The first two movies in this trilogy are among my all time favourites and just wanted someone elses opinion as to why this is the case.
When a very poor movie like Iron man achieves a rating in the region of 8/10, I'm mystified?!
No arguments here pmc_lfc. I think they are classic movies.
We're not just doing it for Money, We're doing it for a s#@t load of Money.
Lone Star,Space Balls
I was absolutely shocked by the low rating on imdb. I have become quite good at estimating what a movie is rated on imdb, the first 2 crocodile dundee movies are some of my all time favorites. I think they are quite entertaining and original and after all these years they are still a lot of fun. My guess was that the movie would be rated between a 7.5 and an 8 on here... I couldn't believe how low it is rated on here. 5.5... really?
shareI think the majority of people who rate movies on imdb don't accurately reflect the movie watching populous in general. I suspect the ratings are dominated by teenage young men with nothing better to do.
Also people are likely to rate films highly in a way that they would like to think says something about their personality, such as fanboy loyalty to a geek franchise like Lord Of The Rings or otherwise prove their good taste in films by rating critically respected classics or intellectual films.
I'm not having a go at those people or films, I love comicbook movies and arthouse movies but it is understandable that crowd pleasers of yesteryear like Crocodile Dundee get neglected because a lot of people such as my Dad for example who thought it was great couldn't care less about imdb.
Peace
im with you there mate many films today just get made for the money and turn out crap like the incredible hulk or speedracer crocodile dundee one and 2 are way better than movies that are coming out toady as alot of old movies tend to be.
share[deleted]
if you dont own this film it is on channel E4 on sunday at 9:00pm remember to watch it because they always show the directors cut on E4, channel 4 etc.
shareIMDB voters are pretty stupid, that's why.
shareI have to say I can understand the low rating for this one. The original was so good, people just love it but this follow-up just doesn't hang together as well. The tone is much darker which doesn't help anyone deciding what to rate it. Plus by being the opposite way round to the first one, the pace is inevitably much slower in the second half (which needed some trimming in my opinion).
People wanted the lightweight comedy of the first and apart from certain moments ("Do you know who that was? Clint Eastwood!"), the film doesn't deliver that. It gets heavier as it goes along and is noticeably longer than the first, so you can almost see a graph of people's rating tailing off the longer the film goes on.
They have had a Crocodile Dundee marathon on AMC over the last day, and to chime in with my thoughts, while Crocodile Dundee II is a fun film, its still much weaker than the first because it is so different. The first film was a comedy through and through about an outdoorsman living in the big city, but the second film turned Mick into an action hero, and the tone was more serious. None of this was really present in the first film. Sure, Mick punched a few guys in the first film, but there was nothing to believe that he was able to take on Colombian drug lords. People were expecting more comedy, but instead got a poor mans Indiana Jones.
shareI was quite astonished to see it rated so low. Further, when you look at the vote breakdown, there's no group that rates it, on average, better than 5.4.
I really enjoyed both movies but I particularly enjoyed what they did with number 2 BECAUSE it was so different. The first is a fun comedy and I'm pretty leary of sequels because, more often then not, it's just the same movie over again. Assuming that this, like so many other sequels, wasn't even thought of until the first movie became so popular, this has got to be one of the best sequels ever. It's still quite funny ("he want's to know if we can eat these men"), while taking the characters in an entirely new direction.
The main characters are unique and colourful, the writing is good, the cinematography, especially the outback is wonderful, the acting is acceptably good, and the films hold up fairly well. 8 seems a bit high, but 7 seems a bit low for both films, imho.
cheers -
"There's poo in there" - Zack
I dont see a problem with this movie being different than the first. I see that as a good thing. I wouldnt want a carbon copy comedy of cultures like the first one. As far as the action hero stuff goes I certainly agree that the breaking into the mansion scene requires a certain suspension of disbelief but as far as Mick taking on the drug cartel in his native Australia, I have no problem whatsoever. Sure he is somewhat of an action hero in that half of the movie but it goes along with the whole idea of him being a backwoodsman survivalist. I look at it as his usual hunting but instead of crocs he is going after some humans. As Sue says, its just a game to him; thats how easy it is for him on his own turf.
shareI like the second one just as much as the first one, maybe even more in some aspects. I am glad they did not turn the second one into some lighthearted family movie like they did with the awful third one. When watching the first Dundee movie their were some intense scenes like the croc attacking Sue, Dundee explaining the death roll, Kangaroo shooting, etc and the their was always potential and a lure of seeing a character like Mick doing something more dangerous/intense and action oriented and being thrown in a more serious situation which we got in the second one. The second one still had its funny moments and I did not find it too serious or violent to be a turnoff. I thought the action was pretty well done and it was interesting seeing the different techniques Mick handled the bad guys as opposed to just shooting them all. The drug dealers and their men were pretty convincing too.
Oh and who can forget that fantastic introduction of "Colin Quinn".
For the people complaining the second one was a little too serious and violent, well you got your lighthearted Disney like kids movie in the third one and it was really bad, forgettable, and kind of ruined the legacy. It was nothing like the first 2 and almost like a different movie all together.
I don't see why this movie should be rated so low and feel it may only be slightly inferior to the original while still being a entertaining and worthy sequel. Everyone I know who has seen the second liked it and many enjoyed it as much or even more then the original.
I thouroughly enjoyed both I and II. I think they're GREAT entertainment. I liked the whole idea of the second movie, survivalist Mick. You guys already forgot the rope jump into a window 3 floors below? :D
I wonder if maybe the average imdb users rate movies according to how well the movie is made technics-wise. How well directed, shot, written, acting, music, pace, editing. All these different things are not top notch in these movies, but the entertainment value is sky high. So it depends on what you look at. I'd give these movies a 7,2 each.
though it was nothing special, I liked the movie til the ending
shareWatching it now! One of my fave films as a kid, and it's still good now.. Shocking score in here! I gave it 8/10
shareI'd probably give it 7/10. The NY part is about right but the 2nd half drags on though.
shareIt's a great film. The ending is terrific too. Watched the first two Crocodile Dundee films recently and they're both fantastic. I might even prefer the second one more, as we really get to see Dundee in action.
shareThe NY part is about right but the 2nd half drags on though.
I was a little surprised at the low rating too, considering that this sequel was itself still a genuine hit back when it was released.
I think you'll find that that relatively speaking, it's not a huge pool of modern voters that have contributed to the score and the film just doesn't resonate as well with them as it did with an earlier audience.
As others have noted above, the comedy factor is down in this film, whilst the action scenes with one or two exceptions, are generally fairly lame and predictable.
It's not just IMDb, critics at the time hated it too. It currently only holds a 12% Rotten score at Rotten Tomatoes. But it did well at the box office, and I've never heard anybody say anything bad about it.
It's no surprised the snobby critics hated it, and I'm guessing there were some others who didn't like it, because the sequel really comes out of left field. Following up the romantic fish-out-of-water film with and action/adventure movie complete with a drug cartel kingpin. As a kid I didn't even notice. I was just 8 when this came out, I had seen the original on TV and this in the theater, and I was too young to notice the shift in material.
See you guys at the 10 year prison reunion - Ben Richards
Well i find it hard to take Critic Seriously when they give Transformer a bad rating and JJ Star Trek a 80%. I mean Transformers is Bad. But JJ Star Trek is no better when comes to story and the writing. I don't take the IMDB rating seriously at all either. People who vote either hate or love it. And most people who think its just good usually don't bother to vote. Im sure more people than just 40,045 people saw this movie.
share