Best and Worst : 10 out of 10 movies

10 out of 10 movies

After reading through how people rate movies in this thread: http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000002/thread/264659076, there seems to be a great difference in how they vote. For me a 10/10 is next to impossible for a movie to achieve, it must have great actors and chemestry between them, there can't be any (major) logical errors or misses and the story has to really capture me.
I've yet to find a 10/10 and the one that comes closest is the goodfather 1 and 2. So how do you define 10/10 and what movies have you given it (if any).



Re: 10 out of 10 movies

I agree that a 10/10 rating should be very difficult and only the very best should be awarded that appraisal. I very rarely rate movies 10/10. For them to get that rating they must have had a great impact on me. Currently I have rated six movies 10/10 out of 635 rated ones:

Oldeuboi
Jagten
Interstellar
The Dark Knight
La Migliore Offerta
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King



For Winners, Losing Inspires Them. For Losers, Losing Defeats Them

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

I basically agree with your criteria, but I've given it to over a hundred features - http://www.imdb.com/search/title?lists=ls056227800,ls004611035&count=107 - which doesn't include any of the Godfathers (the main reason being, they're all around three hours long and I don't care what happens to these people). Mind you, a lot of those are more like 9.6/10 rounded up. And it's still less than 5% of all the movies I've seen.

The Angels Have the Phone Box

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

Watched through your link, a lot of my favourite movies are there though I'd give them an 8 or 9. I'll have to rewatch Ratatouille and Pulp Fiction after seeing your list though.

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

I checked and my perfect 10s comprise only of 8 movies. This is from a total of 1200+ ratings, I estimate about 10-15% are tv shows.

I agree with previous poster ESvanberg. Perfect 10s should be extremely difficult. That being said, 2 of my perfect 10s are currently not in the IMDB Top 250, though once upon a time they were.

1. The Godfather (1972)
2. The Dark Knight (2008)
3. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
4. Goodfellas (1990)
5. Se7en (1995)
6. Hero (2002)
7. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)
8. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

I agree that 10/10 ratings should be spared for the best of the best. I also believe that the perfect movie doesn't exist, but some come very close. So far I have given 10 movies a 10/10 rating out of 311 rated movies.

When a movie really strikes me as epic I give it a 9 and leave it alone for some time. After watching it again and if it still hits me I upgrade it to 10. I regard those movies as wine that slowly get better. Pulp Fiction is a good example: it just got better and better for me each time I watched it. Some examples of movies I watched once and are considered for a 10: City of God, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and No Country for Old Men. Really strong titles but I have to see them again if they still have that special something.


Re: 10 out of 10 movies

I have the same filosofy about giving it a 9 and rewatch it later. I am going to rewatch the goodfather(for the 4th time). I have started to notice that I appreciate them for different reasons when I watch them. The first time I loved it for being a violent gangster movie, last time I saw it I appreciated the stategies and the ways Michael Corleone used, the way the actors interact with eachother as well as the action.
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind is absolutley one of my favourite movies and the first time I saw it it was a ten for me. But I did the misstake of rewatching it, and it is not quite the same knowing the ending. Still a great movie, gave it a 9.

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

A movie gets a 10 from me if I love it and can watch it over and over, which is the case with a lot of movies. I don't care if it's not perfect, but as long as it's awesome to me then it's well worthy of a 10. It doesn't require that much thinking, just throw out a number.

Don't give up the fight for truly independent cinema!

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

If I love a movie and can rewatch them it usually an 8 or 9 for me. To get a 10 it would realy have to connect to to me on a personal level. It's not that much thinking, it's just the general feel of the movie and how much I enjoyed it.

Re: 10 out of 10 movies


If I love a movie and can rewatch them it usually an 8 or 9 for me.


to me it's like this in very basic terms...

6/10 or higher = Thumbs Up (will re-watch these, especially 7's and higher)
5/10 or lower = Thumbs Down (won't re-watch these(with rare exception))

i can't get any simpler than that ;)

with that said 5's are usually decent enough to have seen once but ultimately not a movie ill see again and movies i won't re-watch cannot be a positive score at the end of the day.

so depending on how you feel about that... we could be noticeably different here as to me a 8 is a pretty high score to just to START re-watch level. i would figure re-watch level for you would be AT LEAST down to a 7/10 minimum if not a bit lower.

i figure since there is a 1 through 10 rating scale it's best to make proper use of it which basically means using 5/10 as middle-of-the-road/average and then it scales up and down fairly evenly from there. but i will say my really low scores are not as tuned as my higher scores but it's not worth nit picking on the lower end scores given after they fall below a certain point they are just crap, plain and simple.


To get a 10 it would realy have to connect to to me on a personal level.


i have a feeling your similar to myself in that movies ultimately come back to some sorta emotional response you get from them which determines the overall enjoyment of a movie and then we rate them accordingly ;)


It's not that much thinking, it's just the general feel of the movie and how much I enjoyed it.


i am exactly the same as rating movies any other way makes no sense.

when i describe my ratings it might sound all complex but it's really as simple as you describe it at the end of the day.


My Top 100ish Movies = http://goo.gl/EYFYdz My Favorites = http://boxd.it/UkLa

Re: 10 out of 10 movies


so depending on how you feel about that... we could be noticeably different here as to me a 8 is a pretty high score to just to START re-watch level. i would figure re-watch level for you would be AT LEAST down to a 7/10 minimum if not a bit lower.


An 8+ for me is more of a "I will rewatch this" whereas a 6 or a 7 is a good movie that I could/might rewatch. A five is still a passable movie but not something I would like to watch again. Below 5 (unless it's a fun B movie) is just something I'd keep away from.

(Don't know how to do the smileys so, cheers! :) )

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

But what about films that arent as rewatchable but are amazing.. like Taxi Driver, Schindlers List, Mean Streets, Etc

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

Those do take some special consideration. They could of course earn a 10 as well and one of my favourite movies is eternal sunshine of the spotless mind with Jim Carry, and that's a movie that's not nearly as great the second time. But it wasn't made that way either.

Re: 10 out of 10 movies


But what about films that arent as rewatchable but are amazing.. like Taxi Driver, Schindlers List, Mean Streets, Etc


for me there is no exceptions as movies always fall into one of two basic categories...

6/10 or higher = Thumbs Up (re-watch level (although my 7's and higher (which is currently 201 movies) tend to see at least one re-watch every few years at the least where as my 6's could go a fair amount beyond that in some cases))

5/10 or lower = Thumbs Down (won't re-watch(with rare exception))

so it's not possible for a movie to be a Thumbs Up if it's not a movie ill re-watch from time to time as the years pass and movies that i do re-watch from time to time cannot score lower than a 6/10 (a mild Thumbs Up). with that said... most of the time 5/10's are decent enough to have seen once though.

sometimes movies that i do re-watch here and there eventually drop off (but others seem to hold steady as time passes) and if they fall below a 6/10 then i won't be re-watching them anymore basically. sometimes movies grow stronger for me and if they do ill adjust my rating accordingly.

so basically... movies can't be amazing if they have no re-watch value as re-watch value determines a movies worth long term. but just to comment on the three movies you mentioned for me... Taxi Driver = 5/10, Schindler's List = 6/10, Mean Streets = 5/10. so only Schindler's List has any re-watch value between the three for me personally.



My Top 100ish Movies = http://goo.gl/EYFYdz My Favorites = http://boxd.it/UkLa

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

Hi

Take a movie like jaws or jurassic park.

No defaults. Just amazing, you can watch it 100 times (i think i am more at 200 time for each :) and i am always happy to watch them.

We spared no expense
Si tu veux éviter un malheur, ne jette pas de chips a ton chauffeur

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

10/10 is not too rare for me. I've given around 23 movies that rating. But I know people who've given like 100 or 200 movies 10/10 i also know Guys who've only given like 6 or 7:/ 10/10 means something different to everyone.

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

It's quite interesting to see how people think. Some give a 10 just becouse they liked it. Others (like me) are looking for how well made the movie was made and how good the actors are as well.

Re: 10 out of 10 movies


It's quite interesting to see how people think. Some give a 10 just becouse they liked it. Others (like me) are looking for how well made the movie was made and how good the actors are as well.


those who spam 10/10's fairly commonly if they just 'like' a movie i totally disagree with as people should be rating movies against ALL movies they have seen. so in other words... if there is some movies you like quite a bit more than others then you should adjust your ratings accordingly if your trying to properly use the rating scale (like you and i do).

with that said... i don't mind if someone has a fair amount of 10/10's, as they could even have a fair amount more than i do, it's just that a very high percentage of movies are not THAT interesting to watch. those who regularly spam 8's/9's/10's it's hard to tell what they truly like a lot vs what's just good to a mild like and average to below average and so on.

like it's not hard for someone to formulate a decent rating system after they have seen a fair amount of movies as after a while, like when you have seen many movies, you can tell what stands out from the pack vs what does not etc and i adjust my ratings accordingly.

basically i am of the mindset, when it comes to rating systems, that a 5/10 is the middle-of-the-road/average range and then it scales up and down fairly evenly from there. most movies i see get a 5/10(Thumbs Down, but usually decent enough to have seen once) followed by a 6/10(a mild Thumbs Up).

p.s. but it appears you and i are very similar, if not the same, in how we rate movies.



My Top 100ish Movies = http://goo.gl/EYFYdz My Favorites = http://boxd.it/UkLa

Re: 10 out of 10 movies


those who spam 10/10's fairly commonly if they just 'like' a movie i totally disagree with as people should be rating movies against ALL movies they have seen. so in other words... if there is some movies you like quite a bit more than others then you should adjust your ratings accordingly if your trying to properly use the rating scale (like you and i do).


Perhaps IMDb should implement a like/dislike rating system instead for those who always gives 10 to all "ok" movies.


those who regularly spam 8's/9's/10's it's hard to tell what they truly like a lot vs what's just good to a mild like and average to below average and so on.


It depends a bit on the movies they rated, but by spamming I guess you mean that you or I might have given it a 6, they give a 9 (very basic example but we seem to think alike as you mentioned, so I think we are on the same level here)


p.s. but it appears you and i are very similar, if not the same, in how we rate movies.

Great minds think alike!

Re: 10 out of 10 movies


10/10 is not too rare for me. I've given around 23 movies that rating. But I know people who've given like 100 or 200 movies 10/10


only 23 movies is pretty rare ;) ; even though that's nearly 2.5 as many as i have given out (i.e. i have given ten 10/10's) i would not fault that in the slightest.

but about the other comment... those who give out 100-200 10/10's for movies are likely handing those out a bit too easily in my opinion or are a bit more easily pleased then some of us (like myself). it's possible they could have seen more movies than myself by a good amount (say 3,000-4,000+ movies (i am at 2,025+)) but i suspect even then it's still very unlikely my opinion would change given i feel i have been at the point for a while now that i have largely exhausted seeing all of the very best movies out there from the past that i have not already seen and i have seen 2,025+ total movies. so even if i had seen double that (only counting movies from the past since going into the future it's seems to be easier for me to find movies i score a 7 or higher) i doubt my 10/10 count would rise much at all. hell, even finding 7/10's won't be easy but i am confident those are still out there from the past for me but 8's i suspect would be hard to come by and 9's and 10's would be pretty much non-existent in my estimations given what i know about my tastes and what i have seen etc.

that info above is why most (as in the easy majority) of the movies i watch are re-watches of movies i have seen before. this helps keep my interest in movies stable as if i rarely re-watched movies i would lost most of my interest in them simply because it's not easy to find any movies i have not already seen that are of any real worth(i.e. movies i score a 7 or higher), especially if you exclude movies being released into the future as those still seem to turn up here and there but movies from the past, while it still happens, is getting somewhat rare.



My Top 100ish Movies = http://goo.gl/EYFYdz My Favorites = http://boxd.it/UkLa

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

I've given 10/10 to 17 movies from a total of 2,539 features rated. I suppose it's up to the individual what criteria makes one give a 10. Some give them out freely where as others see a 10 as near impossible.

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

I have 12 films rated 10 out of the thousand I have seen. So a little over one percent end up in the masterpiece category for me.
1. Drive
2. Arrival (Though I would like to rewatch it a few more times to completely confirm this)
3. Alien
4. Nightcrawler
5. Donnie Darko
6. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
7. Fight Club
8. American Psycho
9. Raiders of the Lost Ark
10. Mad Max: Fury Road
11. Enemy
12. Office Space

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

Maya Angelou said:

“I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”

I feel the same about movies. The acting can be great, or just good. The story can be excellent or just well written. The plot can be ingenious or simple and predictable.

But if it touches your heart or reaches into your mind, or maybe makes you think differently, or just makes you feel damn good then it's something special.

Spielberg said something about great movies being made up of great moments, and the more moments, the more memorable the movie.

I've seen movies that are superbly shot, expertly directed, wonderfully acted and perfectly cast just fall flat because they fail to move me in any way.

Every one of the movies below have great memorable moments that thrilled me, surprised me, made me laugh or made me cry.



Out of around 2,500 movies I've seen, these are my only 10's:



Goodbye, Mr. Chips
Bad Day at Black Rock
Great Expectations 1946.
Now, Voyager.
In the Heat of the Night.
Patch Adams.
Harvey.
To Have and Have Not.
High Society.
The Shawshank Redemption,
Good Will Hunting.
Sin City.
12 Angry Men.
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial.
Notting Hill.
Casablanca.
A Few Good Men.
The King's Speech.
A Time to Kill.
Erin Brockovich.
The Great Escape.
Rear Window.
As Good as It Gets.
The Sting.
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.
Gandhi.
Rio Bravo.
True Grit. Duke.

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

Nice post. Smart list! 👍

Re: 10 out of 10 movies


Spielberg said something about great movies being made up of great moments, and the more moments, the more memorable the movie.

It is believable that he said that, and it illustrates why he is a very successful and highly competent commercial director, but not a truly great artist, just a great "pop" artist. I cannot imagine Bergman, Michael Powell, Satyajit Ray, Jean Renoir or Kurosawa agreeing with that philosophy. It is the difference between a Beethoven symphony and a medley of "Favorite Classical Melodies".


Maya Angelou said: “I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”

I do agree with that, though.

Research has shown that the feeling most deeply remembered is humiliation. I am not sure that many directors set out to humiliate the audience, although I often feel that way if I find myself watching an Adam Sandler movie.

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

Interesting post london777.

Where to start eh?


It is believable that he said that, and it illustrates why he is a very successful and highly competent commercial director, but not a truly great artist, just a great "pop" artist. I cannot imagine Bergman, Michael Powell, Satyajit Ray, Jean Renoir or Kurosawa agreeing with that philosophy.


"The only genius in films was Walt Disney." Michael Powell.

I'm not sure many people would put Mickey Mouse up there as great art alongside Great Lord Hidetora Ichimonji.
My inference is that "popular" and "art" are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

“Last, but not least -- in fact, this is most important -- you need a happy ending. However, if you can create tragic situations and jerk a few tears before the happy ending, it will work much better.” Satyajit Ray

A description of most Rom Coms that would never be considered "Great Art" These would also be described as "moments".

“A truly good movie is enjoyable too. There’s nothing complicated about it.” Akira Kurosawa.

Say's it all really. No highbrow nonsense!

"To the question, ‘Is the cinema an art?’ my answer is, ‘what does it matter?’... You can make films or you can cultivate a garden. Both have as much claim to being called an art as a poem by Verlaine or a painting by Delacroix… Art is ‘making." Jean Renoir.

The decision of which movies are art or great art is a purely personal one which actually doesn't really matter.

"I tell the actors to walk this way and do this, and there you're supposed to cry and there you're in a rage, and we keep on doing it and keep it up like the very devil and we never give up. And then the audience sits there one evening, and if we're lucky they'll cry where we decided they would cry and laugh when we want them to - right." Ingmar Bergman


These would be those great "moments" that are so memorable. Google "Great Movie Moments" and countless lists will be found from a plethora of movie sites, critics and fans, and all contain a huge majority of "popular" films that are considered "classics" or "greats"

But as always, movies are a personal thing. So thanks for the comments.

Lest we not forget, Beethoven and his classical buddies who were, on the whole, the "popular" musicians of their day, writing "popular" music.


I concur with the Sadler comment! Oh the pain!! :)


"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert





Re: 10 out of 10 movies

@ crombles ; that pretty much sums it up with the stuff about Maya you posted.


True Grit. Duke.


for me it's not even close...

-True Grit (2010) - 8/10 (within my Top 63 movies and is my 5th favorite Western ever)
-True Grit (1969) - 4/10 (below average)

basically outside of John Wayne i think the 1969 is pretty dull overall. the 2010 movie on the other hand has much more going for it overall like the general feel/tone of it (basically it's cinematography) and things are better shot with a all around better cast as i would say outside of John Wayne the 1969 movie does not really have anything going for it basically. like you just FEEL more in the 2010 movie where as the 1969 movie is quite bland and this is not a dis on older movies either (although as a general rule i largely avoid movies prior to the 1960's as they are just too dated/different from more modern standards) as when it comes to the Western genre three out of four of my Top 4 Westerns, which is basically a four way tie for my #1 spot in the genre, are from the 1960's (see below).

but from my best guess... those who are huge John Wayne fans will probably prefer the 1969 movie but those who are not will probably prefer the 2010 movie given the info above i posted.


but since we are on the topic of Westerns i thought i would post ALL Westerns i give a 7 or higher which makes everything on the below list apart of my favorite movies (which makes everything below within my Top 201 movies at the very least)...


1.Open Range (2003) - 10/10
-.The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)
-.Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)
-.For a Few Dollars More (1965)
5.True Grit (2010) - 8/10
6.Django Unchained (2012) - 7.5-8/10
7.Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)
8.Two Mules for Sister Sara (1970)
9.The Lone Ranger (2013) - 7/10
10.The Magnificent Seven (1960)
11.The Magnificent Seven (2016)
12.Appaloosa (2008)
13.The Salvation (2014-2015) - 6.5-7/10
--.The Hateful Eight (2015)


but with that said... ill admit i do need to see more John Wayne Westerns as to be honest all i have seen from him is True Grit and i cannot write him off on that movie alone.



My Top 100ish Movies = http://goo.gl/EYFYdz My Favorites = http://boxd.it/UkLa

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

Hi m-slovak79.

Interesting and fascinating comments.

Fascinating to me because it highlights perfectly how people's perceptions and opinions of the same movie can differ! Or in this case, the same two movies.


basically outside of John Wayne i think the 1969 is pretty dull overall. the 2010 movie on the other hand has much more going for it overall like the general feel/tone of it (basically it's cinematography) and things are better shot with a all around better cast as i would say outside of John Wayne the 1969 movie does not really have anything going for it basically. like you just FEEL more in the 2010 movie where as the 1969 movie is quite bland


I could easily have described the 2010 version the same way. I found it dull, insipid and completely lacking in the feel and tone that you somehow found in it. It felt and looked like a Hallmark movie. It had no........GRIT!!

I rated it 1/10 - it failed on every level for me.


but from my best guess... those who are huge John Wayne fans will probably prefer the 1969 movie but those who are not will probably prefer the 2010 movie given the info above i posted.


That's a huge assumption rather than a guess. I feel it very unfair to tar everybody with the same fanboy brush. I would be saddened indeed if I thought there was no one out there who could judge a film merely on it's merits rather than because of who had the lead role.

This of course excludes fans of Star Bores, The Dark Fright and Bored Of The Rings who do generally fall into that category. At least on IMDB. :)

My movie collection dates from the 30's to current, so I don't see movies as dated, just good or bad. I would suggest that they only seem dated because you don't watch enough of them.

I once watched Destry Rides Again 1939 with a friend and afterward he said: "You know, that was really good but I would never have watched that at home"
"Don't you like James Stewart?" I asked.
"No, it's not that" He replied. " But I always ignore Black and White movies"
He now has a huge collection of movies, like myself, old and new.

It seems very sad for a movie fan to dismiss 40 years of movie making because of the colour of the pictures the shape of the image or because they were made before a certain date.

We obviously see particular movies differently, which is as it should be:

Once Upon a Time in the West is another overrated piece of garbage that gets 1/10 from me.

The Lone Ranger 6/10
The Magnificent Seven 1960 9/10
Two Mules for Sister Sara 6/10
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid 10/10
Django Unchained 4/10

Vive la difference




"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress."

Re: 10 out of 10 movies


I could easily have described the 2010 version the same way. I found it dull, insipid and completely lacking in the feel and tone that you somehow found in it. It felt and looked like a Hallmark movie. It had no........GRIT!!

I rated it 1/10 - it failed on every level for me.


i am actually surprised it was THAT bad for you as almost no movies are THAT bad for me in general. hell, there is only about 7-8% of all movies i have seen scored a 3/10 or less (3/10's and less is basically 'failure and/or boring' level for me).

i am just surprised you actually think the 1969 movie is pretty much superior on EVERY level. even with the lead females? ; surely, you got to think the 2010 is better in some aspects (even if you prefer the 1969 movie overall)(?).

we happen to be pretty much polar opposites on this one. o well, it happens from time to time amongst people ;)


That's a huge assumption rather than a guess. I feel it very unfair to tar everybody with the same fanboy brush. I would be saddened indeed if I thought there was no one out there who could judge a film merely on it's merits rather than because of who had the lead role.


i am not automatically saying your praising the 1969 because of John Wayne but i feel outside of him the 2010 movie is definitely all around superior across the board.

unless you happen to dislike modern movies in terms of feel/tone which i personally think in terms of atmosphere that newer movies are largely well ahead of older movies. but i guess for those who do like those old days types of movies i could at least understand it even if i don't agree with it because if you like that type of style you won't get that with modern movies.

p.s. while i don't have any exact thing when it comes to 'modern movies' i would say for the most part i see modern movies as the 1980's to date (maybe back into the 1970's on some level). i say this... at least from my perception of things, it seems like the 1980's are roughly the earlier days of how modern movies are.


This of course excludes fans of Star Bores, The Dark Fright and Bored Of The Rings who do generally fall into that category. At least on IMDB. :)


Yeah, when it comes to those movies... i could not even finish Star Wars (1977) due to boredom (which basically makes it amongst THE weakest movies i have seen). the LOTR series is forgettable at best (i prefer that series 3/1/2). but i do mildly like The Dark Knight movies.


My movie collection dates from the 30's to current, so I don't see movies as dated, just good or bad. I would suggest that they only seem dated because you don't watch enough of them.


while i agree with your basic good(Thumbs Up) or bad(Thumbs Down) point ill say... it's the general style etc of old movies is nothing like modern movies which are just generally all around superior as they tend to have more emotion etc to them.

there could be a decent movie prior to the 1960's here and there but so far the only pre-1960's movie of any real worth for me is The Song of Bernadette (1943). or look at it this way... while there is a fair chance there could be another quality movie prior to the 1960's out there it won't be easy for me to find it without having to watch a bunch of largely forgettable movies.

the vast majority of my favorite movies are from the 1990's to date as i would rank the decades like this overall...

1.2000's
2.1990's
3.2010's
4.1980's
5.1960's
6.1970's

after that it's not worth listing anything else (but if i had to i would go with the 1940's solely because of The Song of Bernadette (1943))


I once watched Destry Rides Again 1939 with a friend and afterward he said: "You know, that was really good but I would never have watched that at home"
"Don't you like James Stewart?" I asked.
"No, it's not that" He replied. "But I always ignore Black and White movies"
He now has a huge collection of movies, like myself, old and new.


to me it's not about the black and white stuff in why i generally don't care for old movies... it's simply the overall style/tone of them is nothing like modern movies as modern movies just have much more feeling/emotion etc to them and that's pretty much what movies boil down to for me is giving me some sorta solid emotional response to them.

one black and white movie i am a big fan of... The Hustler (1961) (9/10) which is within my Top 29 movies. but i doubt i would be able to find anything from this time frame or older that would be even close to this movie especially given only 29 movies scored a 9 or higher for me in general. not that it has to be THAT good for me, but my general goal when watching movies is to find movies that i want to re-watch from time to time as the years pass (i.e. movies ill score a 6/10 minimum) and preferably of the 7/10 or higher type since anything i score a 7 or higher are what i consider amongst my favorite movies.


It seems very sad for a movie fan to dismiss 40 years of movie making because of the colour of the pictures the shape of the image or because they were made before a certain date.


basically what you said has no effect on why i generally dislike movies prior to the 1960's.

it's not that a certain date etc makes them suck... it's just a general guideline i noticed as it seems from roughly the 1950's and older is when movies start to become a lot different from more modern movies which i see as a bad thing. it's not really the acting etc but something about the overall feel/tone/style of them makes them harder to enjoy(i can't explain it exactly but it's something along those lines but it's largely missing from old movies), especially on any higher level. basically i think they just don't have the emotional punch (and the like) that more modern movies have. it's hard to get any solid positive feeling from them i guess i could say and that's generally what makes movies stand out for me is some sorta of emotional response/feeling they give me as the higher that goes the higher the score.

i imagine what i see in movies that far back is probably similar enough to others i suspect. but then again it seems many dis them solely because they are black and white which is not a factor for me at all simply because The Hustler is within my Top 29 movies so it proves to me that black and white is not a negative thing (but to state the obvious... i generally prefer color since it brings more life to movies in general even though it's not critical to have it for all movies).


Once Upon a Time in the West is another overrated piece of garbage that gets 1/10 from me.


Do you hand out 1/10's fairly commonly? ; for me... only 154 movies out of the 2,025+ total movies i have seen managed to score a 3/10 or less (i.e. only about 7-8% of the total movies i have seen). 1/10's i generally reserve for movies i greatly dislike which almost nothing is THAT bad for me as generally speaking i consider boring to be the worst crime a movie can commit simply because it's the polar opposite of being enjoyable to watch.

but to me that movie (Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)) is a great example of a movie that has a great feeling/tone etc to it (a rare feat). it's a straight up 10/10 for me which only ten movies managed to pull off.




My Top 100ish Movies = http://goo.gl/EYFYdz My Favorites = http://boxd.it/UkLa

Re: 10 out of 10 movies


i am actually surprised it was THAT bad for you as almost no movies are THAT bad for me in general.


From this I can only infer that you are far easier to please and far less critical than I. Or that you have watched far fewer bad movies than I.


surely, you got to think the 2010 is better in some aspects (even if you prefer the 1969 movie overall)(?).


No I don't. I failed to find a single redeeming feature about this dismal remake. Bridges sounded like he was bored witless. The annoying little brat rattled of her dialogue like a monotonous machine gun without any deference to punctuation. I kept waiting for her to say: "..and I was like...and he was like."
The "Fill your hands" gunfight had no tension or excitement - it just occurred.
I found it lacking in everything that you and many others seemed too find in it.
But that's all just a matter of taste and preference.


i am not automatically saying your praising the 1969 because of John Wayne


I didn't say you were. What you said was:

but from my best guess... those who are huge John Wayne fans will probably prefer the 1969 movie


My point was that you were assuming that only Wayne fans would prefer the original. An assumption that does a huge injustice to those who think it's a better movie.


unless you happen to dislike modern movies in terms of feel/tone which i personally think in terms of atmosphere that newer movies are largely well ahead of older movies.



Unlike yourself, I hold no prejudice toward any movie era from the 30's to date. I judge movies individually and on their own merits or lack of.


while i agree with your basic good(Thumbs Up) or bad(Thumbs Down) point ill say... it's the general style etc of old movies is nothing like modern movies which are just generally all around superior as they tend to have more emotion etc to them.


Oh dear no. That's a terribly sweeping comment that dismisses almost 60 years of movies that are, according to you, mostly inferior!

This is not reflected in ANY critical analysis of movies throughout history by ANYONE.

For example, The AFi's 100 Greatest American Movies, by far the most widely respected of these type of listings, can be broken down as follows:


Silent era (1912-1929): 22 nominated films, only 3 films in the top 100
1930s (1930-1939): 56 nominated films, with 15 films in the top 100
1940s (1940-1949): 61 nominated films, with 12 films in the top 100
1950s (1950-1959): 61 nominated films, with 20 films in the top 100
1960s (1960-1969): 58 nominated films, with 18 films in the top 100
1970s (1970-1979): 54 nominated films, with 18 films in the top 100
1980s (1980-1989): 58 nominated films, with 6 films in the top 100
1990s (1990-1996): 30 nominated films, with 8 films in the top 100


14 films, out of the 100 were made after 1980. More than half of the movies, 56, were made between 1950 and 1979, thereby ignoring cinema's early years and some of the modern era.


"there could be a decent movie prior to the 1960's here and there"



Really? I'm sorry but I can't believe you said that!!! See AFI above. ^^

There are at least 50 "Great" movies prior to this. Decent movies would count into hundreds!!


while there is a fair chance there could be another quality movie prior to the 1960's out there it won't be easy for me to find it without having to watch a bunch of largely forgettable movies


It took me all of five seconds to Google the AFI list.

We're having this discussion on the single biggest movie information database in the history of movies. I'm sure, with very little effort, you could obtain a huge selection of suggestions from IMDB members only willing to expand your knowledge and lessen your ignorance of movies pre 1980.


basically what you said has no effect on why i generally dislike movies prior to the 1960's.
it's not that a certain date etc makes them suck... it's just a general guideline


Yes it does. A general guideline that you've stated often, though changing the date frequently, that you think movies made before a certain date are inferior.
Which is the point I was making when I said:
"It seems very sad for a movie fan to dismiss 40 years of movie making because of the colour of the pictures the shape of the image or because they were made before a certain date."





the vast majority of my favorite movies are from the 1990's to date as i would rank the decades like this overall.



You keep moving the goalposts here. "Best" and "Favourite" are not interchangeable.
If you don't "like" older movies in general, as you say, that's fine, but please don't dismiss them all as inferior because of your dislike. That is plain foolish.

And a good day to you. :)

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress."

Re: 10 out of 10 movies


From this I can only infer that you are far easier to please and far less critical than I. Or that you have watched far fewer bad movies than I.


i said it simply because out of the movies i watch, which obviously i don't TRY to find bad movies, that the vast majority are no where near THAT bad.

i doubt i am easily pleased given this simple fact... only 201 movies out of the 2,025+ total movies i have seen scored a 7/10 or higher. my most common ratings are a 5/10(Thumbs Down. average and usually decent enough for a viewing but ultimately has no re-watch value), followed by a 6/10(a mild Thumbs Up).

as far as the 'far fewer movies' comment... personally i feel i have hit the point (for a while now) that my opinion would not change as i feel i have largely exhausted seeing the quality movies out there from the past. while i still believe there is some i have missed it's probably not many and i would have to likely watch a bunch of largely forgettable movies to maybe find a decent gem here and there which is why i am in no rush to see plenty of movies i have not seen before and that most of the movies i watch are re-watches of movies i have seen before as this way it helps ensure movies stay interesting for me.


I found it lacking in everything that you and many others seemed too find in it.
But that's all just a matter of taste and preference.


Fair enough.

i guess i just found it a bit surprising is all as even those who preferred the 1969 movie, at least from what i have noticed, don't think the 2010 movie is THAT bad (or anywhere near that bad).


My point was that you were assuming that only Wayne fans would prefer the original. An assumption that does a huge injustice to those who think it's a better movie.


i guess i said what i said... as it's just hard for me to see the 1969 movie as better from a general cinematography angle etc. but i guess you can find wildly varying opinions from time to time.


Unlike yourself, I hold no prejudice toward any movie era from the 30's to date. I judge movies individually and on their own merits or lack of.


i guess with that info... in a very basic sense, maybe you can appreciate different aspects of movies. but for me movies ultimately come back to how interesting/enjoyable etc they are to watch and i just find it hard to enjoy the general feel/tone/style of 'old movies'.

with that said... i have not completely written off pre-1960's movies but i generally avoid them given i know my tastes in movies pretty well and the odds are definitely against me finding pre-1960's movies ill score a 7 or higher. it's happened, but only once so far out of the small amount of pre-1960's movies i have seen.


Oh dear no. That's a terribly sweeping comment that dismisses almost 60 years of movies that are, according to you, mostly inferior!

This is not reflected in ANY critical analysis of movies throughout history by ANYONE.


you sure about that? ; i think your only looking at critics. i tend to look at common people and i KNOW there are people who feel similar enough to myself in that movies prior to the 1960's are generally dated as their overall style etc is just too different from modern movies. sure, some might even avoid movies prior to the 1990's or 1980's etc but my point is... that 'ANYONE' comment is definitely not accurate when looking at more common people out there.


For example, The AFi's 100 Greatest American Movies, by far the most widely respected of these type of listings, can be broken down as follows:


Silent era (1912-1929): 22 nominated films, only 3 films in the top 100
1930s (1930-1939): 56 nominated films, with 15 films in the top 100
1940s (1940-1949): 61 nominated films, with 12 films in the top 100
1950s (1950-1959): 61 nominated films, with 20 films in the top 100
1960s (1960-1969): 58 nominated films, with 18 films in the top 100
1970s (1970-1979): 54 nominated films, with 18 films in the top 100
1980s (1980-1989): 58 nominated films, with 6 films in the top 100
1990s (1990-1996): 30 nominated films, with 8 films in the top 100


14 films, out of the 100 were made after 1980. More than half of the movies, 56, were made between 1950 and 1979, thereby ignoring cinema's early years and some of the modern era.


that's the thing... it's AFI which is far from actual peoples opinions as they tend to just look at movies 'being ahead of their time' etc etc instead of just being a great interesting/entertaining movie to this day.

what's good and what's not ultimately comes back to personal opinion and if enough regular people like a movie it's remembered basically where as if they don't it's mostly forgotten outside of a select group of critics and the like.

i know there are people who like many pre-1960's movies around here but i also think it's true that there are many who generally avoid them to.

but thanks for breaking that down there with each decade with the volume of movies there. but it's pretty safe to say i, along with many others, are not on the same page with AFI. like i mentioned before the vast majority of my favorite movies are from the 1990's to date. sure, i know that the vast majority of movies i have seen are from the 1990's to date but i highly doubt my opinion of '1990's to date contains the best all around movies' would change even if i had seen another 1,000 or so pre-1990's movies.

p.s. there is no difference for me between the terms 'best' and 'favorite' as they are the same to me as movies ultimately come back to personal enjoyment as rating a movie higher that you personally don't enjoy watching more makes no sense to me and most people.


Really? I'm sorry but I can't believe you said that!!! See AFI above. ^^

There are at least 50 "Great" movies prior to this. Decent movies would count into hundreds!!


Yeah, because AFI is typically disconnected with most people i suspect. they judge movies differently from the common person who tends to look at movies largely from how enjoyable/entertaining etc they are point of view.

but personally... i would be shocked if i could personally find movies prior to the 1960's that i would give a 9/10 or 10/10. hell, even if i could find more 7/10's i would be happy and a little surprised just to pull that off. but i am confident 9's and 10's would be pretty much non-existent (or just shy of that at best) for me.


It took me all of five seconds to Google the AFI list.

We're having this discussion on the single biggest movie information database in the history of movies. I'm sure, with very little effort, you could obtain a huge selection of suggestions from IMDB members only willing to expand your knowledge and lessen your ignorance of movies pre 1980.


that's the thing... AFI etc is more critic stuff which tends to be limited as i would tend to give more weight to the more common wide public opinion over AFI and the like.

at the end of the day... movies that have staying power tend to be liked by the wide public and those that do not are mostly forgotten.


Yes it does. A general guideline that you've stated often, though changing the date frequently, that you think movies made before a certain date are inferior.
Which is the point I was making when I said:
"It seems very sad for a movie fan to dismiss 40 years of movie making because of the colour of the pictures the shape of the image or because they were made before a certain date."


i don't change the date... i have always said the general guideline that i generally avoid movies prior to the 1960's because they tend to be dated/too different from more modern standards in overall style/emotion etc etc.

but obviously... you can see why i say what i say as the general overall style of movies from around the pre-1960's tend to be a lot different in many areas from say the 1990's to date. it's hard to explain exactly what it is... but i doubt i am the only person out there who has a similar opinion.

also, black and white is not a problem for me as i have stated.


You keep moving the goalposts here. "Best" and "Favourite" are not interchangeable.
If you don't "like" older movies in general, as you say, that's fine, but please don't dismiss them all as inferior because of your dislike. That is plain foolish.


let me ask you this... do you have a difference between 'best' and 'favorite'? ; i do not as they are the same thing to me as it makes no sense to say Movie A is "better" than Movie B if Movie B is more all around interesting/enjoyable etc to watch.

because movies in a very basic sense simply come back to personal all around enjoyment and the further they get away from that the lower the rating. rating any other way makes no sense to me and the common person who watches movies.

also, i say they are inferior because of the style of them. they lack emotion etc etc vs modern movies. with that said... i could understand some people might prefer that older style and all but i just can't see most people alive today preferring pre-1960's movies over post-1960's movies. surely, you would take 'post-1960's' movies over 'pre-1960's' movies if you had to choose one or the other, right? ; if not we are not on the same page at all when it comes to movies.

just for me personally to further refine that(which i would understand more if you disagreed with this)... i would take post-1990 vs pre-1990's movies if i had to pick. hell, i would likely even take post-2000's over pre-2000's if i was forced to pick here even though it would be much closer doing the whole post and pre 2000's thing where as once i include the 1990's to date vs prior to that it's VERY easy for me to choose the 1990's to date then.



My Top 100ish Movies = http://goo.gl/EYFYdz My Favorites = http://boxd.it/UkLa

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

I honestly, and with polite resignation, give up.

I can only be responsible for what I say, not what you understand.

You continue to make sweeping and ill conceived statements with no basis in fact and totally misunderstand or misconstrue almost all my statements to the point where I feel like I'm dealing with a blender with the lid off!!


i said it simply because out of the movies i watch, which obviously i don't TRY to find bad movies, that the vast majority are no where near THAT bad.


1. I don't TRY to find bad movies.
2. You cannot claim anything about the "vast majority" of movies as by your own claims, you have seen only a small minority.


i doubt i am easily pleased given this simple fact... only 201 movies out of the 2,025+ total movies i have seen scored a 7/10 or higher.


Misunderstood again. My point was referring NOT to the high scores you give, but to the few LOW scores that you yourself admitted you give.


as far as the 'far fewer movies' comment... personally i feel i have hit the point (for a while now) that my opinion would not change as i feel i have largely exhausted seeing the quality movies out there from the past.


How on earth do you know if you haven't seen them????? Lord help me!!


which is why i am in no rush to see plenty of movies i have not seen before


So you make these absurd claims in the safe knowledge that you now only watch movies that you've already seen before in case you watch one you don't like????
Give me strength!!


hard for me to see the 1969 movie as better from a general cinematography angle etc.


So after saying on numerous occasions that it is the TONE/FEEL of a movie that is most important for you, you are telling me that I should consider the quality of cinematography because it's the way it LOOKS that's important.

I don't give two hoots for cinematography. I don't give points for something I expect to be there. These movies are made by seasoned professionals - experts in their field - so I expect them to point the camera in the right direction.
It would be like giving extra points because it has sound or it's in colour. These things are a given.


you sure about that? ; i think your only looking at critics.


You THINK?? Was it the phrase "critical analysis" that I used.


that 'ANYONE' comment is definitely not accurate when looking at more common people out there.


The "anyone" comment was in the same sentence as the "critical analysis" comment and should be read as such. That's how sentences work.

But, lets look at what "common" people think.

According to Empire magazines list of "Greatest Movies Of All Time" as voted for by their "common" readers - 139 of those movies are from era's you consider inferior. That is not good movies but GREAT movies.

According to Channel 4's list of 100 Greatest movies, as voted for by 20,000 "common people", 46 of them - almost half - are from era's you consider inferior.

I could go on but I'm losing the will to live here.


it's AFI which is far from actual peoples opinions


Actually it's not at all. You insist on making these unfounded statements without any research - or anything - to substantiate them.
Just because you think something does not make it so.


it's AFI which is far from actual peoples opinions as they tend to just look at movies 'being ahead of their time'


Do they?? And where, pray tell, did you find this nugget of information? Because I can't find anywhere that confirms that this is what criteria their members use.


i know there are people who like many pre-1960's movies around here but i also think it's true that there are many who generally avoid them to.


I'm sure it is. But that could be said about tea and coffee. It still wouldn't make one inferior to the other, which is the point you consistently make but consistently fail to support.


the terms 'best' and 'favorite' as they are the same to me as movies ultimately come back to personal enjoyment as rating a movie higher that you personally don't enjoy watching more makes no sense to me and most people.


Best and favourite are not the same to me. My "favourite" Bond film is Diamonds Are Forever. This is because whenever I watch it I am transported to the Granada cinema, seeing my first Bond movie and remembering how thrilling that was. But it is far from being the best. Just my favourite in a rose tinted fashion.


do you have a difference between 'best' and 'favorite'? ; i do not as they are the same thing to me as it makes no sense to say Movie A is "better" than Movie B if Movie B is more all around interesting/enjoyable etc to watch.


Again, you're crossing your lines. If the difference is best and favourite then I am NOT saying that A is better than B - merely that it is a bigger favourite.
That's what the word "difference" means. There are more reasons to find a movie favourable than just interesting/enjoyable. The main one being - and I said this so long ago now - is how it makes you feel.

Now how about your end comment above. "makes no sense to me and most people."

I'm amazed at the fact that yet again,without any foundation, you are so positive about what "most people" think. Are you a mystic??

Somewhere on this illustrious forum made up of "common" people, you will find a post somewhere that discusses this very subject and it certainly does not support your spurious claim.


also, i say they are inferior because of the style of them.


Just because you say it, does not make it so. Simply because you dislike something does not make it inferior. And to say they are is a pompous and arrogant attitude that insults everyone who happens to think differently.


they lack emotion etc etc vs modern movies.


No, you just think they do. All the evidence says otherwise. You are free to think such things, as is your right, but it not your right to state something as fact that is merely your opinion.


i just can't see most people alive today preferring pre-1960's movies over post-1960's movies.


Yet again, the point being made is flying through the stratosphere. Why should there be a preference at all. As I've stated clearly before, I have no preference. I like movies. I don't care when it was made - just whether it's any good or not.


'post-1960's' movies over 'pre-1960's' movies if you had to choose one or the other, right?



A quote from my previous post: "Unlike yourself, I hold no prejudice toward any movie era from the 30's to date. I judge movies individually and on their own merits or lack of."

Which part of that is ambiguous? Why would you assume that "surely" I have a preference. I don't.


if not we are not on the same page at all when it comes to movies.


Thankfully, we are most assuredly not.


once i include the 1990's to date vs prior to that it's VERY easy for me to choose the 1990's to date then.


Fine. That is your prerogative. I choose not to choose. I watch movies that sound interesting, entertaining and absorbing. The one thing I never check before making my decision is when it was made.
I don't care.

Now I must gracefully and with deep resignation, remove myself from this conversation and attend to the damage done to my head whilst banging it repeatedly against my desk during these exchanges.

Good day and happy viewing.



"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress."

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

I think m-slovak79 should stop pushing large groups of alleged people in front of him to voice his opinions.

You are perhaps the least adventurous movie fan around here, and getting increasingly stagnant with your re-watches instead of broadening your tastes by actually exploring whats out there. Challenge yourself, that's how you grow.

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

Well put. I took a while to get into anything pre-1960 but I eventually made the leap, firstly with Hitchcock and then moving to others and I have found many of my favorite movies since I did so. Also I almost never rewatch even if it's a 10 because I always want to find something new.

Re: 10 out of 10 movies


Also I almost never rewatch even if it's a 10 because I always want to find something new.


maybe i am mistaken but i would imagine most people who are into movies re-watch at least some of their favorites from time to time.

because a quality movie should be one that holds up on re-watches as the years pass. those that fail to do that are nothing special.

plus, unless finding movies that are enjoyable to a higher degree for you is somewhat easy wouldn't you want to watch a movie you KNOW is likely to deliver a higher level of entertainment for you from time to time?

that's why i re-watch as my enjoyment of movies stays stable otherwise if i rarely or never re-watched movies i would lose most of my interest in movies on the whole.


My Top 100ish Movies = http://goo.gl/EYFYdz My Favorites = http://boxd.it/UkLa

Re: 10 out of 10 movies


I think m-slovak79 should stop pushing large groups of alleged people in front of him to voice his opinions.


?

i was just striking up some conversation around here is all. i did not mean any disrespect to anyone when i reply to them.


You are perhaps the least adventurous movie fan around here, and getting increasingly stagnant with your re-watches instead of broadening your tastes by actually exploring whats out there. Challenge yourself, that's how you grow.


Well i just don't have the drive to watch a bunch of movies i have not seen from the past simply because finding new movies from the past that are of any real worth for me are getting increasingly harder to find. which means i got to invest a bunch of time into seeing a bunch of mostly forgettable movies on the hopes of finding a decent gem once in a somewhat great while.

so that's why i have been re-watching movies more often than seeing movies i have not seen before for the first time.

years ago it was much easier to find movies that stand out and i think back in those days i was more easily pleased than i am now which made it even easier to watch movies i have not seen before. i can't imagine i am the only person who feels that way as it's been pretty much 14 years now (i would say it was around the year 2003(which would have put me 23-24 years old at the time)) since the general volume of movies i see increased quite a bit. but back in the earlier days, since i have seen far fewer movies, it was much easier to not go long stretches without seeing a movie of any real worth. but that's changed now, especially if i don't factor in movies being released into the future as something that stands out from there (say 2016 on forward) still turns up here and there without going too long.

you guys don't feel that way at all? ; just a honest question. i am curious to see your thoughts on this thing, if you got any? ; i am especially curious about those who have seen a similar amount of movies that i have (say around 2,000 movies or more) and might be in a similar enough age bracket as myself (i am 37, ill be 38 later this year) or older. but i guess i know of at least one user (DarksideCrew) who's older than myself and has seen more movies than myself and he still seems to watch plenty of movies he's not seen before AND he's more of a hard rater like myself in that he does not seen to hand out high scores all that much. i just wonder how he continues to hammer away at new movies if the true gems are fairly difficult to come by.

so while i would like to agree with you... history says otherwise for me which is basically what i mentioned above which is why i largely stick to what i been doing. with that said... i still do roll the dice here and there with movies in the past but i am in no rush as i figure i watch whatever i watch and whatever happens, happens, at this point.

also, i don't refuse to see pre-1960's movies it's just not many seem to appear decent enough for me to give them a shot. but i still roll the dice once in a while on them ;)

p.s. i am not including movies being released into the future as i can still find some quality movies without having to watch too many mostly forgettable ones.

-------------------------------------------------------

but to show some facts about me when it comes to seeing movies i have not seen before vs watching movies i have seen before...

2012...
-Total Films = 239 films
-First Viewings = 119 films (49.8%)
-Re-watches = 120 films (50.2%)
-Yearly Average (films per week) = 4.57
-Yearly Average (films per month) = 19.92

2013...
-Total Films = 233 films
-First Viewings = 107 films (45.9%)
-Re-watches = 126 films (54.1%)
-Yearly Average (films per week) = 4.47
-Yearly Average (films per month) = 19.42

2014...
-Total Films = 336 films
-First Viewings = 145 films (43.2%)
-Re-watches = 191 films (56.8%)
-Yearly Average (films per week) = 6.44
-Yearly Average (films per month) = 28.00

2015...
-Total Films = 301 films
-First Viewings = 105 films (34.9%)
-Re-watches = 196 films (65.1%)
-Yearly Average (films per week) = 5.77
-Yearly Average (films per month) = 25.08

2016...
-Total Films = 274 films
-First Viewings = 89 films (32.5%)
-Re-watches = 185 films (67.5%)
-Yearly Average (films per week) = 5.24
-Yearly Average (films per month) = 22.83



so as you can see my general re-watching has been increasing year to year with 2012 being almost exactly 50/50. it's hard to say when there was a year where i viewed more for the first time vs re-watches but i imagine it's happened in the past at some point for a while but i always have been re-watching movies from time to time as far as i can remember.



My Top 100ish Movies = http://goo.gl/EYFYdz My Favorites = http://boxd.it/UkLa

Re: 10 out of 10 movies


You cannot claim anything about the "vast majority" of movies as by your own claims, you have seen only a small minority.


i would still claim it simply because if you stick to mostly half way decent name movies, or nothing too far off the radar, then movies (and the vast majority of them for that matter) are no where near THAT bad in general.

1/10's should not be a rating people fairly commonly hand out to say the least.


Misunderstood again. My point was referring NOT to the high scores you give, but to the few LOW scores that you yourself admitted you give.


Sure, but the point is... most known or fairly known movies are not THAT bad.

that's why only around 150 out of the 2,000+ i have seen scored 'failure and/or boring' status for me.

so worse case scenario from what i have seen would be that about 150 movies would score a 1/10 as i generally consider boring to be the worst crime a film can commit but i put those 2-3/10 range as my 1/10's i reserve for movies i greatly dislike. but if you want to put that aside then basically there could be as much as 150 or so 1/10's for me which is still only a small portion of what i had seen. but in all honesty... had i seen some of the movies i scored in the 4-5/10 range for the first time today i would not be surprised if a chunk of them hit failure status.

with all of that said... i am not saying you can't give out 1/10's but i just don't think it should be anywhere near common given you got a 1 through 10 rating scale and assuming 5/10 is average and then it scales up and down fairly evenly from there then about the only way i could see a 1/10 happening is basically boring status (i.e. could not finish the movie due to boredom).


How on earth do you know if you haven't seen them????? Lord help me!!


surely, you can see why i feel that way... it's a educated estimate based on how i feel about movies and what i like etc. i am sure as you have seen plenty of movies you can generally tell what's worth giving a shot vs what's not etc etc.

it's not likely i would be wrong just given the following info...

10/10 = 10 movies
9/10 = 19 movies
8/10 = 34 movies
7.5-8/10 = 48 movies
7/10 = 90 movies

Total = 201 movies

basically my point is... i would be surprised if that rough standard holds even if i doubled the amount of movies i have seen (especially excluding movies being released into the future).

so in other words... i doubt i would be anywhere near 402 movies that would be a 7 or higher had i seen 4,000+ movies (excluding movies being released into the future from this point. so basically if those 4,000+ movies are from 2016 or older.). so basically my time investment on seeing movies (that i have not seen before) is delivering diminishing returns especially when you exclude movies being released into the future. hence, i have largely exhausted the movies out there that i have not seen that i would personally score a 7 or higher. but with that said... i am still confident there would be some 7's but 9's and 10's, given those facts above for me, would likely be non-existent or close to it.


So you make these absurd claims in the safe knowledge that you now only watch movies that you've already seen before in case you watch one you don't like????


Nope. i simply MOSTLY (as in the majority of movies i watch are re-watches of movies i have seen before) stick to watching movies i have seen before simply because if i rarely re-watched movies i would lose a large portion of my interest in movies as a whole. the reason i say that is because it's not easy to find movies i would score a 7 or higher (that's my ultimate goal when watching movies is to find ones i enjoy on more of a higher level which i based on 7's or higher) that i have not already seen (excluding movies being released into the future). basically... i mostly re-watch movies as that keeps movies enjoyable for me as i know i like certain movies i have already seen to a higher level where as seeing a movie i have not seen before is not likely to deliver roughly that level of all around entertainment from it. so given this info you can see why i do what i do.

with that said... i still watch movies i have not seen before here and there but it's been mostly new movies (like at this point say at least 2016 on forward into the future).


So after saying on numerous occasions that it is the TONE/FEEL of a movie that is most important for you, you are telling me that I should consider the quality of cinematography because it's the way it LOOKS that's important.


Not at all.

it's just a feeling movies give me (basically some sorta of emotional response i get from them in some form or another) which determines my overall interest/entertainment i get out of it.

it's just a movies atmosphere, which can be effected by the general cinematography etc of a movie, does tend to have some sort of effect on me in this area. with that said... not all movies that i think that stand out are too heavy on the atmosphere and that only happens here and there.

but i guess in a basic sense... movies are largely visual based since we are looking at them with our eyes as it's not like a book where you just read text and have to use your imagination. so i think the visual aspect has the most power when it comes to my all around enjoyment of movies. i know it's probably a combination of things like the visuals/score etc but being movies are a visual medium that's got to be a solid effect on overall enjoyment of a movie i would think.


I don't give two hoots for cinematography. I don't give points for something I expect to be there. These movies are made by seasoned professionals - experts in their field - so I expect them to point the camera in the right direction.
It would be like giving extra points because it has sound or it's in colour. These things are a given.


it's not solely based on that as it's hard to fully explain. but some movies that are more heavy atmosphere based the visuals obviously play a bigger factor in my overall enjoyment of a movie.

but like i mentioned before... not all movies that i think stand out are too heavy in the visual dept.


According to Empire magazines list of "Greatest Movies Of All Time" as voted for by their "common" readers - 139 of those movies are from era's you consider inferior. That is not good movies but GREAT movies.

According to Channel 4's list of 100 Greatest movies, as voted for by 20,000 "common people", 46 of them - almost half - are from era's you consider inferior.


the problem with that is it's a limited amount of people they sampled. i am more referring to the wide general population of say the USA etc. i.e. millions of people.

also, that 20,000... is that a legit 20,000 or some of the same people voting multiple times?

even assuming the 20,000 is legit (like 20k individual people)... i would be surprised if you asked millions of average people to choose from either A)pre-1960's or B)post-1960's, like what contains the best all around movies, and i would assume most would choose Option B where the vast majority of the best all around movies land. what's your choice if given only these two options?


p.s. with all of that said... i realize that some movies i like won't be good for those people using that standard.


Actually it's not at all. You insist on making these unfounded statements without any research - or anything - to substantiate them.
Just because you think something does not make it so.


Maybe, but surely you can see the critics and average people tend to be different in many occasions. so it's not hard to come up with the opinion that i did with there being a reasonable chance it being true.


Do they?? And where, pray tell, did you find this nugget of information? Because I can't find anywhere that confirms that this is what criteria their members use.


maybe because critics seem to overpraise stuff like Citizen Kane etc when i can't see too many more common people thinking that movie is THAT great (because if it's not a movie the person personally likes to a higher degree then the movie should not be listed as they obviously don't care for it all that much). plus, ain't that a movie they claim is ahead of it's time etc etc in some areas?


I'm sure it is. But that could be said about tea and coffee. It still wouldn't make one inferior to the other, which is the point you consistently make but consistently fail to support.


but using that standard... then majority opinion is what ultimately makes or breaks a movie long term if you need some sorta way to gauge a movies worth as i think that's the best overall way since movies are subjective that's about the best you can do.

sure, i realize on a personal level that it might not mean anything to you or I as we both like what we both like regardless if we are for or against the majority.


Best and favourite are not the same to me.


to me it makes no sense because if you personally don't enjoy watching Movie A over Movie B then it makes no sense to say Movie B is 'better'.

so basically i am saying if you enjoy Movie A over Movie B, then Movie B cannot be 'better' than Movie A. i think the only people who do that crap are those who just kiss up to critics and think their opinions on movies are somehow more valid than the common persons or something along those lines.


Again, you're crossing your lines. If the difference is best and favourite then I am NOT saying that A is better than B - merely that it is a bigger favourite.
That's what the word "difference" means. There are more reasons to find a movie favourable than just interesting/enjoyable. The main one being - and I said this so long ago now - is how it makes you feel.


The bold makes no sense to me because if you personally don't enjoy it all that much it's irrelevant on whatever technical stuff it might have done well.

but obviously i agree with you about how a movie makes you feel as that's the core behind my 10/10's down to my 9's, to 8's, and so on.


Now how about your end comment above. "makes no sense to me and most people."

I'm amazed at the fact that yet again,without any foundation, you are so positive about what "most people" think. Are you a mystic??


but it's obvious most people watch movies because they find them enjoyable to watch in some form or another. remove that aspect and i can't see too many people watching movies. surely you would not question that, right? ; hence, what i said is correct.


Just because you say it, does not make it so. Simply because you dislike something does not make it inferior.


Agreed. i just feel i happen to be inline with most people in that post-1960's movies AS A WHOLE are definitely ahead(as in more all around enjoyable to watch) of pre-1960's movies.

like if you asked that basic question to say millions of Americans for example (since i am a American ill use the USA) from a wide range of age groups i would be surprised if the post-1960's did not win quite easily and likely by a wide margin. even if the post-1960's only won say 60/40 i would be surprised as i would expect it to be at least around 70/30 in favor of post-1960's when looking at movies as a whole on what's most enjoyable to watch for the masses.


And to say they are is a pompous and arrogant attitude that insults everyone who happens to think differently.


You mistake me as i am not like that at all. take a look at some people around here who are always talking crap about others. those people are likely more of the arrogant etc type.


No, you just think they do. All the evidence says otherwise. You are free to think such things, as is your right, but it not your right to state something as fact that is merely your opinion.


something like The Green Mile (1999) etc etc you just did not have that level(or at least type) of emotion in old movies.

you honestly think movies from the 1950's and older had more all around emotion than modern movies? ; if you do we are worlds apart in our taste in movies.

also, what evidence says otherwise? ; but for me... maybe its something to do with the way people acted or the way directors portrayed them on screen in the old days does not feel like actual people (sorta more of a prim-and-proper way in the old days) like how more modern movies do. basically things were less passionate in my mind in the old days as stuff like The Green Mile you just did not have back in those days and, in my estimations, is a movie that has wide appeal amongst a wide range of age groups as it's more of a emotionally charged movie.


Yet again, the point being made is flying through the stratosphere. Why should there be a preference at all. As I've stated clearly before, I have no preference. I like movies. I don't care when it was made - just whether it's any good or not.


that's fine, but...

i am curious to which you would choose if you had to... pre-1960's vs post-1960's. surely one of those two has to make up the bulk of your favorite movies, right?

assuming you know the volume of movies you consider favorites simply see where the majority land and that would help narrow which would be your choice. but i guess even going by this standard you could not simply measure by volume alone as it would have to weigh the overall group of movies as a whole as even if you have more in the post-1960's it's still possible you could choose pre-1960's overall like if the pre-1960's contains the bulk of your say 9's or 10's etc. but this is something for you to determine as just looking at the 1990's vs 2010's decades... while the 2010's decade has a higher volume of movies i score a 7 or higher i would still consider the 1990's overall higher for me personally given that it's got a higher volume of movies that score on the higher side of the scoring spectrum for me.


Thankfully, we are most assuredly not.


i guess the main thing is... i am just glad i am not too disconnected with the majority of people (like some people seem to be around IMDb when listing their favorite movies etc) when it comes to movies as that makes your opinion more or less valuable to random people given that info.

i don't know what you personally like so i can't really say if i am more inline with the masses than you are or not. but it's just something to think about even though i realize we all like what we all like regardless if it's for or against the majority.

but if you strictly want to measure who has better taste in movies that's about the only way i think it could be measured half way decently since movies are subjective so there is technically no right or wrong answers.

p.s. but just looking at myself... it's hard to say where i would place with some people around IMDb as it's pretty safe to say my tastes are more inline with the majority in comparison to some people (given some people seem to like movies that would be mostly unknown to most common movie watchers) but at the same time it's possible others could have me beat a bit.


I watch movies that sound interesting, entertaining and absorbing. The one thing I never check before making my decision is when it was made.
I don't care.


I completely agree with you on the whole interesting/entertain/absorbing comment.

it's just i typically notice those things seems to be much harder to come by in pre-1960's movies. also, to be clear i am NOT saying that 1960 is amazing and 1959 is crap but that's just a general guideline (like if your going to draw a line somewhere based on decades that's where i would draw it) i noticed for me personally as the overall style etc of movies really starts to change from around that time to more modern movies. sure, i realize some people still like the style of old movies but for me personally it makes them harder to enjoy as i feel those movies have a more narrow range on how they could appeal to me.



My Top 100ish Movies = http://goo.gl/EYFYdz My Favorites = http://boxd.it/UkLa

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

I have rated 48 films out of 3780 ratings a "10".

1.28%

Re: 10 out of 10 movies


For me a 10/10 is next to impossible for a movie to achieve, it must have great actors and chemestry between them, there can't be any (major) logical errors or misses and the story has to really capture me.


for me a 10/10 movie simply has to be as interesting to watch as movies can get basically, which is difficult to do.

so basically... it boils down to a movie giving me a certain emotional response/feeling (which is basically a form of entertainment/enjoyment etc) when i watch it as the higher/better it does that the higher the rating and the less it does that the lower the rating which plays inline with what i mention below (not much under my post on my ratings system below).

only ten movies managed to get a 10/10 rating from me (of which four out of the ten are NOT in the Top 250) out of the 2,025+ total movies i have seen. it used to be a bit higher but some movies have dropped off for me.

hell, ill just give you the bottom line stats for me when it comes to my ratings at the moment...

10/10 = 10 movies
9/10 = 19 movies
8/10 = 34 movies
7.5-8/10 = 48 movies
7/10 = 90 movies

Total = 201 movies

so basically there is only 201 movies that managed to get a 7 or higher score from me which i consider my favorites (i.e. see "My Favorite" link in my signature which lists them all). also, anything i score a 7 or higher is what i would consider a favorite movie of mine and anything in that range tends to see AT LEAST one re-watch every few years or so tops. if a movie drops off, ill adjust my score accordingly(sometimes a movie can improve on re-watches).


but anyways... those who never hand out 10/10's because they feel no movie is perfect is a flawed rating system as that makes no sense to have a 1 through 10 rating scale only to never use a 10 score.

here is my basic rating system which i feel is quite similar to the majority of people on IMDb from what i have noticed as while there wording might be a bit different i can tell they mean pretty much the same thing (i will say my 2-3/10 scores are about the same as i could use a bit of refinement there but when a movie scores THAT low it's just failure and it's not really worth nitpicking at that point)...

10 = About as much as i can enjoy a movie
9 = Nearly as much as i can enjoy a movie
8 = Memorable
7 = A Solid Thumbs Up
6 = A Mild Thumbs Up (My minimum score to re-watch a movie)
5 = Average/Forgettable (Thumbs Down)
4 = Below Average
3 = Failure and/or Boring
2 = Failure and/or Boring
1 = Abysmal/Hate

for measure... most movies i see get a 5/10 with a 6/10 being the next most common.

for the record... i ultimately rate movies based on how much i enjoy them. the further they get away from that, the lower the rating. also, i don't restrict ratings on the movies i see either it's simply that the vast majority of movies out there are nothing special and my scoring reflects that.

NOTE: i am a male who was born late 1979.


I've yet to find a 10/10 and the one that comes closest is the goodfather 1 and 2.


Those two (along with the third movie) used to be 10/10's for me but on some recent re-watches of that trilogy in Oct 2016 they simply don't capture my interest/attention etc to a 10/10 degree anymore. but with that said... the third movie is my favorite of the series now and within my Top 111 movies (i.e. 7.5-8/10) where as the 1st/2nd movies are within my Top 201 movies (7/10's). so i prefer the 3rd movie over the 1st/2nd. i know i am in the minority on this but i honestly enjoy watching the 3rd movie over the 1st/2nd movies a noticeable amount more.



My Top 100ish Movies = http://goo.gl/EYFYdz My Favorites = http://boxd.it/UkLa

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

10/10 movies don't have to be perfect, but if they do have any problems they need to be minor and easy to overlook. Mostly a 10/10 movie means I just LOVE watching the movie. It entertains the crap out of me.

I've rated about 15 or 16 movies 10/10 and rated nearly 1600 titles so far, to me that's reasonable.

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

Mostly I just rate movies 1 or 10 to change an exagerated average rating. I've given good movies 1 and poor movies 10. However sometimes I give correct ratings.

My perfect 10 would be "modern times" by chaplin not a boring moment, fantastic music and acting.

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

My perfect 10 would be "modern times" by chaplin not a boring moment, fantastic music and acting.

No kidding? What a coincidence! I watched this film mere hours ago (I rarely watch old movies from that era). I love a good Chaplin movie, and rewatching it reminded me that 'Modern Times' was maybe his best work.

"We're not too old for this sh*t!" -Riggs and Murtaugh, 'Lethal Weapon 4' (1998)

Re: 10 out of 10 movies


Mostly I just rate movies 1 or 10 to change an exagerated average rating.


that's the kind of thing that ruins ratings.

people should ALWAYS give a honest rating of a movie regardless if they feel it's underrated or overrated. even movies i think are overrated or underrated i always give my honest opinion of them.



My Top 100ish Movies = http://goo.gl/EYFYdz My Favorites = http://boxd.it/UkLa

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

You do realise that IMDb's average system basically rules out people with voting patterns such as that because there are many like you while IMDb wants to be representative of what the true average of what people think is. This is particularly apparent with bottom of the barrel trash, often 10 is the most common vote after 1 and a film may end up with a "raw average" of say 3 but a "weighted" i.e. corrected average of 2. And I doubt you can become an "approved" voter by merely giving middle ratings to a few films, there are undisclosed criteria in the rating system to prevent abuse. Also it's arrogant to think that a film's score needs to be pulled in the direction you want it to be and I find it more useful to give the score I genuinely think so I can refer back to it. What other people think doesn't bother me. For example the top 2 films on IMDb, Shawshank and Godfather are both 8s for me and if I was thinking like you I'd give them a 1. But I give them the 8s I think they deserve (by the way about 6% of my votes are 10)

Re: 10 out of 10 movies

Just clicked on your profile out of curiosity and saw you've only been a member for 4 days so you probably don't know much about how this site works and you'd only given one rating (8, to a film I haven't heard of), so no doubt what you mentioned about 1s and 10s is how you're planning to vote.

Re: 10 out of 10 movies


10/10 movies don't have to be perfect, but if they do have any problems they need to be minor and easy to overlook. Mostly a 10/10 movie means I just LOVE watching the movie. It entertains the crap out of me.


Exactly.

that's what i say... a movie that gets a 10/10 should be as enjoyable as movies get and anything that falls a bit short of that goes to a 9 and below that to a 8 and so on. all i really ask of people is they use the rating scale decently (i.e. 5/10 is average and then it scales up and down fairly evenly from there basically) and be honest when they rate movies and don't raise or lower a movies score in a attempt to boost it's average rating etc.


I've rated about 15 or 16 movies 10/10 and rated nearly 1600 titles so far, to me that's reasonable.


Yeah, it is. no one could fault that in the slightest in my mind.

but like i always say... i never restrict ratings just to restrict them as i always rate a movie based on what you basically said in the above quote in bold text and then the further it gets away from that the lower the rating. it's just the vast majority of movies out there are nothing special and i rate accordingly.



My Top 100ish Movies = http://goo.gl/EYFYdz My Favorites = http://boxd.it/UkLa

Re: 10 out of 10 movies


that's what i say... a movie that gets a 10/10 should be as enjoyable as movies get and anything that falls a bit short of that goes to a 9 and below that to a 8 and so on.


Right.


be honest when they rate movies and don't raise or lower a movies score in a attempt to boost it's average rating etc.


It's too bad this happens, really more often than we realize. Look at any of the latest blockbusters from the past few years (Force Awakens, Suicide Squad, etc.) where it seemed as though everyone was rating them either 10/10 or 1/10. Like there was no in-between, when in reality they were not doing this because they 100% loved or hated the films, they just wanted to change the rating.


but like i always say... i never restrict ratings just to restrict them as i always rate a movie based on what you basically said


That's good. I mean, if I had a ton of movies rated 10/10, I would consider it maybe odd; like perhaps I should reconsider...but I definitely don't restrict myself to the idea that I can't rate any movie I want a 10. It's just like you say: most movies just aren't deserving of that rating.

"We're not too old for this sh*t!" -Riggs and Murtaugh, 'Lethal Weapon 4' (1998)

Re: 10 out of 10 movies


It's too bad this happens, really more often than we realize. Look at any of the latest blockbusters from the past few years (Force Awakens, Suicide Squad, etc.) where it seemed as though everyone was rating them either 10/10 or 1/10. Like there was no in-between, when in reality they were not doing this because they 100% loved or hated the films, they just wanted to change the rating.


Exactly.

but i would imagine that kind of damage is mostly limited to those super hero blockbuster variations.

but with that said... i am sure there are some people where their 10/10 rating is honest but i would have to think, especially for something like Sucide Squad, is likely limited to young people (lets say roughly 20's and younger). it's nothing against young people it's just that when your really young your taste in movies tends to be a bit different vs when you see more movies and get a bit more age on you. but that's not to say that people in their 30's or older might not genuinely think something like Sucide Squad is a 10/10 but i would have to imagine, especially assuming they are using the rating scale decently, that it's a small amount of people.


That's good. I mean, if I had a ton of movies rated 10/10, I would consider it maybe odd; like perhaps I should reconsider...but I definitely don't restrict myself to the idea that I can't rate any movie I want a 10. It's just like you say: most movies just aren't deserving of that rating.


Yeah, the vast majority of movies simply are not interesting/enjoyable (or whatever other word you want to use) enough for warrant really high scores.

because if there was more movies i enjoyed about as much as i could enjoy a movie then there would be more 10/10's for me.

p.s. while i have only given out ten 10's currently there used to be a fair amount more (maybe something around double that figure) but they have since taken a hit on re-watches. but i noticed years ago i handed out fairly high scores pretty regularly but now when i rate movies it's much more accurate as i think years ago (say maybe something like 10 years or so ago(i am 37 years old now)) it was not hard for a movie to get into the 7-8/10 range. but then again prior to Sep 29th 2014 there was many more 7/10's as at that time i considered the 6/10 score as a Thumbs Down but since that date i now consider it a mild Thumbs Up as this way my 7/10 score is worth more now as before Sep 2014 there was too many movies bunched into a 7 even though some movies where quite a bit more enjoyable to watch for me which now that i can use 6's everything is much better balanced now.



My Top 100ish Movies = http://goo.gl/EYFYdz My Favorites = http://boxd.it/UkLa

Re: 10 out of 10 movies


but i would imagine that kind of damage is mostly limited to those super hero blockbuster variations.


Definitely. That's just where that "10/10 or 1/10" crowd seems to thrive.


i would have to imagine, especially assuming they are using the rating scale decently, that it's a small amount of people.


For a movie like 'Suicide Squad', I would definitely think so.


at that time i considered the 6/10 score as a Thumbs Down but since that date i now consider it a mild Thumbs Up as this way my 7/10 score is worth more now


Yeah, it sort of took me a while to get a handle on how I would have to treat the different ratings in order rate as accurately as possible. At first I considered 5/10 to be a pretty bad rating; I would never have thought I'd need to give out 1, 2, or 3/10 ratings. But I learned that 5 has to be considered an average; there are a lot of bad movies out there that deserve less than a 4 or 5 IMO. A 6/10 therefore became a much better rating in my mind. Anything I rate a 6 or above is usually warranted for at least one rewatch, because to some degree or another I enjoyed it.

"We're not too old for this sh*t!" -Riggs and Murtaugh, 'Lethal Weapon 4' (1998)

Re: 10 out of 10 movies


Yeah, it sort of took me a while to get a handle on how I would have to treat the different ratings in order rate as accurately as possible. At first I considered 5/10 to be a pretty bad rating; I would never have thought I'd need to give out 1, 2, or 3/10 ratings. But I learned that 5 has to be considered an average; there are a lot of bad movies out there that deserve less than a 4 or 5 IMO. A 6/10 therefore became a much better rating in my mind. Anything I rate a 6 or above is usually warranted for at least one rewatch, because to some degree or another I enjoyed it.


Yeah, for me as long as a movie continues to be re-watch worthy it cannot score below a 6/10 as some movies seem to hold pretty steady on a 6/10 score for me as the years pass as i see them from time to time and they interest me enough to where ill eventually see them again but my interest in them is on the low positive side of things. but if a movie becomes something i won't re-watch at any point my score will be adjusted to no higher than a 5/10 and could go lower if my interest in it drops off far enough.

also, from what i noticed on IMDb i kinda see IMDb averages like this in terms of wide opinion...

4.x/10 and lower = crap
5.x/10 = mostly negative opinions
6.x/10 = mixed-opinions (could be slightly more negative or positive depending on which side of the 6's it's on)
7.x/10 = mostly positive opinions
high 7's on up = the more praised movies.

nothing concrete there but that's the best i could determine using IMDb over the years.

but with that said... i think if people used the rating scale more properly (5/10 being average (as in a movie that was alright enough to see once but has no re-watch appeal) and then scales up and down fairly evenly from there) and gave HONEST ratings of a movie i am willing to bet the average ratings of movies in general would drop from where they are at currently as i imagine there are a fair amount of people using IMDb who hand out 6-7-8's (maybe even 9's and 10's) to movies they only see once and forget about which skews things as to me a true test of a movie is whether it's something you will re-watch or not.

so that in reference to my own scoring... there is only one movie that has a 4.x/10 or lower average that i personally scored a 7 or higher which is Showgirls (1995) (7/10) (which has a 4.6/10 average) which that movie is better than it gets credit for around here. it's almost like people rate it low because everyone else does as i honestly think, given the way IMDb generally scores things, that Showgirls average should be at least high 5's (or into the 5.x/10 range at the very least). but i have a feeling people (at least some people) like that movie more than they claim to. hell, i imagine it's the most known NC-17 rated movie out there as i heard it did quite well on VHS back in the day. but i would not be surprised if some of that was due to the nudity and at the time the internet was not huge like it is now. so if that was released today i doubt it would have had the video success that it supposedly did.

but anyways, outside of that movie (Showgirls) everything else i personally scored a 7 or higher has a 5.x/10 or higher average and my lowest movie i gave a 8 has a 6.1/10 average and the lowest movie i gave a 9 has a 6.3/10 average(next closest 9 has a 6.8/10). my lowest 10 has a 7.5/10 average.


My Top 100ish Movies = http://goo.gl/EYFYdz My Favorites = http://boxd.it/UkLa
Top