CR first Bond in the IMDB Top 250

heartbroken_mr_drax · December 2008

Casino Royale is now the first Bond film in the IMDb top 250...ever.

Currently number 244. Interesting how this film has beaten all the Connerys!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381061/

Loeffelholz · December 2008

An interesting development...but I'm surprised that none of the classic Bond films from the early '60s never got there.

heartbroken_mr_drax · December 2008

Loeffelholz wrote:

An interesting development...but I'm surprised that none of the classic Bond films from the early '60s never got there.

Yea ill say. Then we get crap like Raiders of the Lost Ark in there.

yodboy007 · December 2008

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

An interesting development...but I'm surprised that none of the classic Bond films from the early '60s never got there.

Yea ill say. Then we get crap like Raiders of the Lost Ark in there.

Raiders of the Lost Ark is crap? Sure it is no Last Crusade, but I feel it is deservingly regarded as one of the greatest action/adventure films of all time.

As far as the IMDb Top 250 goes, the list is crap in my humble opinion. It is merely a popularity contest. It is sort of like the list of superlatives in your high school yearbook. This is proven because of the very fact that CR is on this list. Some of Connery's films are close like FRWL and GF but none of the others have over a 7.5 I believe. The fact that CR is new and it features Daniel "The Second Coming of 007" Craig it is overrated on the site. I would love to know how many people who helped vote that film so high has even seen a handful of the older films. All of the 007 films are underrated on IMDb. I have never given any Bond film lower than a 7.5 and yet that is like the third highest rated Bond film's rating on there. I suppose if true 007 fans like us all voted on there then the films would have better ratings.

That list is crap for reasons even aside from the 007 films. I know we all have our opinions and your individual rating is all that matters, but lots of my favorite films are not even up there. My favorite movie, Jurassic Park, is close, as is the Fugitive from 1993, but many others are not close at all. Most of my favorite films have a rating on the 7s on that site. The list is full of movies that are loved by "film snobs" as well as new stuff that is over-hyped and overrated. The list used to mean something to me and if a film was up there I wanted to see it. Now a days if I want to see a film that is not up there when most others say it ought to be I must watch it. I watch films to be entertained first and foremost. Technical and artistic stuff comes secondary most of the time.

Now that my IMDb rant is over I must state that I love that site and I visit it more than almost anything online. It is great for movie and television fans. However, it can feature faulty information sometimes and its rating system is flawed.

Napoleon Plural · December 2008

Well I'm no fan of CR but this doesn't surprise me. Most of the comments were very positive on imdb. Cf the last Indy, around 6.8 and loads of negative stuff posted, far more than QoS.

And a good many voting for Connery flicks maybe just don't go for the old stuff.

i expect u2 die · December 2008

Goldfinger has been on this list before, a few years ago.

DrMaybe · December 2008

Loeffelholz wrote:

An interesting development...but I'm surprised that none of the classic Bond films from the early '60s never got there.

I don't know why. Most of the raters there can't remember a movie title over 4 years old, or have actually seen one older than that. And most generally accepted classics usually get lowballed. IMDB is good for casts/crews and trivia, but ignore the ratings and reviews.

heartbroken_mr_drax · December 2008

DrMaybe wrote:

Most of the raters there can't remember a movie title over 4 years old, or have actually seen one older than that.

Thats a load of rubbish. Most of the movies in the imdb top 250 are over a 60 year period. In the top 10 every single movie (apart from the Dark Knight) is older than 12 years.

Yes the ratings on IMDb dont mean much they are poorly weighted, but genreally all the films in the top 250 are excellent movies.

DrMaybe · December 2008

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

Thats a load of rubbish. Most of the movies in the imdb top 250 are over a 60 year period. In the top 10 every single movie (apart from the Dark Knight) is older than 12 years.

Spend a few hours in the IMDB forum, and come back and tell me that. If classic movies made it into their top 250, it was only because the voters remembered reading the title somewhere, and heard it might be good.

youknowmyname · December 2008

DrMaybe wrote:

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

Thats a load of rubbish. Most of the movies in the imdb top 250 are over a 60 year period. In the top 10 every single movie (apart from the Dark Knight) is older than 12 years.

Spend a few hours in the IMDB forum, and come back and tell me that. If classic movies made it into their top 250, it was only because the voters remembered reading the title somewhere, and heard it might be good.

Whoa, I won't enter into the fray completely, but I will have to agree with Dr. Maybe that I find the cast/crew/trailer stuff good on IMDB, but I don't think their ratings are all that good. It is just public opinion of those who vote. A better list is the American Film Assocation's list.

Willie Garvin · December 2008

As excellent as EON's Casino Royale is,I have no doubt whatsoever that had the Internet existed in the early 1960s, that the first four James Bond films would have held high positions on the IMDb Top 250 list.In the 1960s, the 007 films were extremely popular worldwide(in addition to being absolutely original and critically acclaimed), and their star--Sean Connery--was one of the most popular actors on the planet.

Loeffelholz · December 2008

DrMaybe wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

An interesting development...but I'm surprised that none of the classic Bond films from the early '60s never got there.

I don't know why.

Probably because I never look at such things on IMDB---I only go there for specific bits of information on actors, etc.---so therefore I erroneously assume(d) most film fans to be as enlightened and sophisticated as I am.

Thomas Crown · December 2008

As I maintain that Casino Royale is the best Bond film (if not one of the best spy films ever), I am happy that the "mainstream" film goers have ranked it so highly. But on a larger point, I am always let down by the extent to which mainstream film goers and "enlightened" film audiences look down on the Bond films. I'd be the first to admit that many of them are not incredibly fantastic movies, but there are quite a few (especially the first four, OHMSS, The Living Daylights, and Quantum of Solace) that either defined the modern action adventure genre (the first four), are excellent adaptations of some of the best spy novels and short stories (OHMSS, TLD) or present unique, well developed characterizations on 007 (QOS) who is himself a character worth far more respect by film lovers than the critic's review guides and ranking lists give him.

CR first Bond in the IMDB Top 250

Comments