This is quite a discrepancy. Why is this?
"Mediocrities all, I absolve you. I am your champion. I am your patron saint"
-Antonio Salieri
chicks have crap taste in movies datz why!
sharethey cant really tell whats going on in the movie all the way from the kitchen, so the low rating is understandable
sharethEe fact of the matter is, women dont like movies.
they talkn about boys and bitching about their friends. other than that, not interested in anything anything else.
The fact of the matter is that you are sexist and uses generalizations to make you appear to be smarter but in fact you're not.
shareI think overwhelming opinion here would suggest that many men were better aligned to the graphic violence of this film, while many women could not particularly relate to it. I do not think this is a generalization, but most men with a higher concentration of testosterone can tolerate a higher level of violence as opposed to most women. Shall we say 80:20 to discount the 20% of women who have rated this and several other violent films 7 or higher?
Ironically, I got introduced to this film while watching an interview of noted film maker Mira Nair, who claimed this film as one of the defining influences in her life.
It seems mostly to be the large number of Females above 45 dragging down the overall female rating. Sure, the Under 18's rate it low, too, but their numbers are very few. Females 18-45 seem to like the film just fine.
Proud member of SHREWS (Society for the Honor Required of Eyes Wide Shut)
It's kind of funny, but a bit sad at the same time, that this discussion can be found on basically every Imdb top250 movie board.
For me there's no doubt that the females above 45 group is heavily infested with vote stuffing accounts. Just look at the vote statistics for some of these movies :
Movie - total votes female 45+ - 1 votes female 45+
La Battaglia di Algeri - 465 - 250
Ran - 745 - 263
Godfather - 3866 - 225
Wizard of Oz - 2506 - 300
Roman Holiday - 1107 - 167
The Lion King - 1523 - 252
All these movies, some more 'women friendly' than others, have a similar number of 1 votes, regardless of the total number of votes.
Now look at the 2 following movies, one that just entered the top250, one that has never been in there.
Trois Couleurs Rouge - 485 - 148
Trois Couleurs Bleu - 341 - 9
If this doesn't point towards vote stuffing going on, I don't know what would.
Now, what group is most competitive, most likely to make sock accounts for vote stuffing? I'm going to be just as sexist as some of the posters in this thread and say late teenage to early twenties males. I'm guessing when they make a sock account, they would use an identity as far removed from themselves as possible, which would put them into the female 45+ group. The fact that this group hasn't many voters making it easier for them to see the results of their 'work' is just a bonus.
As long as Imdb hasn't the means to actually verify the information (regarding gender, age, etc.) you enter when you join, conclusions based upon their statistics are shaky at best.
IMDb has a problem of bot software, which automatically generates profiles of a certain characteristics and then is used to cast automatic votes (hundreds, even thousands). You can see this by examining the age groups of the female voters for this film:
Female 1 ratings:
Under 18 - 61%
18-29 - 10%
30-44 - 16%
45+ - 53%
Does this distribution actually make sense to anyone? Shouldn't the older audience approve of black & white films more?
Here's another film where this has happened, called Le Notti Bianche (1957). Le Notti Bianche is a tragic-romance film, it is the very type of film women are prone to enjoying (no machine guns, no explosions, no murder), yet here's the breakdown for that one (and I will tell you more that proves beyond a shadow of doubt the votes have been rigged in a moment):
Female 1 ratings:
Under 18 - (just 1 vote and it's an 8)
18-29 - 1%
30-44 - 2%
45+ - 67%
Now, as to the proof that it is rigged, you will have to go by my testimony. And that is that when I frequented the page, the film had made it into the Top 250 or was threatening to make it into the top 250. The arithmetic vote was in the 8's and the 1 vote was nothing like it is now. Then virtually 'over night' around 200 1 votes were cast.
I've seen this pattern in other films, as well (Onibaba, Come and See, Napoleon '27, Three Colours Red...).
A completely different pattern that defies any kind of alternate explanation is the film Bratz.
746 6.3% 10
3,740 31.8% 9
126 1.1% 8
136 1.2% 7
192 1.6% 6
250 2.1% 5
221 1.9% 4
310 2.6% 3
484 4.1% 2
5,572 47.3% 1
That kind of vote distribution, where almost all the positive votes get lumped at the 9 rating, is statistically impossible, and we're talking 3,000+ votes. Someone just selected 9 out of 10 and cast it 3,000+ times. If they had all selected 10/10, you might be able to explain it another way, but not 9/10, no way is that explainable.
Furthermore, to put it even further beyond doubt, the genders make up almost 50:50 viewing numbers with that film, yet selecting women you find 3,697 of those 3,740 votes are from females. 3,683 came from females in the 18-29 age group. This is an impossibility. (Despite this, few actually reasonably comprehend that their precious site is fallible. These patterns do not need to exist for software vote rigging to occur.)
Just be thankful the vote 'stuffers' didn't get this movie booted out of the Top 250...
[deleted]