MovieChat Forums > A Most Violent Year (2015) Discussion > Never trusting imdb ratings again

Never trusting imdb ratings again

posted 10 years ago by Cyta77
141 replies | jump to latest

First Foxcatcher and now this, i only watched both because of the imdb rating and i just cannot believe its rated so high, i guess if a movie has good acting it must be AWESOME because thats all this movie had, literally NOTHING happens, just like foxcatcher aka a whole lot of nothin. I could not beleive the whole movie was about buying a piece of property, 2 hours of trying to buying a piece of propery and the movie gets a 7.5? please someone explain what was so good about this movie

a violent year and i think i saw 2 maybe 3 "violent" scenes if u even wanna call getting punched in the face violent.

[–] niallcrad 10 years ago

Agree totally You summed it up perfectly

[–] lookingforthemagic 10 years ago

Don't ever go by IMDb ratings, they really don't usually tell you much.

I find your comparison to Foxcatcher interesting because this film and Foxcatcher were the two films I've seen recently where I got something totally different than I was expecting. Foxcatcher I thought was okay, mostly because of the performances of Mark Ruffalo, Channing Tatum, and Steve Carell. I was much more interested in A Most Violent Year. Again, the acting was great, and maybe the period was something that pulled me in more? I'm not sure.

-----------
This is your life, and it is ending one minute at a time

[–] fat-squirrel1 10 years ago

I think IMDB ratings are fairly accurate overtime. But generally a little off to start with. The first people to see a film and review it are often people that either love the director, an actor, or the writer.

This film was ok, nothing special, nothing awful.

The only reason these films are being discussed is because it was a mostly awful year for movies.

Fingers crossed for 2015.

[–] golddigger 10 years ago

The only reason these films are being discussed is because it was a mostly awful year for movies

you are so right,there is a big crisis in the film industry...
so when movies who have good cinematography,good acting but a boring script
its get praised into the sky

[–] davemc1 10 years ago

then i recommend you stay way back from boyhood. Awful film...the only cool thing is the actors age. You've been warned.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] valdazzar 10 years ago

First Foxcatcher and now this

I haven't seen this, but I agree with foxcatcher. High rating but a boring film.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fluffy-1 10 years ago

Nothing happened?!? Were any of you whiners watching with your eyes open? Some very tense scenes, lots of drama, and boy are you a bunch of spoiled children.

[–] golddigger 10 years ago

fluffy,i advise you to watch more movies and especially see the classics

[–] awakefield1983 10 years ago

This movie was probably just a bit more nuanced for your taste. Violence doesn't always equate to Michael Bay type explosions and Jason Statham fight sequences. It's often more subtle than that and frequently driven by greed and power - as is depicted perfectly in this film. Even the main protagonist is not without flaws which only deepens the character and makes the story that much more believable. All too often, the average movie goer dismisses these films with terms like, artsy, or movie snob, or academy elitists - however, it all just comes down to preference. If you like Transformers and cheetos and mountain dew - good for you, who am I to judge?

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]