81 isnt high?
8/10 people isnt high?
the 95 is basically 9/10 people
what i asked, and i was very specific. Why did they (the people on this site) rate the film but didnt care enough to have a discussion about it to support their decision? c'mon b.
it was you and infamous out of at the time 13 people who voted this as properly rated. Ya'll were the only two standing on your positions, while i disagreed, i appreciated ya'll standing with your position and didnt do a drive by vote.
so, using your example again....and i also explained this in the departed thread i think
Both the critics and the viewers rated this pretty high. IMO, the movie is overrated...Remember overrated /= wack
With Paid in Full, the critics gave it a low score, the audience gave it a high score, so at that point, i can either say its underrated or properly rated
NOW, if everyone in here thinks we should take an average of the scores, maybe we can try that. That would still make this movie a (81 + 95/(2) = 88) ...so it still roughly 9/10 people thinks this is good to great movie.
I think its overrated...and here we are
81 is low af in this context fam. All of the movies that the critics rate "classics" are rated between 94-100, there's no critically acclaimed films rated below 90.
Meanwhile you're in here acting like if the cure for cancer wasn't revealed in Scarface it's overrated.
You win fam.