A Most Violent Year : Never trusting imdb ratings again

---

I have yet to figure out WHY this story needed to be told. It really seems like a pointless film in my opinion.

---

Really? That's the best you got? TAKEN 3 was a story that "needed" to be told? THE WEDDING RINGER? THE LEGO MOVIE?

And, the Mob has a LOT more to do with this plot, but, I guess it was too subtle for you since you were waiting for a shoot-out and a CGI explosion to explain it to you.

i wasnt waiting for a shoot out or cgi explosion,
i was waiting for something to happen

I never said I wanted CGI or over the top action. I wanted more than what it offered. Which was basically..

"oh dear me, im in a business that is run mostly by mobbed up individuals as my competitors. Whatever will I do..? I'm a good guy, I don't wanna be mobbed up."

"Oh look, life is tough for me and my business cause the competition steals my company trucks. Oh the heart ache. Oh the horror. Oh the tragedy."

"And oh my, I have cost one of my workers his life by sending him out in a truck of mine again KNOWING what would likely happen. But I have found the money to keep my business going. Thank goodness. THE END - ROLE CREDITS"

Yeah, feel free to gush over the top notch acting (I say that with the most sincere form of sarcasm you can comprehend, mind you) of this boring, pointless film.

In a post above you said that you understood the movie just fine. Then in this post you show that you completely failed to understand it. So which is it? Did you understand it or not? If so then why did you offer this imbecilic overview of the plot?

---

We're from the planet Duplon. We are here to destroy you.

---

You really are a *beep* idiot do you realize that?

Once again, the claim "nothing happens" when that is of course not literally true is aimed by the CGI loving crowd at a film that is an adult drama. What the criticism really amounts to is a stated preference for a different kind of film, presumably a child oriented "action" film with loud noises, explosions, cartoonish characters and the like.

This film had none of those.

I think the inclusion of the word "violent" may have drawn in some viewers who really wanted a different kind of film. It sort of reminds me of criticisms aimed at Cronenberg's A History of Violence nearly ten years ago that, despite some rather gruesome scenes, was not "violent enough" for some, and certainly not the kind of film wanted by some.

Great comeback Daffy! Actually it's YOU who is clearly the idiot. I think it's time you put your money where your mouth is and explain what you think the movie is about. At this point it appears pretty obvious that you didn't understand it so this is your chance to prove otherwise before your credibility drops to zero

---

We're from the planet Duplon. We are here to destroy you.

---

---

"oh dear me, im in a business that is run mostly by mobbed up individuals as my competitors. Whatever will I do..? I'm a good guy, I don't wanna be mobbed up."

"Oh look, life is tough for me and my business cause the competition steals my company trucks. Oh the heart ache. Oh the horror. Oh the tragedy."

"And oh my, I have cost one of my workers his life by sending him out in a truck of mine again KNOWING what would likely happen. But I have found the money to keep my business going. Thank goodness. THE END - ROLE CREDITS"

---

You do realize (actually, you probably don't) that with a few minor word changes you are describing the plot of THE GODFATHER? Oft-considered (including on imdb) to be one of the best movies ever made.

I'm not comparing VIOLENT to THE GODFATHER, but, used only to show you that a rough plot sketch does not a movie make. Nor, does every crime movie have to be wall to wall action.

So, you like violence otherwise life is boring? I know what you mean. After the first twenty minutes Saving Private Ryan was a snooze fest!

---

So, you like violence otherwise life is boring? I know what you mean. After the first twenty minutes Saving Private Ryan was a snooze fest!

---

no i like character development and something to happen,

This movie was one of the most gripping films I've seen in a while. No true cinema fan goes by the terrible rating system on imdb. Best to go with Rotten Tomatoes or meta critic if anything. How on earth could anyone find this movie boring is beyond my comprehension.

The direction, the acting, the script and the cinematography were all top game stuff. Sad sad times for film.

frosty,

I agree with both your assessments. I find no merit whatsoever to the notion that this film is "boring", particularly when noted as such by posters who do not think they even have to try and explain what it was about the film that led to that criticism.

I think in actuality those critics break down into two camps.

The first are those who expected a different film from the title, one that has much more violence in it. this is not hard to understand, and should even be expected. I am not saying those who named it as they did were necessarily hoping to draw in a larger audience by doing that, and in fact I think it plausible that the title was honestly chosen. (I think the title refers to both the time and place of its setting as one that was infused with a general sense of potential violence, which was the backdrop for the film.) But you include such a reference in your title, and don't be surprised if some viewers hope or expect the film to contain some significant level of violence, here meaning more than is actually in the film. Given the disparity, we see the resulting complaints.

The second group is to my view more insidious. They are people who did not feel misled, but who categorically object to or dislike this kind of film. By that I mean a film that spends a certain portion of its attention on character development, thematic elements and other apects that deviate from a close adherence to plot development, particularly one punctuated by thrills, unexpected turns, and of course explosions, loud noises and that sort of thing. Of course a member of the first group can quite easily also be found in this one, but this group is also one that was not misled by the title.

And while I can sort of understand someone disappointed because the title led them to believe they were going to see a different kind of film, the second type is really one who feels compelled to go onto a message board to complain that this kind of film was made in the first place. They want to see that only the kind or kinds of films they prefer are made. They don't want to see others, who enjoyed this kind of film, have that kind of enjoyment. It is really a rather reactionary and stilted worldview at work.

I have nothing but contempt for people who decide to see a movie based on the ratings. Just because people voted high because they enjoyed the movie doesn't mean you will. If they subsequently didn't like the move, then it's their fault and nobody else's. Don't blame the ratings for your own stupidity. You appear to have gone to see the movie as well because it had violent in the title, which makes you even more of a fcking idiot.

I saw it because trailers billed it as a sort of modern-day retelling of The Godfather. Perhaps I went in with too high expectations, because I did not feel the film was anything close to a modern-day Godfather.

You sir, are an idiot.

So how about you explain how this film compares to The Godfather?

I don't watch trailers, they lie. Their only function is to get people to the cinema and spend money.

Sheesh, don't trust ratings, don't trust trailers. What are you going to trust? The description? Hey, the Wikipedia entry still doesn't have a detailed plot and still says this:

---

Set in New York City during the winter of 1981, statistically one of the most violent years in the city's history, the film centers on the life of an immigrant and his family trying to expand their business and capitalize on opportunities as the rampant violence, decay, and corruption of the day drag them in and threaten to destroy all they have built.

---

The trailer seems to send the same message.

What I tend to do is ask people who've seen the film of their opinion, opinions I trust. If not I read a description, check who's directing etc. I never watch trailers, trailers lie. I read about somebody who saw a trailer for Under The Skin which made it look like a sci-fi action film, who was most upset when her got something completely different. That was a pretty good description you posted.

^^^^^^^^^ this g-man.

Apparently pretentious douchebags really like this film.

---

Apparently pretentious douchebags really like this film.

---

thats my impression also

To be clear, I'm not saying everyone who likes this film is a pretentious douchebag. But most of the responses I'm receiving to my criticisms of the film can be summarized in two sentences: "You don't get it. You're stupid." There is no explanation as to why I have "misunderstood" the film.

thats the typical pretentious douchebag reaction

---

The trailers/marketing campaign never implied that. It's too bad you allowed a faulty assumption compromise your impression of the film.

---

Really? Is that why pretty much all the top critic reviews on RT compare the film in some way to The Godfather?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_most_violent_year/reviews/?type=top_ critics

Is that why even regular people who liked the film ("Mark W," four stars) agree with me that the trailers were going for a Godfather feel?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_most_violent_year/reviews/?type=user

If the film weren't marketed that way, I could've watched it with different expectations and felt differently. I still think it has flaws, but I wouldn't have been so disappointed if I didn't expect The Godfather or even Carlito's Way going in.

By "pretty much all," I mean a lot more than three or four. Besides, if even you concede that three or four top critics felt that way, then my impression was not unreasonable. And again, as I mentioned, some people who LIKED THE FILM agree with me that the film was marketed as a retelling of The Godfather:

http://markedmovies.org/2015/02/02/a-most-violent-year/

g-man,

Your position on this thread as well as the response you are getting for it mirrors our discussion to date. You seem to refuse to accept that your overall view of this film should not be based on quibbles about how it was marketed, or more accurately how you and your expectations perceived such marketing.

So go on complaining about marketing. Such complaints have no connection to an assessment of the actual film's merits. If you can't see that there's no further point in discussing this film with you, and you are approaching being a troll.

There's no further point because you're a pretentious douchebag who insults everyone who disagrees with your opinion on this film as being part of the GTA generation. Hey, you know what? I can do the same thing.

Nice white flag, loser.

I didnt in any event say anything about video games here. I said in effect you were a troll to keep complaining about marketing as some means of dismissing the film for its intrinsic merits. Others have noticed you doing the same thing. Try another approach, troll.

"Here." So apparently what you say in one thread doesn't carry over to other threads? Nice lawyering.

No, I said you did not respond to the point that you continue to complain about marketing as some indictment of the film itself.

Which you know was the point, and have no answer to, which is why you complain about my reasonable linking of you to those who prefer a video game type movie to a more adult film.

No, once again, you misunderstand, possibly deliberately, what I am saying. I am happy to disagree with you on whether this is a good film or how well it compares to similar films. No problem. But if you can't even agree that this film was marketed as a crime drama, then I ask you: what did they market it as?

I think the rating is evening itself out. I tend to agree with IMDB ratings.

Its too bad you have to wait for them to level out - just like the Foreign garbage that gets rated 10 just from its Countrymen.

This movie screwed the pooch big time - I gave it a 5, and it'll probably level out around 5.6

I thought I was getting something like Goodfellas, what I got was nap time.

Yeah, I doubt we'll see the likes of Goodfellas/The Godfather anytime soon.

You will, it's a film about to be made by Scorsese and will also have Deniro, Pesci, Pacino and all the other big guns. Based on the book "I heard you paint houses" working title is The Irishman - it'll be a blockbuster mob flick for the ages! (based on Hoffas actual death, by Frank Sheeran)

I've been hearing about this for a while, but then DeNiro brought it up on the Tonight Show not long ago. I really want to see this get made.

To me, Hollywood movies are mostly "foreign garbage" but you Americans (again) think you own the planet.

lmao you actually took IMDB ratings seriously. Sorry that is just funny, since most people already know not to. IMDB ratings consist of trolls or hardcore fans, which means you get 1s and 10s the votes are not consistent.

Agree totally You summed it up perfectly

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

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.

---

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

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

---

First Foxcatcher and now this

---

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