IMDb

e_e · 14-01-2014 1:39pm

Just to add that I was actually referring to the Nic Cage Bad Lieutenant. Which is one of the most dementedly funny films I've ever seen.

Must check out the Keitel/Ferrara version soon. Though it's an entirely different beast from what I've seen.

e_e · 14-01-2014 1:45pm

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Bad Lieutentant - Harvey Keitel version is considered a classic. Haven't seen the remake due to a Nicolas Cage allergy.
The Grey - Liam Neeson with wolves and ice. On my will watch sometime list.
Ain't Them Bodies Saints- heard of, haven't seen.
Killing Them Softly - average certainly a 5 or 6 but no more out of ten on my list
Spring Breakers - not off the top of my head.
The Tree of Life - arthouse with Brad Pitt. Anybody I know who saw it said it was boring. Famous for having a famous director.
Margaret - I know its not the Thatcher movie with Maryl that you mean but I haven't seen it.
Valhalla Rising - ?
Upstream Colour - ?
Computer Chess - ?
Cosmopolis - I've heard of Metropolis (the 1927 classic but not this one) Meek's Cutoff -?

Thats without cheating and looking them up on IMDB. I'm neither a film buff nor clueless.

At least 3 of the films that you put a question mark after have been listed among the best films of that year by many critics.

Just to take you up on what you said about Tree of Life: It's a pretty opaque, non-linear film but I fail to see how anyone can be bored by it. There's rarely a shot in the film that isn't awe-inspiring. To say it's famous because it has a famous director (I'd take issue with calling Malick "famous" too) is a little unfair as it's already being considered to be a modern classic by many.

FloatingVoter · 14-01-2014 2:00pm

e_e wrote: »

At least 3 of the films that you put a question mark after have been listed among the best films of that year by many critics.

Just to take you up on what you said about Tree of Life: It's a pretty opaque, non-linear film but I fail to see how anyone can be bored by it. There's rarely a shot in the film that isn't awe-inspiring. To say it's famous because it has a famous director (I'd take issue with calling Malick "famous" too) is a little unfair as it's already being considered to be a modern classic by many.

I was being honest regarding the ? mark. They just didn't register one way or the other in my memory. The Malick film wouldn't rate highly on IMDB as it would polarise a mass audience. Plenty of people went to see it because he directed it (also plenty of people went to see it because of Brad Pitt). I didn't bother as The Thin Red Line - I sort of liked. Badlands did nothing for me. Awe-inspiring shots and non-linear both can mean that it has no storyline and has pretty pictures in it. I haven't seen it so I don't know.

Back to the list, certainly watch the Keitel version of Bad Lieutenant - it'll stay with you. I'll try to oversome my Nic Cage aversion and watch the later version.

I've now checked IMDB - Valhalla Rising looks like crap from the description alone. Vikings with wings or something. Cosmopolis is David Cronenberg. That looks interesting. Again that'll suffer the same fate as Tree of Life - Robert Pattinson fans going to see a Cronenberg movie is like Harry Potter fans going to see Equus in the theatre. Compiuter Chess - I did the 80s, I can play chess (badly). I don't want to watch a movie about either.
Spring Breakers I'll give it a chance...it just looked like a teen movie to me at a glance which is all I gave it.

SimonTemplar · 14-01-2014 2:08pm

The IMDb rating is really a measure of a movie's popularity not necessarily it's quality. Sometimes the two overlap, sometimes they don't.

FloatingVoter · 14-01-2014 2:12pm

SimonTemplar wrote: »

The IMDb rating is really a measure of a movie's popularity not necessarily it's quality. Sometimes the two overlap, sometimes they don't.

....and it fades over time. Certifiable classics like The Godfather, Schindlers List and Goodfellas that can attract a mass audience and have lasting quality will always be rated high. You'll find this years big hitters like American Hustle fading with time. 12 Years a Slave might have sticking power.

e_e · 14-01-2014 2:12pm

The Tree of Life DID polarize a mass audience which explains the 6.8 rating. But I wouldn't count that as a knock against the film, quite the opposite in fact.

re: Valhalla Rising. You're judging a film based on plot where it isn't even about the plot to begin with.

...and Computer Chess is about so much more than both chess and the 80s. It was one of the most adventurous and intriguing films I'd seen in a long time.

FloatingVoter · 14-01-2014 2:20pm

e_e wrote: »

The Tree of Life DID polarize a mass audience which explains the 6.8 rating. But I wouldn't count that as a knock against the film, quite the opposite in fact.

re: Valhalla Rising. You're judging a film based on plot where it isn't even about the plot to begin with.

...and Computer Chess is about so much more than both chess and the 80s. It was one of the most adventurous and intriguing films I'd seen in a long time.

We're agreeing with each other on the polarisation aspect and the low(ish) rating.
Valhalla Rising just doesn't sound like my cup of tea. That said I'll probably catch it on TV some night and love it. Thats the way the cookie crumbles.

I was being sarcastic about Computer Chess - but seriously didn't anybody have a better title for a movie than that. If its about more than chess and computers call it Sex, Lies & Videotape (whoops, thats taken....but it proves that something as simple as the damned title of a movie will provoke negative criticism on a ratings based thing like IMDB).

e_e · 14-01-2014 2:35pm

Honestly the title was one of the things that drew me to Computer Chess. It's so odd and particular that it stodd out.

Dermighty · 14-01-2014 2:57pm

Wikipedia > IMDB (no subscription version)

johnny_ultimate · 14-01-2014 3:20pm

Dermighty wrote: »

Wikipedia > IMDB (no subscription version)

They're both useful in their way. A well written (which is far from a given, alas - many film pages are effectively useless) Wikipedia page can provide interesting and more elaborate explanation of the narrative, themes, production details etc... But then IMDB is typically more reliable for the nitty gritty details - soundtrack listings, trivia, aspect ratio (which I actually find myself checking very often to make sure I'm watching a film 'right'), camera information etc...

I'd say most film viewers will find them both handy assets, although both come with their own unique 'problems'.

Bipolar Joe · 15-01-2014 12:15am

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Valhalla Rising looks like crap from the description alone. Vikings with wings or something.

15-01-2014 2:07am

Kirby wrote: »

That's a bit snobbish.

And statements that start with "No offence but....." are usually intended to insult. If you don't want to cause offense, rethink the sentence that follows the words.

Hardly snobbery. It would be hard to call yourself a film fan or even a casual fan of the medium if you managed somehow to miss Spring Breakers, The Grey, Tree of Life, etc. even my Mom is aware of those films and she would watch only a handful of films a year. If anything the real snobbery here is posters writing off films as crab based on an imdb synopsis.

Kirby · 15-01-2014 4:22am

Deleted User wrote: »

Hardly snobbery. It would be hard to call yourself a film fan or even a casual fan of the medium if you managed somehow to miss Spring Breakers, The Grey, Tree of Life, etc. even my Mom is aware of those films and she would watch only a handful of films a year. If anything the real snobbery here is posters writing off films as crab based on an imdb synopsis.

Well I take the point about people writing off films based on an imdb rating. But that's hardly snobbish, it's just uninformed and bad practice as you miss out on movies you might potentially really enjoy.

But to get back to the point what exactly classifies somebody as a "film fan" anyway? What metric are we using here? Surely it shouldn't be an insult to be levelled at somebody because they haven't heard of a particular film.....as your post intimated.

I have a friend who I'm sure hasn't watched Spring Breakers or The Tree of life. He may have watched The Grey.... I'm not sure. It's probably a little too slow for his tastes and he'd avoid it most likely. The cerebral mind benders like Memento don't do it for him.

He is an avid cinema goer. I've been with him on a dozen occasions so I know it's a pastime he enjoys. But he is fairly simple in his tastes and tends to go for the mainstream movies...the blockbusters.

To call anyone out as "not a film fan" because their tastes aren't as eclectic as your own is not only rude but narrow minded.

e_e · 15-01-2014 9:26am

I don't think it's narrow minded at all. I'd just call your friend a fan of a particular kind of film rather than cinema in general.

...and honestly for independent films Spring Breakers and The Tree of Life got a LOT of hype from festivals and in reviews. The latter winning the Palme D'or at Cannes which is a festival that I think anybody who follows film should have a vested interest in. If you were to call yourself a fan of film and not have heard of these I'd say that you're clearly not that well immersed in the culture of film.

TireeTerror · 15-01-2014 9:29am

As soon as I see a new torrent up, quick check on imdb to see the rating. Also when Im looking through my SKY EPG and I see a film, I can press the red button and it will send a query to imdb and it will load up the page for that film on my TV. Really saves the hassle of having to go online with a PC or other device to check.

FloatingVoter · 15-01-2014 12:26pm

I know a guy who only watches slasher/gore movies (the Saw franchise, Human Centipede etc, and worse). He might go to the odd blockbuster with his girlfriend. Has absolutely no time for anything other than those movies. Thats a pretty narrow point of view of cinema and easy enough to scoff at.
Equally as narrow is someone who only watches movies that are certifiably arthouse because they feel it gives them bragging rights.
The same crap goes on in books / literature. A genuine reader can have Bridget Jones on their shelf alongside Tolstoy. Posers will have Tolstoy on the coffee table and Bridget hiding under the bed. Now theres a script idea.

Back to IMDB, I often use it to find documentaries or older TV movies. Last week, I was reading about Benedict Cumberbatch playing Alan Turing next year. It peaked ny interest so I checked out Alan Turning (character) on IMDB and found a couple of good documentaries on the man. It is a database after all. I'd trust Rotten Tomatoes more if I were going by ratings alone. Funny how the critics and audience often differ widely there.

Cork boy 55 · 15-01-2014 7:49pm

Imdb is brilliant for getting movie quotes

For example

Elf (2003)
Buddy: [phone rings, Buddy picks it up] Buddy the Elf, what's your favorite color?

15-01-2014 10:27pm

Kirby wrote: »

Well I take the point about people writing off films based on an imdb rating. But that's hardly snobbish, it's just uninformed and bad practice as you miss out on movies you might potentially really enjoy.

But to get back to the point what exactly classifies somebody as a "film fan" anyway? What metric are we using here? Surely it shouldn't be an insult to be levelled at somebody because they haven't heard of a particular film.....as your post intimated.

I have a friend who I'm sure hasn't watched Spring Breakers or The Tree of life. He may have watched The Grey.... I'm not sure. It's probably a little too slow for his tastes and he'd avoid it most likely. The cerebral mind benders like Memento don't do it for him.

He is an avid cinema goer. I've been with him on a dozen occasions so I know it's a pastime he enjoys. But he is fairly simple in his tastes and tends to go for the mainstream movies...the blockbusters.

To call anyone out as "not a film fan" because their tastes aren't as eclectic as your own is not only rude but narrow minded.

I wasn't insulting anyone or trying to imply that if they like different films to most that there was anything wrong with that. Film, like all art is subjective and as such people have different tastes. It's what makes like interesting and allows for so much discussion.

However, it's almost impossible for any with even a casual interest in cinema not to be aware of films such as The Grey, Spring Breajers, etc. they may have no interest in the films but would still be aware of them. Much like I have no interest in romantic comedies i still know what ones are out and which have been successful on the recent months.

conorhal · 16-01-2014 3:58pm

IMDB is a great resource for fim fans, the ratings are fine, but usually for older movies rather then new releases as fans/haters tend to completely skew the new release ratings, but after a film has been out for a few months and the weight of regular folks has ballanced out the extremes the ratings are generally a reasonable guide.

My only real gripe is the number of times I've spoilered myself by looking up a cast member on show that I might be a season or so behind on and realised that the actor hasn't been listed in any upcoming episodes so a shocking death, twist or departure has been rather telegraphed for me.

mikhail · 17-01-2014 12:29pm

e_e wrote: »

Just to add that I was actually referring to the Nic Cage Bad Lieutenant. Which is one of the most dementedly funny films I've ever seen.

Must check out the Keitel/Ferrara version soon. Though it's an entirely different beast from what I've seen.

Very different. Much more visceral. A difficult film to watch. It's a tragedy to Herzog's comedy.

IMDb

Comments