, this movie looked at those movies, decided to copy the style and setting, but then leave out everything that made those movies exciting to watch.

THe fact that people get riled up when you mention CGI is because that has become the go to argument that people use when they want to portray themselves as more sophisticated and when they want to belittle other peoples opinions on movies.

And this movie my friend, is boring!

reply

conveys real life struggles


I remember my acting teacher once telling us...people don't come to the theatre to see "real life struggles." They come because they want to see drama. Without drama, without motivation a story falls apart. This is exactly what happened here.

A Most Boring Year has no drama, no tension. Yes, there are moments when you believe something is about to happen, but then...nothing. This is especially disappointing when you consider the director (competent), and the actors (remarkably talented).

Film wise it's a dud, so performance wise you'd hope that the actors could make up for it and make it worthy viewing. I will say this film didn't leave me angry like after I wasted my time watching Big Eyes and Cake, but it still left something to be desired. I found myself highly disappointed in how Jessica Chastain was completely wasted in this. The awards buzz for her performance is highly confusing.

reply

Yes, there are moments when you believe something is about to happen, but then...nothing. This is especially disappointing when you consider the director (competent), and the actors (remarkably talented).

Thats why its a missed oppurtunity...
case closed

reply

I totally agree with you. There are no dramatic moments at all in this "drama", LOL. This is a well acted and well photographed movie. Oscar Isaac's performance especially is extremely engaging. The storyline is based on good premise, but the fault is with the director and the script writer in putting the movie together so the final product looks tepid and flat. What a pity.

reply

A Most Boring Year has no drama, no tension.


I disagree completely. This film took something as boring and lifeless as the local oil business of NYC and turned it into a race against the clock with deception and just enough action to feel believable. I felt transported to that most violent year of 1981 as I watched, I was truly immersed in something that in real life, I'd give very few *beep* about.

reply

A film is another dimension of portraying reality. Even good films of the fantasy genre have real human emotions at their core. This escapism thing is an excuse to trash good films and maybe prefer bad flashy films (action and melodrama). Pop culture has spoilt people with making films that have too much happening, with most of them hardly making sense and turning them into AD action/drama craving ones.

By your post, I guess you'd find it hard to like Italian Neo-realist and Minimalist films at all, there's very less happening in those films superficially, but have the ability to be profound.

reply

YES to this. A fine, thoughtful film. If you missed the tension - you might be a little numb.

reply

I hated it. I complained/explained my reasons on these message boards about it.

I find it hilarious that the people that enjoyed it are the ones offended by my opinion of the film. "oh no, he just wants action and explosions.. his opinion shouldn't count!" lol please. I won't even go there.

Am I upset that some people enjoyed it? Lord no. In fact, I'm glad someone walked away with the feeling of enjoyment from this film. I personally thought it was boring as hell.

You people will just have to find a way to live with that, won't you?

reply

You hit the nail on the head. Well played sir/ms.

reply

An air-tight script? About as air-tight as swiss cheese, perhaps...
Why would a couple of guys try to hijack a truck in a rush hour traffic jam on a bridge when in real life trucks get hijacked on lonely streets, with the cooperation of the driver.
When the sales kid gets beat up, he just disappears. Who attacked him? Why didn't the cops visit the house where it happened?
Where was Julian hiding in the winter, and why did he know to show up at the terminal?
Anna got five minutes from the DA before the search; how did all those boxes of papers get onto the deck? Are the cops so stupid that they wouldn't look there? Or wonder where Abel had got to?
Why didn't the guy just dump the stolen oil before the cops showed up? How long would it have taken the DA to get a search warrant anyway, assuming he had just believed Abel.
And so on...
The movie made gestures at real-life problems, but it came off like something on Lifetime: bad writing, no visual imagination, no rythm. Imagine what Cassavetes, the Dardennes, or Martin Scorcese would have done with it.

reply

ONE X,you´re right and thats the main reason this movie flopped big time,because of the lousy script

reply

The director wants us to watch the police as the week side in the whole story, so that's way its "a most violent year". Oh, it's boring presentation.

reply

So if you were looking for those scenes you must really need everything explained and fleshed out for you, am I right?

Follow the latest films around the world!! http://7films.dendelionblu.me

reply

Agreed!

reply

You're making huge assumptions about the type of people who didn't like this movie.

It has nothing to do with this movie conveying "real life", or a lack of CGI. The story, frankly, was just dull. Movies like this need ample tension, or they just fall flat, like this movie did. The stakes simply didn't feel high enough.

reply

When a movie comes out that actually conveys real life struggles, with an air-tight script and beautiful acting, they dismiss it as boring. Sad.


Not to mention, gorgeous, shaky cam-free cinematography.

And agreed.

You know what I found boring? Guardians of the Galaxy.

Originality needs a reboot.

reply

Good post. The moving away from what Film should be,with depth,acting,directing, scripting,lighting,and art,to simple-minded created moments of loud noise and imaginative visuals.

Can you fly this plane?
Surely u cant be serious
I am serious,and dont call me Shirley

reply

It isn't boring when you pay attention to the movie. Great movies flow by dialogue, and this is about as good as it gets, besides the ending which I admit, could have been stronger. I understand that people find movies like this and Killing Them Softly boring, but they flow so well, and the stories are amazing. People don't rate these movies well because they're pretentious, they rate them well because they are fantastic films, unlike films such as X-Men or The Gambler remake. I assure you, it isn't BS.

Also, the film is not hard to understand at all if you listen. You can easily build inferences off the explanations in the movie.

reply

I saw the ending as the strongest part... it showed how both of them were really trying to do the thing that is "most right"... but are also totally corrupt.

reply

coulda been told in 11 minutes...liked the look at not much else


~I see a little silhouette of a man, Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango.

reply

LouisSnow likes to bash the pretentious critics, but he's on the pretentious message board...thus, being pretentious.


Shutting the...up, would be the way for you to go.

reply

The movie sucked, but critics and pretentious cinephiles love to praise boring cinema. If a film is slow and hard to understand, then there must be something there that only a very discerning eye can catch. It's BS. I call it the "'Emperor's New Clothes' syndrome.


Isn't it interesting that the posts criticising others for pretentiousness always seem so arse-numbingly pretentious themselves...

The Adventures of The Man With No Penis: http://tinyurl.com/8ezrkh

reply

Totally, maybe.
Anyways my update. I didnt watch the movie yet, but the scenes I skipped through looked really boring, lol. Need to be in a totally chilled mood to watch that, movie`s probably slow as *beep* tho, lolz.

reply

[deleted]

this just shows how big the crisis is in the movie industry today,
when the acting is good it get praised into the sky

reply

Guys this conversation is really stupid. Acting is 50% of the film. Cinematography, art direction and script is the other 50% one might argue. If the acting is terrible then the movie fails. There is no saving it, regardless of star power for SFX trickery. However, if the acting is strong and rooted in realism and the screenplay isn't swiss cheese, then the film at least has a chance to shine given the other necessary conditions are in place.

reply

Good film, not full of the BS shoot-em up car chases people seem to find entertaining. Realistic and a good period piece, gave you a taste of early 80's NYC.

reply

Nothing in this film gave a taste of early 80's New York. Absolutely nothing.

reply

You suck.

reply

Quite possible the strangest critique of a movie i've ever read. You have convinced me I need to see this. When a person that doesn't like a film indicates the acting is good, I that says alot. For me writing and acting are the components that define a great film. Thanks for giving me a reason to watch it. I don't need super heroes, vampires or special effects to thoroughly enjoy a film. Sure things like good pacing, editing, score and camera work are very important, but i'll take good acting over the big budget summer popcorn movies any day of the week.

reply

Just because the acting wasn't terrible, does not mean it was fantastic either. The story told in this movie is extremely boring. And the ending is what put a nail in it's coffin for me, personally.

I have yet to figure out WHY this story needed to be told. It really seems like a pointless film in my opinion. And the way some people seem to defend it with the "oh it doesn't have CGI/hyper-action = GOOD FILM!"... please. Just stop.

The decent-ish acting performances from the cast do not carry this film or it's story. And the plot of it is misleading as you get. This film was aimed and marketed at people who like mob flicks. During a time in New York when the mob was at it's best (so to speak) and it turns out to have nearly NOTHING to do with them.

I'm glad some people enjoyed it. But I too understand the movie just fine, what it was trying to convey to the audience and I can honestly say it was a massive failure with the exception of the cast's performance which was just okay - not great, by any stretch of the imagination.

Gave it a 5/10

reply

I have yet to figure out WHY this story needed to be told. It really seems like a pointless film in my opinion.


Really? That's the best you got? TAKEN 3 was a story that "needed" to be told? THE WEDDING RINGER? THE LEGO MOVIE?

And, the Mob has a LOT more to do with this plot, but, I guess it was too subtle for you since you were waiting for a shoot-out and a CGI explosion to explain it to you.

reply

i wasnt waiting for a shoot out or cgi explosion,
i was waiting for something to happen

reply

I never said I wanted CGI or over the top action. I wanted more than what it offered. Which was basically..

"oh dear me, im in a business that is run mostly by mobbed up individuals as my competitors. Whatever will I do..? I'm a good guy, I don't wanna be mobbed up."

"Oh look, life is tough for me and my business cause the competition steals my company trucks. Oh the heart ache. Oh the horror. Oh the tragedy."

"And oh my, I have cost one of my workers his life by sending him out in a truck of mine again KNOWING what would likely happen. But I have found the money to keep my business going. Thank goodness. THE END - ROLE CREDITS"

Yeah, feel free to gush over the top notch acting (I say that with the most sincere form of sarcasm you can comprehend, mind you) of this boring, pointless film.

reply

In a post above you said that you understood the movie just fine. Then in this post you show that you completely failed to understand it. So which is it? Did you understand it or not? If so then why did you offer this imbecilic overview of the plot?

We're from the planet Duplon. We are here to destroy you.

reply

You really are a *beep* idiot do you realize that?

reply

Once again, the claim "nothing happens" when that is of course not literally true is aimed by the CGI loving crowd at a film that is an adult drama. What the criticism really amounts to is a stated preference for a different kind of film, presumably a child oriented "action" film with loud noises, explosions, cartoonish characters and the like.

This film had none of those.

I think the inclusion of the word "violent" may have drawn in some viewers who really wanted a different kind of film. It sort of reminds me of criticisms aimed at Cronenberg's A History of Violence nearly ten years ago that, despite some rather gruesome scenes, was not "violent enough" for some, and certainly not the kind of film wanted by some.

reply

Great comeback Daffy! Actually it's YOU who is clearly the idiot. I think it's time you put your money where your mouth is and explain what you think the movie is about. At this point it appears pretty obvious that you didn't understand it so this is your chance to prove otherwise before your credibility drops to zero...

We're from the planet Duplon. We are here to destroy you.

reply

"oh dear me, im in a business that is run mostly by mobbed up individuals as my competitors. Whatever will I do..? I'm a good guy, I don't wanna be mobbed up."

"Oh look, life is tough for me and my business cause the competition steals my company trucks. Oh the heart ache. Oh the horror. Oh the tragedy."

"And oh my, I have cost one of my workers his life by sending him out in a truck of mine again KNOWING what would likely happen. But I have found the money to keep my business going. Thank goodness. THE END - ROLE CREDITS"


You do realize (actually, you probably don't) that with a few minor word changes you are describing the plot of THE GODFATHER? Oft-considered (including on imdb) to be one of the best movies ever made.

I'm not comparing VIOLENT to THE GODFATHER, but, used only to show you that a rough plot sketch does not a movie make. Nor, does every crime movie have to be wall to wall action.

reply

So, you like violence... otherwise life is boring? I know what you mean. After the first twenty minutes... Saving Private Ryan was a snooze fest!

reply

So, you like violence... otherwise life is boring? I know what you mean. After the first twenty minutes... Saving Private Ryan was a snooze fest!

no i like character development and something to happen,

reply

This movie was one of the most gripping films I've seen in a while. No true cinema fan goes by the terrible rating system on imdb. Best to go with Rotten Tomatoes or meta critic if anything. How on earth could anyone find this movie boring is beyond my comprehension.

The direction, the acting, the script and the cinematography were all top game stuff. Sad sad times for film.

reply

frosty,

I agree with both your assessments. I find no merit whatsoever to the notion that this film is "boring", particularly when noted as such by posters who do not think they even have to try and explain what it was about the film that led to that criticism.

I think in actuality those critics break down into two camps.

The first are those who expected a different film from the title, one that has much more violence in it. this is not hard to understand, and should even be expected. I am not saying those who named it as they did were necessarily hoping to draw in a larger audience by doing that, and in fact I think it plausible that the title was honestly chosen. (I think the title refers to both the time and place of its setting as one that was infused with a general sense of potential violence, which was the backdrop for the film.) But you include such a reference in your title, and don't be surprised if some viewers hope or expect the film to contain some significant level of violence, here meaning more than is actually in the film. Given the disparity, we see the resulting complaints.

The second group is to my view more insidious. They are people who did not feel misled, but who categorically object to or dislike this kind of film. By that I mean a film that spends a certain portion of its attention on character development, thematic elements and other apects that deviate from a close adherence to plot development, particularly one punctuated by thrills, unexpected turns, and of course explosions, loud noises and that sort of thing. Of course a member of the first group can quite easily also be found in this one, but this group is also one that was not misled by the title.

And while I can sort of understand someone disappointed because the title led them to believe they were going to see a different kind of film, the second type is really one who feels compelled to go onto a message board to complain that this kind of film was made in the first place. They want to see that only the kind or kinds of films they prefer are made. They don't want to see others, who enjoyed this kind of film, have that kind of enjoyment. It is really a rather reactionary and stilted worldview at work.

reply

I have nothing but contempt for people who decide to see a movie based on the ratings. Just because people voted high because they enjoyed the movie doesn't mean you will. If they subsequently didn't like the move, then it's their fault and nobody else's. Don't blame the ratings for your own stupidity. You appear to have gone to see the movie as well because it had violent in the title, which makes you even more of a fcking idiot.


reply

I saw it because trailers billed it as a sort of modern-day retelling of The Godfather. Perhaps I went in with too high expectations, because I did not feel the film was anything close to a modern-day Godfather.

reply

You sir, are an idiot.

reply

So how about you explain how this film compares to The Godfather?

reply

I don't watch trailers, they lie. Their only function is to get people to the cinema and spend money.



reply

Sheesh, don't trust ratings, don't trust trailers. What are you going to trust? The description? Hey, the Wikipedia entry still doesn't have a detailed plot and still says this:


Set in New York City during the winter of 1981, statistically one of the most violent years in the city's history, the film centers on the life of an immigrant and his family trying to expand their business and capitalize on opportunities as the rampant violence, decay, and corruption of the day drag them in and threaten to destroy all they have built.


The trailer seems to send the same message.

reply

What I tend to do is ask people who've seen the film of their opinion, opinions I trust. If not I read a description, check who's directing etc. I never watch trailers, trailers lie. I read about somebody who saw a trailer for Under The Skin which made it look like a sci-fi action film, who was most upset when her got something completely different. That was a pretty good description you posted.


reply

^^^^^^^^^ this g-man.

reply

Apparently pretentious douchebags really like this film.

reply

Apparently pretentious douchebags really like this film.

thats my impression also

reply

To be clear, I'm not saying everyone who likes this film is a pretentious douchebag. But most of the responses I'm receiving to my criticisms of the film can be summarized in two sentences: "You don't get it. You're stupid." There is no explanation as to why I have "misunderstood" the film.

reply

thats the typical pretentious douchebag reaction

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]


The trailers/marketing campaign never implied that. It's too bad you allowed a faulty assumption compromise your impression of the film.


Really? Is that why pretty much all the top critic reviews on RT compare the film in some way to The Godfather?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_most_violent_year/reviews/?type=top_ critics

Is that why even regular people who liked the film ("Mark W," four stars) agree with me that the trailers were going for a Godfather feel?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_most_violent_year/reviews/?type=user

If the film weren't marketed that way, I could've watched it with different expectations and felt differently. I still think it has flaws, but I wouldn't have been so disappointed if I didn't expect The Godfather or even Carlito's Way going in.

reply

[deleted]

By "pretty much all," I mean a lot more than three or four. Besides, if even you concede that three or four top critics felt that way, then my impression was not unreasonable. And again, as I mentioned, some people who LIKED THE FILM agree with me that the film was marketed as a retelling of The Godfather:

http://markedmovies.org/2015/02/02/a-most-violent-year/

reply

g-man,

Your position on this thread as well as the response you are getting for it mirrors our discussion to date. You seem to refuse to accept that your overall view of this film should not be based on quibbles about how it was marketed, or more accurately how you and your expectations perceived such marketing.

So go on complaining about marketing. Such complaints have no connection to an assessment of the actual film's merits. If you can't see that there's no further point in discussing this film with you, and you are approaching being a troll.

reply

There's no further point because you're a pretentious douchebag who insults everyone who disagrees with your opinion on this film as being part of the GTA generation. Hey, you know what? I can do the same thing.

reply

Nice white flag, loser.

I didnt in any event say anything about video games here. I said in effect you were a troll to keep complaining about marketing as some means of dismissing the film for its intrinsic merits. Others have noticed you doing the same thing. Try another approach, troll.

reply

"Here." So apparently what you say in one thread doesn't carry over to other threads? Nice lawyering.

reply

No, I said you did not respond to the point that you continue to complain about marketing as some indictment of the film itself.

Which you know was the point, and have no answer to, which is why you complain about my reasonable linking of you to those who prefer a video game type movie to a more adult film.

reply

No, once again, you misunderstand, possibly deliberately, what I am saying. I am happy to disagree with you on whether this is a good film or how well it compares to similar films. No problem. But if you can't even agree that this film was marketed as a crime drama, then I ask you: what did they market it as?

reply

I think the rating is evening itself out. I tend to agree with IMDB ratings.

reply

Its too bad you have to wait for them to level out - just like the Foreign garbage that gets rated 10 just from its Countrymen.

This movie screwed the pooch big time - I gave it a 5, and it'll probably level out around 5.6

I thought I was getting something like Goodfellas, what I got was nap time.

reply

Yeah, I doubt we'll see the likes of Goodfellas/The Godfather anytime soon.

reply

You will, it's a film about to be made by Scorsese and will also have Deniro, Pesci, Pacino and all the other big guns. Based on the book "I heard you paint houses" working title is The Irishman - it'll be a blockbuster mob flick for the ages! (based on Hoffas actual death, by Frank Sheeran)

reply

I've been hearing about this for a while, but then DeNiro brought it up on the Tonight Show not long ago. I really want to see this get made.

reply

To me, Hollywood movies are mostly "foreign garbage" but you Americans (again) think you own the planet.

reply

lmao you actually took IMDB ratings seriously. Sorry that is just funny, since most people already know not to. IMDB ratings consist of trolls or hardcore fans, which means you get 1s and 10s the votes are not consistent.




reply