Why 6.9 out of 10?

Why would someone rate movies like 300 or Sin City in the top 250? The best thing to do is realize that much of the ratings on IMDB are a popularity contest. There are some great films (in my OPINION) that are rated very low, while there are some truly crappy movies (again my opinion) that are rated very well.
My suggestion is that you take the rating in stride––don't let it bother you, because it isn't necessary an accurate representation of movie goers.

Bad writing, bad acting, little plot, random goofy pirates added by Disney, Moochie... should I go on? I gave it a 6. It wasn't horrible, in fact, it was better than average, but an all time classic? Surely not.

Its a great movie, it is an adventure classic. I gave it an 8, i think it deserves it. Dont bother with the ratings so much, people have voted 1 for The Godfather. That's what you get when you let anybody vote. Some even vote 10 for Pulp Fiction. Imagine that?!? That's just how people are.

Would you vote 9 or 10 for Plan 9 from Outer Space because you loved it for its atrociousness? Or would you vote it 1 or 2 because it's so atrocious that you don't even get the concept of it being entertaining in that way?

Voting is so completely subjective and pointless. IMDb whittles it down a bit by not incorporating certain users into the total vote algorithm (you've got to vote a lot and frequently, I think), but you could go around voting 1s and 2s for 10,000 films and your votes would be counted.

I saw that the Hannah Montana thing was a 2.9 and I chuckled at that. Obviously tween girls' accounts aren't up to "IMDb voting standards," but as they grow and continue to vote, should they keep their accounts active, it'd be fun to see Hannah's rating skyrocket in a few years lol.

Anyway, I came to this SFR page to see what I'd voted (by coincidence) and it was a 7. I think that's a fair vote for me. I liked it as a kid. But I don't watch the film a billion times a year, I'm not inspired by it in any way, and I don't think about it as life-changing nor would I recommend it to anyone without young children. So... *shrug*... 7/10! : )

Because it's a dated, badly acted piece of crap?

While I don't think it as one of the greatest movies ever, or the best ever Disney movie, I absolutely love this movie. I agree that it deserves a higher rating than 7.0, because it really is something special.




"Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage"- Madeleine Kahn(CLUE, 1985)

I could've been a 7-8 without Francis. It has poor acting and some of the plot lines are weak. A good movie, but not an all-time great. I gave it a 5.

"One of the best movies of all time!" It's one thing to say you enjoyed a movie but to declare it great requires some reasoning to back it up.

Perhaps having first watched this movie as a child is critical to a higher rating. That not being the case for me I had to rate it a 4. Mind you, that's not based upon the scale that so many seem to use that puts average at 7 to 7.5. Since IMDb doesn't allow a zero vote, it means 5.5 is middle of the road.

Too often the acting was positively cringe worthy to deserve even an average rating. Then there are the times the film was sped up and even rocked back and forth for "comedic" effect. That's not superior film making. That's just plain lazy direction and/or editing.




"I may be wrong but that's just my opinion." Dennis Miller