I’ve always found the Internet Movie Database user ratings to be a pretty accurate indication of film quality. At least more so than film critic rating websites (Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic). I know it’s a bit early, but the IMDb user rating for Sex and the City is currently:
3.5 out of 10 with over 1,875 votes!
While the 3.5 rating won’t be enough to get the film listed in IMDb’s bottom 100 films of all time (which requires a 2.4 or lower rating), Sex and the City currently sits on the list of the top 10 worst films of the year, behind only:
- Paris Hilton’s The Hottie and the Nottie (1.4)
- Larry The Cable Guy’s Witless Protection (1.6)
- Tyler Perry’s Meet The Browns (2.3)
- Meet the Spartans (2.4)
- College Road Trip (2.6)
- Ice Cube’s First Sunday (2.8)
- Martin Lawrence’s Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins
- The American remake of One Missed Call (3.1).
It should be noted that the male to female vote count is three to one. The average female voter gave Sex and the City a 6.3, while the average male voter gave the film a 2.9. We also don’t know if everyone that has voted have actually seen the film. The amount of male voters is questionable. but to be fair, I’ve heard they’re done extensive sneak preview screenings nationwide. Either way, I’m sure after the opening weekend the tables will turn, ending somewhere closer to the female average. It’s also worth noting that out of the 1,875 votes, over 900 of them gave the film a 1/10, and over 650 of them gave the film a 10/10. Talk about polarizing.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Frankly speaking a lot of those rated it without watching the movie.
A lot of guys hate it including me and I also gave it a 1 star.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
As you say, you have no idea if any of these people have actually seen the film, and neither does the IMDb. People could think they’re voting for the show, or perhaps there are just 900 dudes out there who’ve been forced to watch TBS every night with their girlfriends and wives and 650 women (and gay men?) who adore the show and want to goose up its rating.
The dearth of votes in neither extreme would support the notion that these folks haven’t seen the actual movie. But also as you say, we’ll know a lot more by the end of the weekend. It’s not like I was camped out for a movie based on a sitcom anyway.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
If you rate a film you haven’t seen, you are a stone cold idiot.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Would have to agree with M&Co on this one.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I have to admit that I already gave Beverly hills chihuahua a 1 star.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
I gave it one star. :D
Project Mayhem anyone?
May 28th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
I was just pissed they called it “the movie event of the year”
HA.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
This film is going to be the “Iron-Man” for women.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Am I the only one who doesn’t find Sarah Jessica Parker attractive at all?
May 28th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
quasimoto,
She looks like Eric Stoltz in Mask. Her and Sandra Oh should have a long face-off.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:13 am
SEX AND THE SHITY!!!! AMIRITE?!?!!?
May 29th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Panda, you crack me up Bro!
^
Captain Awesome rules!
Any guy in the theater during Sex and the City, is gay just accept it…….;-)
Heehee!
May 29th, 2008 at 12:23 am
I have been waiting for years! I give it a 5 star rating!! For those who cant go to cinema for some reasons, you may want to check out how you can watch this movie on your computer.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Now that is funny! I’d still prefer to see The Hottie and the Nottie than this rubbish
May 29th, 2008 at 1:07 am
“I’ve always found the Internet Movie Database user ratings to be a pretty accurate indication of film quality”
I don’t. Why? See comments above.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Klaus Kinski: The comments above speak to a mob mentality against the film before release. My statement is for the power and knowledge of crowds when there is a large enough sample. Right now the sample is too small, and the obvious mob mentality has overtaken the rating. But It was interesting enough to make note of. But by far IMDB user ratings are a more accurate indication of film quality over rotten tomatoes or metacritic.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:22 am
It would be a shame if a decent film got bad rating just because of a load of trolls who haven’t seen the film decide they hate anything aimed at females.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:24 am
I know Klaus Kinski, and you sir, are no Klaus Kinski.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:13 am
Peter, i understand your point but i disagree. There is no such thing like “accurate indication of film quality”.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:29 am
Klaus: obviously movie opinion is subjective, but I have found for me personally, my taste in films matches up will with the imdb ratings, providing me with an accurate indication of if I will or won’t like a movie. If a movie has a 7.0 or higher, most likely I’ll enjoy it. 7.5 or higher usually means a very good film. 8 or higher usually means a great movie. Lower than a 6.5 isn’t even worth watching.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:47 am
The IMDB forums/comments are Youtube’s retarded cousin.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:53 am
“I’ve always found the Internet Movie Database user ratings to be a pretty accurate indication of film quality.”
REALLY! I find IMDb, is the worst indicator for a film’s content (then again is there such thing as an accurate representation?), seeing as the majority of votes are cast by trolls (Transformers was averaging something crazy like 9.0 when it was first released…) or pathetic site viewers that instantly vote a film 1 or 10 without even seeing said film because it’s; ‘going to be bad’ or ‘da best guy/film/comic/everything evar?!?!’. I believe one man once said; assumptions…are the mother of all f*ck ups.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:37 am
Thank Lord!!!
This TV show is one of the main Reasons New York aint New York no more!!!
IMDB is not worthy anymore just like Wikipedia.
IT CANNOT BE TRUSTED!!!
May 29th, 2008 at 7:07 am
Trusting imdb ratings for an upcoming movie is just silly. That would be like trusting digg for your news. You’re looking at movies (or news) through a filter. The user base of imdb piles onto a movie that they haven’t even seen and make a judgment just from trailers or silly internet buzz. And the imdb ratings are obviously heavily skewed male - what else would you expect for a show (SEX AND THE CITY) that was successful because of women?
The joy of film criticism and film discussion is disagreeing and liking different movies. Part of the what made Siskel & Ebert fun to watch was for when they disagreed. Imdb ratings are best left for people that need a sequential order of every movie they’ve ever seen and where they rank. That’s about as interesting to me as sorting my underwear by color scheme.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:49 am
whats wrong with wikipedia? thats like my go to site if i need to know the truth about something. or at least the truthiness of something.
in my opinion, this movie was a no brainer for the creators. the show was so popular because it makes ugly old women feel like they still have ‘it’, so why not make a movie? it wont win any awards, but a lot of gross old women will go see it and make a big deal out of it, getting their hair and nails done, and some shopping before they go see it. and then they will go to a club and try to pick up men, and end up going home alone, but tell each other that they hooked up with a young guy and had great mind blowing sex…
May 29th, 2008 at 8:01 am
“Lower than a 6.5 isn’t even worth watching.”
I agree with you to some extent about the imdb ratings being a good indication of how much I’ll like a movie, but some of my favorite movies (like tideland) are rated under 6.5. If you really won’t watch something because of the rating on imdb you’re limiting yourself way too much.
That said I proudly rated this movie a 1 without ever having or ever wanting to see it.
The show is bad. The portrait it paints of these women is immensley sad. Their whole lives revolve around men and being morbidly afraid of dying alone…. and also curbing these horrible horrible fears with an addiction to shopping and random sex.
I don’t know, to me shows like this set the women’s movement back way further than anything else I can really think of.
And yeah sarah jessica parker is hideous. It just goes to show that in hollywood, being skinny and blonde is enough.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Sometimes I feel like the only girl on the planet who doesn’t enjoy Sex and the City. I just think it’s… silly.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
@quasimoto: No, you’re not alone. She is fugly.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Shoe + Horse = Sexier than Sarah Jessica Parker
May 29th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Big Daddy, I think you just gave out the plot…..
May 29th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
duca,
It might be because you’re not retarded.
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:37 am
While I don’t trust IMDb ratings, there is no way on earth I would see that shit. I never got the point of that crap.