MovieChat Forums > Clueless (1995) Discussion > 6.9 IMDb rating ?? What a joke

6.9 IMDb rating ?? What a joke

posted 8 months ago by JasonMovieGuy88 (51)
32 replies | jump to latest

Please ignore the IMDb ratings. Clueless is an exceptional modern comedy classic and I still don’t understand how it can rate a 6.9?? Also I’m shocked at how many generation Z reviews there are stating the film is outdated with fashion and insulting. It’s a satire, based off an even older well known love story, and the costumes are superb!

It disgusts me what actually DOES earn great ratings today, and what is considered mediocre. I’m appalled at how bad taste has gotten and how sensitive everyone is now. Clueless is a 10/10 for me.

My own awards—

1995

Clueless

Award: Costume Design
Nominations : Best Picture, Best Actress- Alicia Silverstone, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Film Editing.

[–] fc31 (4677) 8 months ago

If it is satire then I think the rating stands, because I think most people liked it as rom-com. It failed miserably as satire.

[–] JasonMovieGuy88 (51) 7 months ago

You clearly didn’t watch the movie. It’s brilliant.

[–] Stratego (29397) 7 months ago

Maybe the poster is trying to be satirical or something???

[–] fc31 (4677) 7 months ago

No, Clueless was my favorite movie, and it is a great romantic comedy.

But it is weird people trying to view it as something else, are you ashamed for liking it as romantic comedy?

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6931) 7 months ago

I often do ignore ratings, but especially this one, coz Clueless is a classic and deserves at least a point more.

[–] fc31 (4677) 7 months ago

Romantic comedy can only go far, it is difficult to find one with high rating.

[–] Kowalski (61907) 7 months ago

THAT IS INCORRECT...GOOD IS GOOD...GENRE MEANS NOTHING.

[–] fc31 (4677) 7 months ago

Then find a romantic comedy with high rating, because I couldn't.

[–] Kowalski (61907) 7 months ago

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098635/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_8_nm_0_q_WHEN%2520HARRY%2520MET%2520SALLY

[–] Kowalski (61907) 7 months ago

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0125439/?ref_=tt_sims_tt_i_8

[–] Kowalski (61907) 7 months ago

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314331/?ref_=tt_sims_tt_i_2

[–] Kowalski (61907) 7 months ago

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2194499/?ref_=tt_sims_tt_i_12

ARE WE DONE HERE?🙂

[–] fc31 (4677) 7 months ago

Love Actually is also not romantic comedy, it is bitter sweet, there is sadness in it.

[–] Kowalski (61907) 7 months ago

LMAO...GLAD YOU BROUGHT YOUR RULEBOOK.

[–] fc31 (4677) 7 months ago

Do you really think a rom-com would show the husband buying expensive jewellery for a young co-worker girl, and got a CD for his wife?

[–] fc31 (4677) 7 months ago

Notting Hill was when both Hugh Grant and Julie Robert were big stars. It is romantic comedy, but I wouldn't say it's rating (7.1) is high, given the calibre of the actors.

[–] fc31 (4677) 7 months ago

About time I haven't watched, so not sure about that.

EDIT: reading the introductions it looks like having a time traveling sci-fi element, which is also not a pure rom-com.

[–] fc31 (4677) 7 months ago

When Harry Met Sally is not a simple romantic comedy, the R rating does make it less pure.

I mean without nudity do you think The game of thrones would have gotten its high rating?

[–] Kowalski (61907) 7 months ago

GAME OF THRONES SUCKS.

[–] fc31 (4677) 7 months ago

NO, IT DOES NOT SUCK.

Anyway, my brother thought it was boring too. You have to wait for the moment when Daenerys took over the Unsullied. That was when it became truly great.

Without boobs nobody would have waited for that long. I nearly given up on it.

[–] fc31 (4677) 7 months ago

I think when pretty woman only got a 7.1, what clueless got should be considered good enough.

My Best Friend's Wedding was so cute a movie, only got 6.3.

[–] Kowalski (61907) 7 months ago

I TIRED OF DEALING WITH YOU,MR.BULLSHIT.

[–] fc31 (4677) 7 months ago

That kind of name calling is low, even for you.

[–] Kowalski (61907) 7 months ago

YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT SLING BULLSHIT THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE THREAD...I THINK IT FITS...I STATED GOOD IS GOOD...GENRE DOESN'T MATTER...THEN I LINKED MULTIPLE FILMS WITH HIGH SCORES DESPITE THE FACT THAT I THINK THOSE SCORES ARE BULLSHIT AS WELL...AS FILM IS A SUBJECTIVE ARTFORM....YOU HAVE RESPONDED WITH A NOTHING BUT RULE CHANGES AND BULLSHIT...ALSO CLUELESS IS NOT A STRAIGHT "ROM COM" EITHER...IT FALLS INTO YOUR OWN WEIRD MADE UP AS YOU GO RULES.

CLUELESS IS A MODERN CLASSIC...END OF STORY.

[–] fc31 (4677) 7 months ago

Now who is full of crap ...

[–] Kowalski (61907) 7 months ago

STILL YOU.🙂

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6931) 7 months ago

While I understand that many people look their nose down at the genre, I still tend to disagree. Pride and Prejudice 2005 is still at 7.8, and I'd rank Clueless way above that.

[–] fc31 (4677) 7 months ago

I like this movie much better too, but people tend to rank the making of classics, at least serious ones, higher.

[–] Stratego (29397) 7 months ago

I'm not a big fan of comedies, but this one's a favourite of mine.

[–] Gd5150 (11207) 7 months ago

6.9?!

As if!

[–] xanthas (3215) 7 months ago

It deserves a higher rating just due to the fact that Paul Rudd is in it.

[–] greenvelvet (74) 7 days ago

It’s because it is mostly aimed to women and IMDB ratings are mostly done by men. You used to be able to compare male vs female voters but IMDB has hidden that now.

This article goes into detail:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-if-online-movie-ratings-werent-based-almost-entirely-on-what-men-think/