I can't believe so many IMDB'ers missed the point of this well-crafted, wonderfully acted movie. I gave 10 a "10".
shareExactly! I looked twice because I couldn't believe it. Dudley was perfect and this movie is a solid8-9. It was a hit and it's really good.
share
What's up with the rating? It's a sorry movie.
/
_____________________________
http://theobamafile.com/index.htm
Half this site is little kid teenagers who don't understand adult comedies.
10 was a classic.
As noted before, it seems the expectations going in has resulted in the low rating.
In reality, a Woody Allen-influenced dramedy that has comic relief but dares to be serious as well, especially in the often derided slower pacing, which allows the characters to be more defined and breathe a little bit. A perfect time capsule of the confusion and disallusionment of the post-sexual revolution late '70's (with the brick wall of AIDS right around the corner), for those that were there. I watched it again last night for the first time in at least 15 years, and it did not disappoint. Also, knowing that both the lead actor and director are no longer with us adds poignancy and melancholy while watching it today, and how fleeting those times and that era really were.
Without the titillation, its below average.
Its that man again!!
It's not a bad movie at all. It could have been worse though, Dudley Moore was a last minute call-up for the lead role after first-choice George Segal walked out.
Originally we would have seen Segal as a Beverley Hills dentist going through the mid-life crisis, but the director Blake Edwards changed occupations to 'song-writer' once Moore was cast. I am guessing Edwards wanted to add Moore's musical talent to the film as a whole.
Still they fit the role of the dentist in though and gave it to Jenny's father.
Gee, ya think? The entire movie was about the impact of titillation on a middle aged man.
shareYes, it was all twelve of the ten thousand votes by people under 18 that pulls down the overall rating. You were one click away, and about ten seconds of thinking time, from seeing your application of a bias had no bearing whatsoever on your statement with regard to this movie. Such a small investment of time and effort, but I guess even the "get off my lawn" crowd has ADHD too.
Of the twelve kids who rated this movie, the seven males voted ABOVE the overall rating and was the HIGHEST rating by any split, while the five females had the second lowest rating by split, second only to IMDB staff. And the populations were so small of any of these splits that there is statistical skew at play.
The answer to the OP's original question is ten thousand plus people, who had motivation to rate this movie, thought it was fair. If the dozen or so people who liked the movie much more are disappointed, so be it. One's enjoyment doesn't have to be predicated on universal acclaim.
Nice that you rub his nose in it for not looking at the voting metrics (and, I'm not even sure those were available at the time they posted), but then you turn around with a crack about people with ADD, or ADHD, as if we're incapable of taking the time to think things through, or look at available empirical evidence before arriving at a conclusion.
You could have made your point without going there. Completely unnecessary.
Never for the sake of peace and quiet deny your convictions-Dag Hammarskjold
Exactly. This a really good movie that stands the test of time.
shareThis is a great movie and one of my favorite comedies. I saw it in the theatre when it came out. Three times! As for the low rating, while "Game of Thrones" gets a 9.5 rating, "The Wizard of Oz" gets a 8.1 rating. Should be the other way around.
shareWhat's up with the rating? It's the biggest anticlimactic movie ever. It deserves a 5 in my opinion. Only held up by a good description of a middle-age crisis. But why dangle a carrot in front of your audience for the entire movie.
shareI was disappointed with this movie.
The attempts at humor fell flat (I will admit 60's-70's humor is very hit or miss for me). The story was mediocre and many random things seemed too far out there / unrealistic (guess they were fails in humor attempts)
Plus the whole way Dudley was whining and thought Bo was going to suddenly fall in love with him and leave her husband on their honeymoon during the attempted sex scene killed any respect I had left of the movie
3 / 10
For me I enjoyed it until the last 20 minutes or so, I thought the poor climax is the reason for the low ish rating. Which was a pity, I think the rating is about right. Julie Andrews was the best thing about the film.
shareI agree. I just watched it tonight and was delighted to see how funny it was. Dudley Moore is at the top of his game playing the drunken, self-indugent, spoiled physically awkward man-child. Moore pulls off some excellent physical comedy bits under Edwards' direction. Blake really had a loving way with stars like Peter Sellers, Dudley Moore and even John Ritter letting them go to ridiculously extreme lengths of physical comedy. He simply let his camera linger on them while they went to almost embarrassing extremes of profane slapstick.
There may be some pacing problems with "10" but even in 1979 (comedy) films were slower than today. I actually think Blake Edwards did a good job of trusting his sensibilities to commit to slower wordless moments. His camera is allowed to dwell on emotional and physical comedy scenes rather than worrying about pacing us from short cinematic ideas simply to carve out a linear narrative.
Something has been lost in the years and forgotten which may be why the film is rated so low here. At the time "10" was a huge hit and everyone was talking about it, or talking about wanting to see it. The film may be a slightly difficult pill for today's audiences but most comedies of that era (late 70s, early 80s) were different and arguably better.