imdb - the movie (2008)

Sorry for the bad joke - the following meditation is about every movie-buffs Bible, the Internet Movie Database, and its recent problems, how I see them.

For me imdb represents the dreamjob (pity that I'm not a software developer), and was always my most visited site, long time it appeared as a home page when I started my internet browser. A perfect origo, an authentic guideline. But these good, reliable times seems to disappear. Imdb becomes the tool of advertising a movie, to build a hype, to encourage fight between fans and trolls, to ... to earn more money.

This entry was almost necessary, since I complained enough for example here, here, here and here about losing faith in the database's informations. And then came Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight (my opinion is here) which made unavoidable to talk about the recent problems of the site, namely how hype kills the very meaning of its rating system. It's not a question that recent movies are way too over-rated. Just look at my examples. You might explain with this a lot of ways (economically: extremising marketing strategies, sociologically: changing internet audience, plus there are conspiracy-theories about paying for / hacking the numbers), I accept those, but not to react on these changes is the site's fault (except the conspiracy theorists have right: in 1998 Amazon bought the imdb to improve its selling numbers. Do you need a perfect thesis topic: "How changed the Amazon's selling features according to the rates on the imdb?"). Here is a chart about the ratings on imdb by release year of the rated films:

Let's look at the TDK's example. After its appearing in the cinemas it jumped immediately to the first position in the famous imdb 250 list, topple down classics like The Godfather or the - other over-rated - The Shawshank Redemption. And it stays there (at least until today (9.5/10 after 124.766 votes)). What does it mean? Everybody shouts that we have a new all time best movie ever made. No, it doesn't mean this at all. It means that we have a movie which has the most votes approaching the highest available score. I gave several 10 out of 10s before too, but for example I still like Fellini's Otto e mezzo far better than Preminger's Anatomy of a Murder.

So, there are people who gave 10 for TDK, because it's one of their favourite movies. Not the best, but which deserves a 10 among others. This would be the ideal case. But.

The reality says something different. If we don't believe in the above mentioned conspiracy theories we have still a problematic explanation, namely most people gives 10 for the TDK, because they are hypnotised by the unbelievable marketing mechanism of Nolan's otherwise good movie, and last but not least because they are touched by Heath Ledger's sorrowful death (it was funny to see how people cries for an Oscar to Ledger before the premier, which means before they actually seen the film..). Of course there are other people who driven by some inexplicable nostalgy for the(ir) classics vote with a ridiculous 1 for TDK. I suppose they would have vote with 1 for The Godfather in 1972 just to save their precious Citizen Kane's first spot in the non-existing imdb list in the seventies:) (imdb launched on October 17, 1990). Another funny fact that the blind TDK fans - driven by a revenge - started now to vote with 1 for The Godfather and The Shawshank Redemption - to make themselves more pathetic and to spoil our interest in the imdb forever.

That was the cry-part, let's see some hope, a solution if there are at all. What you need is only a reliable source to choose a good movie for the evening (cos' you're supposedly not interested in the fight between the hypnotized fans). Then, sadly I have to say forget the imdb and go for Metacritic.com, the site, where professional (?) film critics' average opinions decide about the films. They have their all time list too, here the 200 best with a rather complicated rating system than the imdb uses (note that TDK isn't among the best 200 (yet), and look, who is on the 2nd spot? Superman II., another superhero!). I almost forget to tell the imdb's formula, here it is, the True Bayesian Estimate:

Ok, we have a reliable source, what is the problem then? The problem is that the Metacritic's database is far from being full. There are several important movies which are missing from the site and among the ratings (after quick try for example Taxidermia / Hawaii, Oslo, / Aaltra / or even as big classics as the cited Otto e mezzo / etc.). That's too bad, go back to the imdb and search for solution there. There is an ingenious idea - not surprisingly emerged after TDK's obscure success. Dalton 1962's idea (appeared among the imdb's message boards on TDK (should I mention that the numbers of messages about TDK beated all the previous records as well?)) is interesting enough to take into consideration: he suggest a double rating system which could "filter our irrational enthusiasm or hate", which would divide the hype from the "real" rating of a certain film. There would be a so called Short Term Voting which would measure the level of a hype (hype-meter?), and on the other hand there would be a Long Term Voting, which would be available approximately 2-3 months after the premier of a movie, and which would tell much soberly about the "real" qualities of the given film. Ok, I see the limits of this idea (a lot of valid votes would disappear in the STV), but I believe it is a good path to approach the solutions for the existing - and growing - problems of reliability of the imdb (more about its history, rating system, and business background see the good ol' wiki).

There isn't any moral at the end of this post since it's long enough already:) Maybe you'll make one point in the comments? Welcome!

The Dark Knight (2008)

[Ok, the holiday is over, bobbyperu is back, but I tell you already now that my future entries won't be as frequent as they were before. I'm busy - no more words about it.]

But the return should be impressive, and wouldn't be more effective in 2008 summer than to write SPOILERFREE about the best movie ever (according to imdb, today). I tell you something immediately. It can be your best movie (ever:), but it isn't mine for sure. It is a very good movie, but not the best I've ever seen, definitely, moreover I won't give 10 points for it because of the following reasons.

Prudently sayin' "the less sometimes more." I understand that if you want to be the best you need to give more, I mean more than usual. More action, more drama, more surprise, more emotions, more moral. But what happens if you have a chance to enter a sweet-shop without any limitation of eat cakes? You gonna be sick after a while. I came out from the cinema, biked home and during the trip I felt myself dizzy, the effectively rolling soundtrack looped continously in my head and I was watching constantly around from where Batman will suddenly appear and save me (at the last moment of course) from some until now hidden danger.

Secondly. The Batman Begins is a better one and I tell you why. I just watched it again two days ago to prepare the today's screening. I remembered the story very well, but what is more important, I remembered the feeling after first time watching it. It was a real revelation in terms of a resurrection of a genre. Before of that film from comic books were wether some kind of salute of their original materials, or some childish fantasies with a story deeply rooted in the Hollywood action film genre. And then came Nolan, one of the biggest talent in the contemporary film business (I swear I told this already after his Memento (which is a better movie for me than the TDK)), and stylishly crossed all these saint rules. He (re)created Batman for the original fans and for a non-comicbook fans (just like me) too, he balanced the mentioned childish fantasies with a realistic moral story, he found equilibrium between seriousness and irony, genre rules and reflexion of the these rules, between imagined and real. The TDK has all of this without any doubt. Moreover it gives all these balanced values more intensified than ever. But doesn't give something else beyond this. Doesn't give the same mentioned striking feeling what the BB gave in 2005.

But what it gives then? Let's go through some details, start with the most important according to the film's unbelievable hype: Heath Ledger. Some of the enthusiastic fans claim already a posthumous Oscar which feelings - be realistic - are coming from the sad death of an otherwise really talented acter. Ledger's Joker is perfect, just as good as Nicholson's was in 1989. For those who are seriously debatting over this question I would say that Nicholson's Joker was representing perfectly a threat according to 1989, and Ledger's terroristic Joker gives a perfect example of our current "enemies." I hope I don't need to detail this further. Back to Ledger, he is good, I mean absolutely bad, rotten and cruel. He is perfect just as other 10 other actor and actress every year waiting for their Oscar statues. If he gets it's ok with me. We'll see, what we already see is how the cult shapes its form...

About the screenplay. Actually I gave my opinion about it with the candy-shop metaphor, but let's emerge one very important detail. The moral, more precise the moral of being a superhero. A superhero - derived from a comicbook - usually needs to have special physical abilites. Harder, better, faster, stronger. One of the biggest virtue of TDK is that it exposes, explains what it means exactly. His film is full with heroes, but only one superhero. Nolan builds up his film's moral from this simple but elementary difference. To be a superhero you need to be more than a simple hero (this evidence is explicitely appears in the film as I good remember), and in the TDK this difference, this more is not about a physical speciality at all. Already in the BB we had to face with the truth that superheroes aren't physically invulnerable. Now Nolan showed how morally vulnerable they are, when he questioned the essence of being a hero. Sometimes the real (super)heroes doesn't look like heroes... After this sentence I would step on the spoilers' paths which isn't my intention.

I won't read back what I wrote to ensure giving you the real first impressions' taste. Maybe my words sound a bit negative but if it is the case it must be because of the expectations which this time were so extremely high which couldn't be fulfilled. Just to make it right: TDK worths all the money you'll spend on it in the cinema; it will be one of the best movie in 2008. Not a question, watch it! (But don't be foolish so please don't clap after the screening. It seems the hype makes people follow some rituals which culminates in a ridiculous clap:)

"Why so serious?"

9/10

[off]

telegraphese way:

I'm on "holiday". I thought I'm gonna be able to maintain the blog during these days, but it seems that I overestimated myself and my possibilities (3 weeks, 3 different countries, back and forth).

I've been for example In Bruges. This is the view what Ken saw from the tower before he decided to ... 

Watch the film during the suspension of the blog.

That's all. See you soon, when I'm coming back with Nightwatching, Greenaway's "new" (2007) Rembrandt-movie...