[go: up one dir, main page]

    Release calendarTop 250 moviesMost popular moviesBrowse movies by genreTop box officeShowtimes & ticketsMovie newsIndia movie spotlight
    What's on TV & streamingTop 250 TV showsMost popular TV showsBrowse TV shows by genreTV news
    What to watchLatest trailersIMDb OriginalsIMDb PicksIMDb SpotlightFamily entertainment guideIMDb Podcasts
    OscarsPride MonthAmerican Black Film FestivalSummer Watch GuideSTARmeter AwardsAwards CentralFestival CentralAll events
    Born todayMost popular celebsCelebrity news
    Help centerContributor zonePolls
For industry professionals
  • Language
  • Fully supported
  • English (United States)
    Partially supported
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Watchlist
Sign in
  • Fully supported
  • English (United States)
    Partially supported
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Use app
Better_Sith_Than_Sorry's profile image

Better_Sith_Than_Sorry

Joined Jul 2013
Like most people, I've watched films all of my life, but only recently have I expanded my viewing habits to include films I would never before have considered. This has opened a whole new world of experiences; most favorable, some not, but overall it's been worth the effort. I'll watch almost anything, from the 100+ year-old silent era to today's blockbusters and everything in between, and try to take into account as many facets of the technology and the times as I can when assessing them. As proof of this, my highest-rated year (currently) is a tie between 1927 and 1979 - a 52-year gap that includes a silent year - so it's fair to say my tastes are wide and eclectic and I am able to appreciate things the provincial viewer cannot, or will not.

In reading others' reviews and comments on this site, it appears there are a lot of non-thinkers who seem to give everything they like a '10' and everything they dislike a '1' - umm, ok. Newsflash - there are a few more options available which allow you to consider several aspects of the film (beyond like/dislike) and rate accordingly. How was the acting? The cinematography? The script? The soundtrack? Did the film break new ground? Etc. etc. Did the film do its job? If it's a comedy, did you laugh? Did you laugh a lot, or not so much? If a thriller, were you on the edge of your seat? All of these things should be considered when assessing a film. I don't know how many reviews I've read where someone admits that certain elements of the film weren't great, or could have been better, and then give it a '10' anyway. This isn't rocket science people. If you can admit that things 'could be better,' that's not a 10. On the flip side, I don't know how many reviews I've seen where reviewers rate the film as a '1' - as if there's nothing worse ever made. This is pure emotion, and if you are driven by emotion, you aren't thinking. Very few films are truly terrible in every respect (just like very few films are truly great). Currently only 5% of my ratings are a '10' and only 1% is a '1.'

Also, if you tell me that you 'saw this film as a kid' - I don't care. No one else does, either. This is not helpful in any sense of the word. Do us a favor and skip it. Even better - if you say a certain film is 'the greatest ever' - be prepared to explain why. Not many films can be the greatest ever. In fact, only one can. I don't know what that film is, but it's highly likely the one you're telling me is the greatest ever....probably isn't. Do yourself a favor and don't claim that a certain film is 'the best ever' (or similarly, 'the worst ever'); you won't sound like you're five years old and you'll look more respectable.

If a film is based on a novel, don't rate the film based solely on whether or not it follows the book to the letter. There is no law stating that a film must exactly follow a book. I've read too many reviews unfairly 'voting down' a film for this reason. What makes them think the book on which it was based was perfect? Maybe the changes in the film were necessary for length reasons, or maybe it was even an improvement on the original story. Regardless, IMDb is for film reviews, not for book reviews. Simply put, what appears in any given novel has nothing to do with a film adaptation of it. Get over it.

I try to follow this scale:
10 - Cream of the crop. Excellent in every respect. Wouldn't change a thing. Often has memorable/iconic scenes, music and/or dialogue.
9 - Great film. Perhaps only slight change here or there would make it a 10, but still exceptional.
8 - Very, very good. A few things hold it back but overall many more positives than negatives.
7 - Good/solid. Has flaws but enjoy enough of it that it qualifies for a 're-watch' without many reservations.
6 - Better than average, but has multiple issues so that a complete re-watch is questionable. Would gladly see some parts again but likely skip others.
5 - Middle of the road. As much bad as there is good. From this point down, re-watching any part of the film is extremely unlikely.
4 - Has a few decent elements but overall the negatives outweigh the positives.
3 - Now it's getting bad. Way more negatives than positives, although there are still a few decent elements.
2 - Horrendous. Almost nothing good about it. Perhaps only one or two redeeming qualities, the rest is awful.
1 - Bottom of the barrel. Literally nothing good about it. Terrible/poor in every respect.
Welcome to the new profile
We're making some updates, and some features will be temporarily unavailable while we enhance your experience. The previous version will not be accessible after 7/14. Stay tuned for the upcoming relaunch.

Badges5

To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Explore badges

Ratings3.3K

Better_Sith_Than_Sorry's rating
Bowling for Columbine
8.08
Bowling for Columbine
Pussy
6.77
Pussy
Paths of Hate
7.47
Paths of Hate
Opening Day
5.95
Opening Day
Printemps précoce
7.77
Printemps précoce
What Do You Think?
6.07
What Do You Think?
Valérie au pays des merveilles
7.03
Valérie au pays des merveilles
Dracula
3.66
Dracula
Wild at the Wheel
5.55
Wild at the Wheel
Why Vandalism?
4.87
Why Vandalism?
Le dragon de calicot
5.77
Le dragon de calicot
The Big Idea
5.46
The Big Idea
The Butter Battle Book
7.58
The Butter Battle Book
Satchmo: The Life of Louis Armstrong
8.17
Satchmo: The Life of Louis Armstrong
Fires Were Started
6.46
Fires Were Started
Le Noiraud porte-malheur
7.69
Le Noiraud porte-malheur
Hollywood Wonderland
5.44
Hollywood Wonderland
5.66
Movie-Mania
Noé
5.87
Noé
Dumbo
7.27
Dumbo
Parabola
6.16
Parabola
Tag der Freiheit - Unsere Wehrmacht
6.17
Tag der Freiheit - Unsere Wehrmacht
J'ai été diplômé, mais...
6.36
J'ai été diplômé, mais...
Un garçon honnête
6.27
Un garçon honnête
Mary, Queen of Tots
7.18
Mary, Queen of Tots

Watchlist4

L'ange impur
6.9
L'ange impur
The Monroe Doctrine
5.9
The Monroe Doctrine
Soldiers in White
5.1
Soldiers in White
Wild Honey, or, How to Get Along Without a Ration Book
6.3
Wild Honey, or, How to Get Along Without a Ration Book

Lists4

  • L'Incroyable aventure de Bella (2019)
    Animal Tear-Jerkers
    • 35 titles
    • Public
    • Modified Jun 08, 2025
  • Orlando Bloom in Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
    Medieval Times
    • 44 titles
    • Public
    • Modified May 28, 2025
  • On the Firing Line with the Germans (1915)
    World War I Films
    • 182 titles
    • Public
    • Modified May 16, 2025
  • Daniel Day-Lewis in Le Dernier des Mohicans (1992)
    Colonial and Revolutionary America
    • 36 titles
    • Public
    • Modified Aug 02, 2023

Reviews142

Better_Sith_Than_Sorry's rating
In Search of Easter

In Search of Easter

7.1
7
  • Apr 18, 2025
  • Still Searching

    This short documentary (less than an hour) focuses almost exclusively on the story of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The events leading up to that moment are briefly (or not at all) mentioned; basically, there's a general assumption that the viewer is well-acquainted with this story and it proceeds from there.

    This reminded me of the old A&E series "Mysteries of the Bible" in that the film has interviews with biblical scholars, a narrator, and a voice-over of someone quoting scripture from time to time.

    It should be mentioned here that although this film probably leans towards those who believe in the resurrection, at times if you pay attention, you will notice it's not fawning in its production. For example, when the post-resurrection sightings of Jesus are being discussed, the narrator says "IF Jesus appeared to his disciples..." In other words, there is a level of journalistic integrity; the film is not written in such a way as to assume whatever is written in the bible is absolute truth.

    Some of the interviewed scholars, too, sometimes express a healthy skepticism. In one instance the interviewee expresses his doubts about a particular New Testament story, mentioning that it only appears in one of the four gospels, and offering the opinion that if it had really happened, it should have been in all of them. So there are some interesting perspectives here, and I would say, good food for thought. The film takes a somewhat slightly neutral view in its search for what happened on Easter Sunday, and you might still be searching, even after the credits roll.

    7/10. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Yes.
    Snoopy: The Musical

    Snoopy: The Musical

    6.9
    4
  • Feb 28, 2025
  • This Is Largely Mediocre Stuff

    Plot In A Nutshell: Lacking an actual theme or story, Charlie and the Peanuts gang feature here in a bevy of unrelated and forgettable song and dance routines.

    Why I Rated It A '4': This Peanuts special is strictly for the "I love musicals and don't care if there's no actual story being told" crowd. And judging by the meager number of votes this has garnered as I write this (less than 400), it can safely be labeled as somewhat obscure and not very popular.

    A reviewer here gushed that these songs are instantly memorable and I could not disagree more. I found them mostly tedious and tiresome. Another drawback is that some of the animation in this special was lifted from earlier shows. I recognized clips from "Arbor Day" and "It's Your First Kiss" to name two, and there were others. So that felt lazy. There is a "Great Pumpkin" segment in here, where Linus sings a song. But the dialogue in the segment outside of the song is directly lifted from that earlier program. Word-for-word copy. And for those not aware, Snoopy 'talks' in this one, or rather, you hear his voice as he thinks. A bit jarring for those not expecting that, and as someone else noted here, the voice actor used for Snoopy doesn't feel right.

    In one of the segments, several of the children are shown together in the same classroom, including the much younger Sally. Anyone who knows Peanuts knows Sally should not be in the same class as the older kids, so that was weird and felt wrong. They were all singing an irritating song about a dreaded Edgar Allan Poe assignment...frankly this should have been left on the cutting room floor.

    In the 1980s the Peanuts world expanded to include a Saturday morning show, and the demands from that clearly drained Charles Schulz of his creativity. Both this program and "You're a Good Man" from 1985 were independent musicals Schulz repurposed and made into TV shows. Watching this, it's obvious the charm one might remember from "Charlie Brown Christmas" and "Great Pumpkin" is just not here. Schulz spread himself too thin.

    4/10. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: I don't think so.
    The Breast Archives

    The Breast Archives

    6.9
    6
  • Jan 18, 2025
  • A Tale of Two....

    ..well, not cities lol. This film is sort of a documentary, interviewing a diverse group of women about (no spoiler here) their breasts. Not only is the topic obviously female-centric, the production is too. Written, produced, filmed and largely edited by a female crew, it can assuredly be said this is a film about women, lovingly made by women.

    In this film you meet several different types of women...some younger, some older...all sharing their thoughts about their breasts. How they came to be aware of them, how they came to live with them, how they came to discover them and the roles they can play in their lives. And these testimonies differ. For example, when the topic moved to intimacy, some women talked about the prominent role their breasts play in lovemaking, while others said they felt no sensitivity there and couldn't be bothered.

    Other areas are covered, like shaming, cancer, motherhood, and so on, with the various women revealing more of themselves from the inside than they ever do on the outside (although it should be mentioned here that all of the women briefly disrobe for part of their interviews, however most of the time they remain clothed).

    Overall this was an interesting look into the female psyche and a rare window into topics you don't discuss; at least, not in mixed company. Women talking about their breasts is hardly "dinner conversation" or something to explore on a first date! But here these feelings and emotions are laid bare (yes, pun intended!) and I'd say there's some value in it for both women and men alike.

    It's probably not something I'd watch again, but I did find it compelling at times, and informative, and some of the women's sharing will likely stay with me for a while.

    6/10. Worth a look.
    See all reviews

    Recently viewed

    Please enable browser cookies to use this feature. Learn more.
    Get the IMDb App
    Sign in for more accessSign in for more access
    Follow IMDb on social
    Get the IMDb App
    For Android and iOS
    Get the IMDb App
    • Help
    • Site Index
    • IMDbPro
    • Box Office Mojo
    • License IMDb Data
    • Press Room
    • Advertising
    • Jobs
    • Conditions of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Your Ads Privacy Choices
    IMDb, an Amazon company

    © 1990-2025 by IMDb.com, Inc.