General Discussion

[ProjectVRD]

I can only wish I had the means to collect every movie critic and sit them down, tell them they are fired and instruct every magazine etc to never apply their own rating. I know, drastic and hatred. It is just that these days movie critics are so out of sync with the movie audience, there own personal agenda taste is not in sync with the population and thus the publications are not serving their customers to a professional degree.

Just look at Prometheus:

Critic Aggegate: 63/100

IMDB User Aggregate: 9/10

9/10 is a legendary score for that site. It is a site where 6/10 is good movie, 7/10 is really really good. And 8/10 can be considered a Classic! 9/10 is just extremely rare and there is no such thing as a 10/10 movie on IMDB.

If you look through so many other modern films from the last 5 years or so, you will find the scores that Critics give are widely different to what the movie audience think. I just ask why do these magazines still allow them to give a score at all? They are serving no positive purpose to the magazines customers at all.

EDIT: I should add that reviewers of past seemed to be more in tune with us, it is just these days they are have gotten really crap at their job. Perhaps the old guard had a talent to see beyond their own personal opinion and were able to judge on behalf of the audience as well with really good accuracy. Whereas today, we don't get a real review... just a bunch spoliers and a score that has no bearing on the film that was just revealed before anybody had a chance to go watch it.

[fenian]

I completely disagree.

Imdb gives a fairly good indication of how good a film will be, but its full of Americans who can hype a film like Prometheus and give it a score it does not deserve. The score can be manipulated.

Many great fantastic films on imdb get marked down because you have to read subtitles etc.

Critics can be amazing or poor, but they know what they are talking about more than the average imdb user, or prometheus fan.

IMDB is a good guide, but a review from a reviewer you like is going be way way better.

Maybe you should argue the opposite, IMDB should stop letting idiots review films and set up critic accounts.

[ProjectVRD]

A review from a reviewer these days tells you the ending. PS. I would totally agree that only two movies made in the 2000+ era belong in the Top 10. Americans who overhype things would not vote that way. IMDB is better than just that, these people know there movies... the hypers, they probably cannot be bothered to create an account. But that is only my opinion of hypers.

I find IMDB to be far more accurate, it collects upwards 10,000's of scores from normal people not being paid by people who get money from adverts from who knows what companies. I am a sci-fi nut, I admit, but I do regard Shawshank Redemption to be the very best movie I have ever seen. Everything from the direction to execution was amazing, script was so strong and the actors were believable.

Avatar doesn't make the Top 250, an 8/10 is needed for that. Critics were saying it was the best film for decades. Really? There were no americans hyping that up, only reviewers.

PS. Avatar probably not the best example to prove my point, it's critic aggregate is close to the user score. But I highlight for the ample reviews claiming it was the best for decades.

[dannyjt]

---

ProjectVRD wrote:

IMDB is better than just that, these people know there movies... the hypers, they probably cannot be bothered to create an account. But that is only my opinion of hypers.

---

Really?

Because I've read a lot of the comments on their boards, and it appears to be full of cats to me.

[ProjectVRD]

---

dannyjt wrote:

---

ProjectVRD wrote:

IMDB is better than just that, these people know there movies... the hypers, they probably cannot be bothered to create an account. But that is only my opinion of hypers.

---

Really?

Because I've read a lot of the comments on their boards, and it appears to be full of cats to me.

---

That is here mate

[Moghal2007]

Don't the critics rate their review based on script, character development etc whereas the audience base it on how much they enjoy the film. That is my take on it anyway

[Gawge]

Whenever I look on Rottentomatoes, the critics score tends to be more 'snobby' than the audience score - which isn't necessarily a bad thing. If the audience score is high, then you are likely to be seeing an entertaining movie. If the critics score is high, then you are more looking at the ratings of those who look deeper into the movie.

That being said, I have noticed recently that films are being judged more on what they aim to be. If it is just a pure action film, then critics often give it a good score, if it does well what it says on the tin.

[TheNarrator]

IMDb is by far the one place not to find any sort of balanced and fair review or rating of a film. yes it has masses of users so its great in getting some sort of average score, but that doesnt mean theyre in tune either or have the best opinions thats suited for you. other than that its completely useless, far far too many silly people with different points of view and agendas can score a film on there, which makes it a shambles.

lol, as soon as Empires Prometheus review came out, guys went nuts on its board and hated the review because it got 3 stars xD. a few years ago you could rate films before they were even out, i think. which doesnt help things.

like reviews for anything, you find a certain critic whos kinda in tune with your opinions and views and you stick with that one as a rough guide.

[Chuk_Chuk]

A reviewer that is different to the majority gets heads turning and people reading.

[Cimbrer]

Don't forget the scores tend to drop a bit on IMDb, this is "just" the early buzz from the people that want to see it, and they've been waiting for it.

That said, I'd place it closer to a 7/10.