What's with the low rating?
I can't believe so many IMDB'ers missed the point of this well-crafted, wonderfully acted movie. I gave 10 a "10".
shareI second that in entirety.
I guess the ratings on IMDB are a bit weird.
MovieChat Forums > 10 (1979) Discussion > What's with the low rating?
[deleted]
'10' is one of 10 best movies ever made. :-)
shareFor starters, it is sooooo sloooooow. And Dudley Moore's character is surely one of the most irritating to ever appear in cinema. At no time do we see why Julie Andrews' character would waste her time with such an obnoxious little twerp. Even the unbilled porn stars couldn't help this one.
shareI think the above poster's thoughts are probably indicative of why the user rating is so low. I would imagine anyone not old enough to have seen this in theaters when it first came out prefers something a little less character driven with more action and explosions. Today's youth hardly wants to sit for two hours and see a movie about a man going through his midlife crisis. With that said I think this is Blake Edwards' masterpiece. Dudley Moore was perfectly cast and the comic set pieces are well directed. The screenplay is pitch perfect in its dialogue regarding aging, love, compatability and so much more and let's not forget the silly but hilarious moments including the visit to the dentist and its aftermath, the bee sting, the old woman and the dog, and walking on hot sand. Simple but hysterical. This is a great, great motion picture comedy and I envy anyone who is seeing it for the first time.
shareI'd be more willing to take the second half of your comment seriously if the first half weren't so ridiculous. I'm sure it's the same sort of argument older viewers were using towards the youth when this movie came out ("kids today are only willing to watch a movie if it's full of naked women, space battles or gross-out special effects"). Spare me.
shareDITTO jrs-8, I couldn't agree more or have said it better :)
shareI don't know if the rating "splits" were provided back when this post was made and your definition of "youth" is not refined.
So, assuming "youth" is under 30, the splits for that population (5.9)are only slightly lower than the over 30 splits (6.0). Certainly not enough of a deviation to warrant some broad statement against a group, and more than likely reveals your observation bias. Further, the 18-29 split is HIGHER (6.1) than the 45+ split (6.0). The 30-44 split were slightly lower (5.9) wherein both males and females seemed to like it less than those both older and younger.
If the splits weren't available back then, it might be worth it to click on the link and review splits now. Otherwise, it's disappointing if they were available and it was too much hassle to review before making a comment.
[deleted]
hat's with the low rating?
by orange714 (Sat Oct 27 2007 11:22:34) Ignore this User | Report Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't believe so many IMDB'ers missed the point of this well-crafted, wonderfully acted movie. I gave 10 a "10".
I think a lot of people find it cliche. It's old retreaded territory that really goes nowhere. share
[deleted]
I watched it for the third time a couple of months ago, and with each viewing my enjoyment of the film has slightly diminished. Dudley Moore is an actor who can be a bit off putting at times (a la Robin Williams.) Some of the slapstick was a bit forced. Although I still laughed hard when Dudley's trying to call Julie Andrews after he's come back from the dentist and loaded up on pills. I think the 5.7 rating definitely a bit low. Somewhere between 6.5 and 7.0 feels more right to me.
The film does kind of bring to mind that Hollywood once made R rated comedies for adults. It's kind of lost art.
I rarely give films a 10, but this came very close to perfect so I gave it a 9. This is a well-acted, funny, sensitive and insightful comedy that doesn't talk down to its audience. I think titling this "10" and putting the focus on Bo Derek may be a bit misleading, though, because this is really Dudley Moore's film. Maybe it should be titled "3"? ;-)
shareI rarely get bothered by ratings too low or too high. But this one is ridiculous. 5.8 rating?? It might be one of the most underrated films on IMDB I've ever come across.
http://most-underrated-movies.blogspot.com/
Most of the ratings here are totally skewed, especially for recent films in hot-button genres or starring people who are either loved or loathed on this site. But presumably, those who vote on this 31-year-old film have actually seen it and don't have an ax to grind. Most appear to be voting 6, though oddly, people younger than 18 like it the most. I chalk that up to the fact that many of them vote either 1 or 10.
Regardless, this is a superb comedy about a midlife crisis. Maybe people who were expecting more of a sex comedy are disappointed. I most certainly wasn't. I love this film.
Yeah, you'd think a movie titled "10" would get a lot of 10s, but there's only 399
Top 1000 voter
www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=23949572 - vote history (OVER 9000 titles)
People who vote, are often fast to give a movie a '10', when they like it and a '1', when they dislike it. It's often just a question of how many people rate it.
And also people misuse their votes to 'up' their favorites at the cost of other movies.
For instance: it has been criticized that some people vote negatively on the board of The Shawshank Redemption, just so that The Godfather is in first place in the '250 all time movies list'.
And possibly some will vote a '1' for 10, just because they're revolted by the movie. So it becomes a political issue instead of an issue about taste.
So if people really would vote, what they think. For instance vote a 7 for some movie they really like, an 8 for something better and reserve 10's just for really outstanding work. While they vote a 3 for a bad one. This, instead of immediately going for the 1's and 10's, thus creating a more objective feel to it.
"Bless me, Father, for I have just killed quite a few men."
Very very true. I've given very few 10s and even fewer 1s, but a whole lot of 5s, 6s and 7s, a handful of 3s, 4s, 8s and 9s, and even a couple 2s. And I've never voted on a film that I didn't watch through to the credits.
My main beef with the rating system is you can't vote average, or 5.5. It's either 5 (slightly below average) or 6 (slightly above average). This is similar to a lot of critics' ratings systems, unfortunately, which have a even number of points. I'll go out on a limb and say that many publications find "average" boring, so they don't allow for the possibility. Neither does this site.
I always ignore the rating, at least for recent films, and look at the breakdown. If a film has a lot of 10s followed by 9s then by 8s, people probably liked it. If it has a lot of 10s, followed by 6s and 5s, probably not so much.
Anyway, "10" is a 9 in my book, which is extremely high praise indeed.
jdown-1 wrote:
"For starters, it is sooooo sloooooow. And Dudley Moore's character is surely one of the most irritating to ever appear in cinema. At no time do we see why Julie Andrews' character would waste her time with such an obnoxious little twerp. Even the unbilled porn stars couldn't help this one."
Looks like you too missed the point like the OP pointed out. "10" isn't just another typical comedy like most that you're probably used to. The characters don't just live fun easygoing lives like in other comedies. In "10", the characters are a lot more real! Plus, Julie Andrews' character could have easily stayed with George; the two had an obvious chemistry and history together. You can't expect them all to be perfect just like no one is in real life. This film lets you know that there can still be laughs even when you're going through a midlife crisis! That's the beauty and originality of "10"!
Absolutely! I think the problem with the marketing of this film is it's presented as a T-and-A comedy, when really it's a serious look at a man's midlife crisis. So the studio probably went for the easy payoff by marketing this as a sex comedy, but the film is actually something much more profound.
While some might find Dudley Moore's character irritating, he's actually quite true to life about a man "of a certain age." It's just that we're not used to seeing such a man portrayed so honestly. And women like Julie Andrews stick with men like Dudley Moore all the time – at least in real life, if not in most movies.
I remember this film coming out a long time ago...I was all of 5 years old at the time.
Finally just saw it tonight and...
I'm not sure what to make of it. The humor seems a bit cheesy (the slapstick seems a bit out of place for the rest of the film), but I did enjoy the dramatic side of it. It's a bit sad in that way.
The ending however feels forced.
*spoilers*
...b/c in the clichéd manner of many a film, he just happens to find his moral compass the moment he's about to sleep with the gorgeous woman he was stalking. It doesn't make sense that he'd ever think this woman would magically fall in love with him when she doesn't know who he is outside of having saved her husband's life. No man's that naive to expect anything more out of the whole scenario.
*end spoilers*
Well, I actually liked this film a lot. Maybe not a full 10, but I'd give this film an 8 or 9 mark.
When I saw it - many years ago - I thought it was a pity that Bo Derek's fame as a bombshell had blurred out all the rest of good qualities of the film. Dudley Moore is perfectly cast as the middle-aged man with a life crisis. I liked Julie Andrews as well- she is cast in a supporting role which for me it was incredibly interesting, and away from her typical Mary Poppins/The Sound of Music musical thingy. I laughed at the slapstick humour, and I also loved the other couple, the composer who is dating a young man, much much younger than himself.
I also liked the marriage of Bo Derek and her husband, so conceited and egocentric but a bit stupid.
i was 9 yo when this movie came out, and being a 9 yo male, i desperately wanted to see it since it was such a monster hit and had a nude bo derek to boot. needless to say, i never got a chance to see it.
one thing that i remember is that i had asked my uncle about it, who had seen it. he said it wasnt that good. when all of his friends continued to rave about it, he thought maybe he had missed something, so he decided to give it another chance and saw it a second time. he still didnt like it.
well, 30 years later, i finally got around to seeing this landmark movie, and i have to admit, i think my uncle was right. maybe my expectations were a bit too high, but this movie just didnt do it for me. the acting and dialog were great, but it was so slow, and a bit depressing at times i thought. there were some funny moments, but nothing that was laugh out loud. and i just didnt believe the relationship between dudley moore and julie andrews. they just didnt seem like they could ever be a real couple. i wouldnt say that this movie was bad, but i wouldnt say that it was great either. i really wanted to like this movie, and maybe i would have if i hadnt waited 30 years to see it. i guess maybe just like moore's character realizes, sometimes the fantasy is better than the real thing.
[deleted]