MovieChat Forums > Lion of the Desert (1981) Discussion > Should have a higher rating!

Should have a higher rating!

posted 22 years ago by martin_humble
10 replies | jump to latest

Sadly, the IMDBs system of wighet average has lowered the rating of Lion of the desert! The "real" figueras are MUCH higher than the suggested average by IMDBs system. The arithmetic mean is 8.3. and the median is 9.0!

Surely, even if the system is said to work, the difference between 7.0 and 9.o is so high that something is wrong!

One more thing, there are similar movies made, or movies that I get the same feeling from, and so on, and I have therefore added recomendations for LOTD at those titles; but this is the strange part! Not one recomendation has been added! Why?????

Just had to get it of my mind!

[–] son-without-birth 20 years ago

because very few people have voted for it.
I loved it and was surprised that it's ignored here.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cromptonenator 19 years ago

I know, this film is very underrated!

[–] balie 18 years ago

THANKS some one like this movie
i know it should have a high rating in the list and shoud won a oscar
and anthony quins is brilliant

[–] Goodfella_no4 18 years ago

How about sharing your recommendations with us here?

And yes, it should have a higher rating. And it should be in the Top 250, nonetheless. Together with The Battle of Algiers, this movie really represents the struggle for freedom in the Arab world, during the Colonial "age".

----------
"Why must fireflies die so young?"
- Setsuko, Grave of the Fireflies

[–] Hamidxa 17 years ago

I find it somewhat interesting that US voters have been the ones for the most part to have driven down the average for this film.

I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that their actions in the last several years are analogous (if not altogether reflections at times) to those of Mussolini and the Italian Armed Forces.

Perhaps I am looking too deeply into this matter, but I get the impression that many Americans are looking into this film and not liking what they see because it reflects a side of their nation that they don't agree with, and would sooner sweep such ugliness under the rug rather than address it -- kind of like how this film was indefinitely banned in Italy.

They don't like it because it brings to light a side of them that they don't want to see.

[–] jonathan-hussain 17 years ago

That's some fine psycho-analysis, Hamidxa, but not really a helpful or well-meaning response to the thread's original question. Most important, as was originally mentioned, is the method of calculation used to develop average user ratings. This site's explanation of their weighting method is as follows:

"IMDb publishes weighted vote averages rather than raw data averages. Various filters are applied to the raw data in order to eliminate and reduce attempts at 'vote stuffing' by individuals more interested in changing the current rating of a movie than giving their true opinion of it.

The exact methods we use will not be disclosed. This should ensure that the policy remains effective. The result is a more accurate vote average."

As benevolent as its intentions may be, the IMDB is doing fans and films a disservice by not making its ratings formula public. A site driven by public ratings and criticism should not tally votes in secret.

[–] finalio 16 years ago

Well, the current system is not perfect but I still believe it’d be far worse if they declare the whole thing…u see fan boys manipulating the sys. All the time (e.g. The Dark Knight)

[–] megatosspot 17 years ago

It might be because it's long and tedious.

[–] finalio 16 years ago

not at all, i watched it several times, and i still find intresting, unfortunately not many people know about this film, Being an arab film, old, bio., not many known actors, long , not having a good rationg in IMDb is surely not helping the movie at all