MovieChat Forums > The Sentinel (2006) Discussion > The ratings on IMDB amaze me...

The ratings on IMDB amaze me...

posted 18 years ago by bomblade
17 replies | jump to latest

This film gets a 6.1. This would put the overall rating of the movie at about 2 or 2 1/2 stars. I'm guessing you don't have a lot of people who hate Douglas or Sutherland, so they aren't coming on here just to vote 1, where those who love either one of those actors will vote 10 just because they like them and so on (sometimes without seeing the movie too). I still don't see how its getting a 6.1. This was a very poor attempt at a movie. I could say so many negative things about The Sentinel but I'm sure a lot of them have been said already. I think 1 star would be about accurate.

I just don't get so many people who vote on here can't just give their honest opinion. It seems that for some reason on the internet on any site where you vote for anything, you either vote 10 or 1..or you simply view a rating of 5 out of 10 as very poor, so you vote 5. I guess it relates to the thinking of my nephew, who believes that everything falls into two categories, the best ever and the worst ever.

Okay, so I'm off on a rant. I can't imagine that people thought this was a very good movie considering it bombed at the box office and also that it was so bad, so how a 6.1? Are there mainstream movies that aren't horror that get below 5?

[–] Gareth2061 18 years ago

This film was ok, forgettable but by no means bad.

[–] IAmNo4 18 years ago

I agree on the IMDb ratings -- they are pretty screwed at times, but I think this movie deserves a 6.1 rating, if not more!

Heard a lot of negative things about it, only to find myself quite surprised because it was actually a pretty decent thriller!

SUNSHINE
CillianMurphy~RoseByrne~MichelleYeoh~ChrisEvans

[–] Fusty_7 18 years ago

A 6 or 7 rating seems about right to me. It was okay, but never really seemed to get out of second gear. Underdeveloped charatcers, plot holes and routine action all make it a poor substitute for In the Line of Fire, but it wasn't absolutely awful; Dougles, Sutherland, Longoria and Basinger are all personable enough.

[–] kairingler 17 years ago

i odn't see what these people were smoking when they rated this movie a "1" , this was a decent movie, and i've watched over 2,500 in my life. it don't rate even inthe bottom 500,

works for me

[–] rochestersweetie 17 years ago

I agree. I really liked The Sentinel....it wasnt Michaels best movie, but he acted very well...better than the rest of the cast. I thought it was just as good as In the Line of Fire...which everyone raves about.

The Sentinel gave an even better glimpse into the Service. The Sentinel just needed a little more bang. They needed a bigger shoot out or a better car chase scence through DC just to give the movie more pop.

And, I'm sorry, Keifer fans...but, he's not so great. Douglas looked better and acted better. I wished that the affair between Michael Douglas and Kim Basinger's characters was developed a bit more...would have been interesting to see how it all began. :)

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] filtersweep 16 years ago

Ratings are relative, based on expectations--- for me, at least.

In this case, I never really cared about the one-dimensional characters, and there was no real suspense. When you have a decent cast and a decent budget, I believe it is only fair to raise the standards for rating a movie. I would rate this a 4, whereas some indy film with a fraction of the budget and a cast of unknowns I would rate higher.

[–] endemoniada-1 17 years ago

It's not about honesty. Not everyone is qualified to rate a movie properly, and even if they are, personal subjectivity is still going to taint the result.

Of course someone who hates one of the actors is going to think less of the movie, and understandably so. The only thing stupid is even caring about IMDB ratings as if they actually meant anything.

Personally, I though the script was meager and the editing thoughtless and wannabe-hip with all the quick cuts and fly-by's. Douglas was pretty good, and it was nice to see Sutherland contain his Bauer-persona to a more restrictive, held-back style. He was all about tact and skill, and less about barking orders and kicking ass. Unfortunately, Kiefer Sutherland is going to be compared to Jack Bauer in every single role he has ever, and will ever, star in. I think, if nothing else, his character and performance in Dark City proves he has so much more than ass-kicking tough-guy to him.

Also a lot of fun to see Eva Longoria firing guns with a completely straight face, after watching her in Desperate Housewives for so long :)

-----
www.fairuza.net - forum.fairuza.net

[–] mojbjg 17 years ago

This movie has piss-poor direction, story and script.
The ONLY reason it got any attention is because of the actors names attached to it. Otherwise, it was a made-for-video release.

[–] kingyhtd 17 years ago

i'd give it a 6
it did feel rather cheap

[–] voxic 17 years ago

I odn't see why everyone is killing this movie. I tohught it was very original and very good. There aren't too many good movies made that give this much of an inside view into protecting the president. The one with Clint Eastwood dind't even give this much insight into the Secret Service. The story was also a tad beleivable. I thought it was well done.

----------------
C U Next Tuesday

[–] robi1138-1 17 years ago

I love this type of movie and I love Kiefer and Michael Douglas; acting...however, this was about the most wretched movie I've ever seen of this genre. Horrible, horrible script, terrible directing...bad, bad movie

[–] Desertman84 17 years ago

Hey,this movie was average.Probably forgettable.But hey,Eva Longaria was HOT!!!

[–] Desertman84 17 years ago

Also,at least this movie gave us,viewers,an idea of how the Secret Service operates.A glimpse of an idea I suppose since this is just a movie.

[–] mtwideen 16 years ago

Well, I actually didn't mind this movie, but the way I see it is a 6.1 is pretty accurate because well, this movie is like many other movies. It didn't do anything particularly bad (IMO) but it didn't do anything amazing. It is a typical movie, no surprises, so it got a below average rating.

But as for the rating system, think of school, first of all, many of the people who do these ratings are still in school, and those who aren't, have been through school. In school, anything below 50% is a fail, so most likely when people rate movies, they see it the same way.

So this movie would have gotten somewhere along the lines of a C, which is fine, was average (based on the rating a little below) not great, but not horrible either.

Makes sense to me.

[–] bogustanny 15 years ago

Well to be fair, a lot of movies now considered good were at the time box office bombs. This, I don't think will be one of them though.

That said I think 6.1 is a fair vote. It's pretty formulaic and unoriginal, but it has decent enough production values that it's an adequate popcorn flick.

You've got an interesting point though. Aside from not many people protest-voting the principal cast, the "gotta protect the President" thriller subgenre doesn't really suffer from the sort of rabid fanboyism that has people rating everything than their cult favorite a 1 BECUZ ITS GHEY LOL. And it's not really trying to be anything but crappy entertainment so the film snobs who worship in the temple of Kane stayed at the door. Of course, this all raises a lot of interesting questions as to what exactly an X of 10 rating on IMDB actually "means." By what measure is a good movie?

[–] PleasureGarden 15 years ago

To be honest, I don't think there's a single film I've rated below the average already on its IMDb page.