Movies Do you avoid watching movies that are rated 5 or lower on IMDB?

[Madmick]

To those voting, 'I watch whatever catches my interest", I don't think you're taking into account how truly horrid sub-5.0 movies on IMDb are. I'll watch even movies that are in the 5.0-5.9 range, if they have something going for them, some sort of word-of-mouth, or a director or actor or screenwriter I really admire, or maybe that won an award I respect.

But once a movie falls below 5.0 it is 99.9% certain to be a bucket of shit, so I'm not wasting my time. Almost without exception, I'm avoiding those movies. There's too many movies out there to see I haven't seen.

Name me a movie below 5.0 that is good.

 

[Slobodan]

Doesnt that forum have that disaster of a trainwreck Shawshank Redemption ranked a perfect 10?
Yea, ole Pete gives zero hoots what them folks think about movies, I watch what I want

You're still shitting on Shawshank Redemption??

Damn you!

 

[Slobodan]

To those voting, 'I watch whatever catches my interest", I don't think you're taking into account how truly horrid sub-5.0 movies on IMDb are. I'll watch even movies that are in the 5.0-5.9 range, if they have something going for them, some sort of word-of-mouth, or a director or actor or screenwriter I really admire, or maybe that won an award I respect.

But once a movie falls below 5.0 it is 99.9% certain to be a bucket of shit, so I'm not wasting my time. Almost without exception, I'm avoiding those movies. There's too many movies out there to see I haven't seen.

Name me a movie below 5.0 that is good.

Dog Eat Dog. 4.8 rating.

Nicolas Cage and Williem Dafoe. You can't go wrong.

 

[Pittie Petey]

To those voting, 'I watch whatever catches my interest", I don't think you're taking into account how truly horrid sub-5.0 movies on IMDb are. I'll watch even movies that are in the 5.0-5.9 range, if they have something going for them, some sort of word-of-mouth, or a director or actor or screenwriter I really admire, or maybe that won an award I respect.

But once a movie falls below 5.0 it is 99.9% certain to be a bucket of shit, so I'm not wasting my time. Almost without exception, I'm avoiding those movies. There's too many movies out there to see I haven't seen.

Name me a movie below 5.0 that is good.

Why are you trying to make this a challenge, why cant we just enjoy what we like

Im sure lots of the Troma/SyFy Channel/Asylum/old timey sci fi B movies that I love are ranked well below 5 on this precious little movie nerd scale, dont mean I still dont love em and it dont mean I think anyone else has to like em, its just what ole Pete enjoys, kinda like butter in my ass and lollipops in my mouth...

 

[Pittie Petey]

I just clicked on the 5 and under list in the OP, very first movie that pops up is Meg 2 : The Trench, that movie is dope as fuck, saw it on opening night in the theaters and it was a rocking good time

This ranking system is shit, just like I predicted

 

[Madmick]

I just clicked on the 5 and under list in the OP, very first movie that pops up is Meg 2 : The Trench, that movie is dope as fuck, saw it on opening night in the theaters and it was a rocking good time

This ranking system is shit, just like I predicted

Spoken like a man who gave a glowing review of Borderlands.

 

[Madmick]

Dog Eat Dog. 4.8 rating.

Nicolas Cage and Williem Dafoe. You can't go wrong.

View attachment 1091399

View attachment 1091398

 

[Slobodan]

 

[Pittie Petey]

Spoken like a man who gave a glowing review of Borderlands.

You're still shitting on Shawshank Redemption??

Damn you!

View attachment 1091397

I am quite confident that I'll be on the right side of history in both of these cases

 

[Madmick]

I am quite confident that I'll be on the right side of history in both of these cases

 

[Slobodan]

I am quite confident that I'll be on the right side of history in both of these cases

 

[Gene Tunney]

Avoiding movies that are rated 5 or lower on imdb is a rather narrow-minded approach.

 

[Madmick]

Avoiding movies that are rated 5 or lower on imdb is a rather narrow-minded approach.

Not at all. It's a time investment strategy.

It only disqualifies about 15% of movies, and probably fewer than 3% from the major studios or the esteemed smaller ones (ex. Focus Features). It's not snobby-- the IMDb is as egalitarian as it gets. It doesn't dismiss movies based on when it was made, alleged politics, identity issues like the gender/race of people or characters involved, the national origin of the film, its language, its topic or genre, its production details, its techniques, or the cast & crew.

Nor is it about asserting that movies that score that low are without exception bad. It's not a practice that contradicts the possibility one might pass over a movie worth seeing, or that has at least one idea or scene that might stay with you.

 

[Bobby00]

No i actually dont even know the scores and dont use that site or others like that. You could like a movie even if rated low it might be your taste but you never see it because of rating it got. I get recommendations from friends and family. They know you and what you like.

 

[USA!USA!]

I don't watch a ton, so I typically try to only watch quality.. unless its halloween season, then I love the campy stupid horror films.

 

[ricc505]

Why are you trying to make this a challenge, why cant we just enjoy what we like

Im sure lots of the Troma/SyFy Channel/Asylum/old timey sci fi B movies that I love are ranked well below 5 on this precious little movie nerd scale, dont mean I still dont love em and it dont mean I think anyone else has to like em, its just what ole Pete enjoys, kinda like butter in my ass and lollipops in my mouth...

How much is a kid on a bicycle?! I grew up on troma, I even met Loyd and Herz (one was the fake fat guy the other I simply suspected was him). I am known for my love of movies and have been challenged on it. One guy was upset by my love of Kubrick movies and threw Barry Lyndon at me. Highly rated on imdb, I've watched it and might never watch it again.

 

[Fury]

Gymkata

I don't know what they rate it, but it's so bad it's awesome.

I worked at a Blockbuster when I was in my early 20's, I've seen a stunning amount of awful movies and quite enjoyed some of them.

 

[Gene Tunney]

Not at all. It's a time investment strategy.

It only disqualifies about 15% of movies, and probably fewer than 3% from the major studios or the esteemed smaller ones (ex. Focus Features). It's not snobby-- the IMDb is as egalitarian as it gets. It doesn't dismiss movies based on when it was made, alleged politics, identity issues like the gender/race of people or characters involved, the national origin of the film, its language, its topic or genre, its production details, its techniques, or the cast & crew.

Nor is it about asserting that movies that score that low are without exception bad. It's not a practice that contradicts the possibility one might pass over a movie worth seeing, or that has at least one idea or scene that might stay with you.

When rating films, rewatchability may not have an appropriate weight. Something in the realm of the halo effect, which is a cognizant bias.

Some of the schlockier films are more rewatchable than others. This is an observable phenomenon.

Leviathan is rated 5.8 on imdb.

Shawshank Redemption is rated 9.3.

If I rewatch Leviathan many more times than Shawshank Redemption, how should I rate Leviathan?

If I avoided films based on the collective's perception, I may have never watched Leviathan.

Because of movies like Leviathan, I am willing to give lower-rated films produced during that time period a chance.

 

[Wrath of Foamy]

I only look at IMDB for the trivia.

 

[Ima5starman]

Police Academy 4’s ranking is a travesty