I'm stunned that females under 18 gave such a low average rating to this great film. The film was beautifully shot, had a great plot and wonderful music. It also didn't feature any sex or violence that might turn off female viewers. Why didn't they like this film?
share...'cuz neither Zac Efron nor Robert Pattinson are in it.
By the way, if you liked this movie you should check out "Chungking Express" by the same director. It's not as visually polished but almost as good story-wise.
And since you seem to have good taste in movies, I highly recommend a Swedish film called "Let the Right One In."
Hope you enjoy them :)
I'll put those movies on my Netflix queue. It seems like movies from overseas are more original and creative then anything that's coming out of Hollyweird these days.
share
'cuz neither Zac Efron nor Robert Pattinson are in it.
Well said.
I would argue that it's an inaccurate representation because there are only 37 votes. Also, thing about the people on IMDB who would watch the film then vote it. These girls are probably white and middle-class. An Asian population would most certainly vote for the film differently. With such a small pool of votes, I can imagine these girls are having been forced to watch the movie, perhaps by their parents, since it's a foreign film that never quite broke into mainstream Hollywood like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.
The "because Zac Effron isn't in it" argument is very old and very stereotyped.
So, why don't such girls like the movie? I'd point to the issue of age. The type of love depicted in the movie is very restrained and very different from how love is depicted in mainstream Hollywood. Arguably, the relationship is not consummated and it deals with two middle-aged people in unhappy marriages. Certainly, I can imagine young girls finding that hard to understand in such an age and society where, if you're unhappy in a marriage, you'd just leave and continue finding your perfect someone.
Hmm, I definitely think the relationship was consumated, but I think that only supports your argument. The relationship is never satisfactorily consumated: it ends in heartbreak & loneliness for each of them. Both end up alone anyway.
It's a beautiful story, and possibly my favorite film, but I can definitely see why young women would not enjoy it or understand it. Other people, too. A lot of people use movies as a pleasant diversion, and I don't see this ever being in that category.
Thanks for the spoiler. Now I know how the movie ends.
shareThat got me to thinking, maybe the small boy was his???
sharejaimebien on Sat Apr 11 2009 05:23:22Well, if that is "old and stereotyped", aren't quotes like this old and stereotyped too?:
very old and very stereotyped
Sign:
A nature loving atheist
I think they are very stereotyped but they do apply on most cases, but there are exeptions. I am white, middle-class, 16 year old girl. I wasn't forced to watch this movie, I looked for interesting films to watch and found this. I absolutely loved it. I wouldn't say it was hard to understand for me but for most girls under the age of 18 (like the girls in my class) it would be very difficult to understand, because they do watch movies with Zac Efron and Robert Pattinson in them and they think those are the best movies. They just haven't seen enough good movies to understand how crappy Twilight and other teenagers movies are.
I have to apologize for my poor English, I imagine I made quite a lot of grammar mistakes as English is not my first language. I hope everyone understood the point I was trying to make.
I actually wouldn't have been able to tell English wasn't your first language if you didn't say so. Your English is practically flawless! A few mistakes, sure, but a lot better than many of the American girls under 18 you speak of in your post. Don't apologize for it!
shareThe "because Zac Effron isn't in it" argument is very old and very stereotyped.
_____
I agree. It's because Sean Penn isn't in it.
A mathematical explanation:
If you were to really average the 38 numbers, you'd get an average of 6.5, which is much more respectable though low, in fact, half of those (females under 18) who rated this movie (that is 19 of them) gave this film an 8, 9, or a 10 (though all opinions should be valid, I wouldn't argue with any of those ratings, though I might argue with someone who thinks this is a 7 or lower, though different people use different ratings to mean different things, I very very rarely give 10s to films, and give 9s only to movies I'd consider my favorites, this one included).
There are nine ratings of 1 (lowest rating possible) and there are no ratings of 2, 3, 4, or 5 (i think ratings of 2 or 3 are the actual red flags when you hate a movie, you could give a 1 if you're trying to rig the numbers to get your favorite films to move higher, but you'd be unlikely to give a 2 for that purpose; I myself have never given a film less than a 3). Removing these, we have an overall rating of 8.2, which is around where the total for this movie sits.
So why is the so-called weighted rating of the movie 2.7 (and likely 2.6 when the original poster looked at it)? It's because they use an undisclosed rating system, which is pushed lower, likely due to the small number of votes, but also likely due to the fact that perhaps not every female under 18 who rated this film is an "active" user. Depending on how "active" users are determined, the ratings of 1 may have been among the only ones that counted (some people might go around giving 1s to every film they think is too high up on the top 250, and 10 to every film they think is too low; they want the top 250 to agree to *their* tastes, rather than to be the popularity contest that it was designed to be). Hence, people that give tons of movies 1s are more likely to be active users (though IMDb might filter for weird behavior like this, who knows...)
And that's the explanation that doesn't presume anything about the cultural or film watching habits of these young women.
[deleted]
That explanation sounds like something from a Wong Kar Wai film.
This movie is too complicated for 'kids'
shareI'm a new addition to the Males 18-29 section.
It kind of pains me that I won't be in another section for another 11 years. I'm pretty sure this film would grow on me as I got older and maybe understood the language better, but at 18 this film really sucked for me.
An 18 yr old and a 29 yr old me would be so different.
What strikes me as even worse is the fact that currently 51 of the 458 top 1000 voters gave this a 1. I once read that a top 1000 voter has to approximately gather a 10.000+ votes in order to become a 1000 voter...if you've seen 10.000 movies, you must've seen the highs and lows of cinema...than how the hell could you rate this 1!?
share[deleted]
All joking or derision aside, this is the demographic that made justin beiber a star and stephanie meyer a million (billion?)-aire.
Everyone is entitled to their own taste but teenagers, and teenage girls in particular, have rather bad taste. In my opinion.
[deleted]