It turns out that IMDb has a Criticker account. It's just movie rankings from IMDb put into a Criticker account. What makes it interesting though is that it allows me to compare my movie opinions to the general public and not just my peers. That said, It appears I agree with the general public a lot as IMDb is ranked as the 22nd account that I agree with the most. However there are a few exceptions.
Movies IMDb likes but I don't:
2001: A Space Odyssey - Yes, it's a groundbreaking film, but it's also painfully boring.
Sin City - I felt the graphic nature of the film distracted too much from the stories, or in some cases, was the story.
Frankenstein - Once again, it's really not that good of a movie even by 1930's standards.
Planet of the Apes - Sure it's a classic, but it's still kind of silly.
Crash - Too heavy-handed.
The Ten Commandments - This is a movie I should probably rewatch, but won't because it's incredibly long.
The Last of the Mohicans - I must have really missed something in this movie because I don't understand what makes it so special.
Star Wars Episode III - Really? People like this movie?
Watership Down - It's kind of a downer.
Forbidden Planet - Was probably good for the 1950's, but I don't think it has aged well.
Gattaca - Another movie I should rewatch, I thought it was boring the first time I saw it.
Dancer in the Dark - No amount of arguing will convince me this is a good movie.
Sweeney Todd - Boring, forgettable songs which is unforgivable for a movie touted as a musical.
Bambi - It still has no plot!
Movies I like that IMDb doesn't:
Batman (1966) - The makers of this movie knew exactly what they were making and it was campy brilliance.
Death to Smoochy - I'm still surprised to know so many people dislike this movie.
Young Einstein - It's such a fun movie, how can people not like it?
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Eurovision 2011
Eurovision
Eurovision starts in two weeks! You can watch it live online. You just have to install Octoshape, which we discovered last year might not work with Apple computers.
The dates are:
1st semi-final: May 10th
2nd semi-final: May 12th
Final: May 14th
They start at 21:00 CET or 3pm EST and 1pm MST.
This year, I don't have any stand-out favorites, but I'm much more pleased with this year's entries than last year. Even the UK managed to put together a decent act after finally dispensing with a national competition and going with an internal selection. I firmly hold that the reason the UK has done so poorly lately is because they let Brits choose their entry, so it's nice to see that the BBC has caught on.
Other big news for this year, Italy and Austria are back in the game! While Austria last competed in 2007, Italy hasn't competed in 14 years. Because of Italy's contributions to the EBU, which organizes Eurovision, it gets automatic entry to the final alongside France, Germany, Spain, and the UK.
It was really difficult for me to narrow down my list of the most interesting songs to only 10, so instead here are 11.
11. Portugal Something sorely missing from last year, poorly sung protest songs.
10. Belgium Walloon's turn to pick an entry. Guess what their gimmick is this time.
9. Finland The preachiest Eurovision song ever.
8. Belarus It will be interesting to see if anyone outside Belarus agrees with this singer's sentiments.
7. Romania Starts out strong, but doesn't keep it up.
6. Italy Returns with a great entry.
5. GermanyShe looks familiar...
4. Moldova That's... unique.
3. France Stay classy, France.
2. Ireland Ireland, I love you.
1. Bosnia This song has really grown on me after repeat listenings.
If you want to see more, all entries are on this YouTube playlist.
There are two last things I want to share. First, my favorite song to come out of this year's national competition, sadly, didn't make it to Eurovision, it came in 3rd in Sweden's competition, but here it is for your enjoyment, Oh My God. Second, in case Ireland's entry wasn't ridiculous enough for you, one of the singers hurt his ankle and has been performing in a wheelchair. No word if he'll be better in 2 weeks, but here's a video.
Eurovision starts in two weeks! You can watch it live online. You just have to install Octoshape, which we discovered last year might not work with Apple computers.
The dates are:
1st semi-final: May 10th
2nd semi-final: May 12th
Final: May 14th
They start at 21:00 CET or 3pm EST and 1pm MST.
This year, I don't have any stand-out favorites, but I'm much more pleased with this year's entries than last year. Even the UK managed to put together a decent act after finally dispensing with a national competition and going with an internal selection. I firmly hold that the reason the UK has done so poorly lately is because they let Brits choose their entry, so it's nice to see that the BBC has caught on.
Other big news for this year, Italy and Austria are back in the game! While Austria last competed in 2007, Italy hasn't competed in 14 years. Because of Italy's contributions to the EBU, which organizes Eurovision, it gets automatic entry to the final alongside France, Germany, Spain, and the UK.
It was really difficult for me to narrow down my list of the most interesting songs to only 10, so instead here are 11.
11. Portugal Something sorely missing from last year, poorly sung protest songs.
10. Belgium Walloon's turn to pick an entry. Guess what their gimmick is this time.
9. Finland The preachiest Eurovision song ever.
8. Belarus It will be interesting to see if anyone outside Belarus agrees with this singer's sentiments.
7. Romania Starts out strong, but doesn't keep it up.
6. Italy Returns with a great entry.
5. GermanyShe looks familiar...
4. Moldova That's... unique.
3. France Stay classy, France.
2. Ireland Ireland, I love you.
1. Bosnia This song has really grown on me after repeat listenings.
If you want to see more, all entries are on this YouTube playlist.
There are two last things I want to share. First, my favorite song to come out of this year's national competition, sadly, didn't make it to Eurovision, it came in 3rd in Sweden's competition, but here it is for your enjoyment, Oh My God. Second, in case Ireland's entry wasn't ridiculous enough for you, one of the singers hurt his ankle and has been performing in a wheelchair. No word if he'll be better in 2 weeks, but here's a video.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Are they really good? (Eh)
So similar to my last post, only this time, it's movies that I think are good, but my peers seem to disagree.
In parenthesis is the score I gave the movie and how much higher it is than the predicted score.
-Young Einstein (75, +40) There is nothing so terrible about this movie to justify why people gave it such a low score.
-Napoleon Dynamite (93, +34) There are few other films that I laugh as hard at. All the characters in this movie are great.
Hudson Hawk (70, +32) Whatever this movie hoped to be it utterly failed at. What it ended up being is so absurdly silly that it's hard not to like.
Aeon Flux (53, +32) It's not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination, but I found it interesting and entertaining.
-The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (81, +31) Yes, this movie is dumb, but that's why I love it.
-Michael (71, +31) Celeste appears to be the only person that agrees with me that this is a decent movie.
-Death to Smoochy (86, +27) I was really surprised to find out that there's a lot of people that don't like this movie. I thought it was hilarious.
-Reckless Kelly (74, +26) I loved this movie as a kid. I should probably watch again now that I would get all the jokes.
-The Fountain (97, +26) The movie was really divisive when it came out. I agree it's pretentious at times, but it really grabbed me.
-Chicago (90, +25) I'm a sucker for a good musical.
-A Knight's Tale (80, +24) I found this movie really fun and entertaining. The campiness of all the modern music and themes just added to it.
-Moulin Rouge (98, +24) This movie is such a spectacle I can't help but love it.
In parenthesis is the score I gave the movie and how much higher it is than the predicted score.
-Young Einstein (75, +40) There is nothing so terrible about this movie to justify why people gave it such a low score.
-Napoleon Dynamite (93, +34) There are few other films that I laugh as hard at. All the characters in this movie are great.
Hudson Hawk (70, +32) Whatever this movie hoped to be it utterly failed at. What it ended up being is so absurdly silly that it's hard not to like.
Aeon Flux (53, +32) It's not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination, but I found it interesting and entertaining.
-The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (81, +31) Yes, this movie is dumb, but that's why I love it.
-Michael (71, +31) Celeste appears to be the only person that agrees with me that this is a decent movie.
-Death to Smoochy (86, +27) I was really surprised to find out that there's a lot of people that don't like this movie. I thought it was hilarious.
-Reckless Kelly (74, +26) I loved this movie as a kid. I should probably watch again now that I would get all the jokes.
-The Fountain (97, +26) The movie was really divisive when it came out. I agree it's pretentious at times, but it really grabbed me.
-Chicago (90, +25) I'm a sucker for a good musical.
-A Knight's Tale (80, +24) I found this movie really fun and entertaining. The campiness of all the modern music and themes just added to it.
-Moulin Rouge (98, +24) This movie is such a spectacle I can't help but love it.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Are they really bad? (Yes)
I watch a lot of videos on That Guy with the Glasses as I enjoy watching him and some of the other commentators make fun on bad movies. One day I came across a video he did where he talked about movies where his opinion seemed very different from the general opinion. Basically, movies that he thought were good or bad, but everyone else seemed to have a different opinion.
This got me thinking, I've been using Criticker for a long time, and while it's usually really good at predicting what score I'll give a movie, sometimes it's wildly off. The predicted score is calculated based on the scores people who tend to agree with me on movies. Therefore, when a predicted score is way off, it means that I'm not in agreement with people who have similar taste as me. So I decided to take a look at the movies that I thought were bad, but almost everyone who share my tastes disagree.
In parenthesis is the score I gave the movie and how much lower it is than the predicted score.
-Dancer in the Dark (0, -67) I hate it when movies move the plot forward by having characters act like idiots. In this case, the entire movie was carried on the back of characters with a collective IQ of 12.
-Quills (14, -55) I don't understand at all what people found enjoyable about this movie. The entire last act is people being tortured or dying in horrible ways. It's an incredibly uncomfortable movie to sit through.
-Face/Off (11, -46) Nothing in this movie makes any kind of sense. I don't remember any of the actions scenes that supposedly make this a decent movie.
-The Dreamers (20, -46) Many of the scenes come across as laughable instead of artistic. It's a great example of the plot being progressed through idiocy.
-There's Something about Mary (17, -44) I think I may have been too young to really get this movie when I first saw it. All I remember is it being really gross, which I don't really care for.
-The Passion of the Christ (21, -43) Personally, I don't see the appeal that many Christians saw. Virtually every non-Christian I know was horrified by this movie and I'm inclined to agree with them.
-Bambi (29, -40) it has no plot!
-Frankenstein (39, -40) I felt bad giving it such a low score, but it's really not a good movie. It's filled with plot holes and illogical actions. It might be a classic, but it's hard to overlook its flaws.
-The Last of the Mohicans (33, -36) This may have just been a result of not being able to hear the audio very well, but I had no idea what was happening.
-Hercules (23, -35) I'm generally not too hard on movies that don't stick to the source material, but this movie was just insulting.
-Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (37, -31) I don't remember much about it, I just remember not finding it engaging at all.
-Sweeney Todd (36, -31) I told someone that the reason I didn't like this movie was because the music was bad and forgettable. They said it still had an interesting story. My response was, if it had such a good story, why did they make it a musical?
-Crash (40, -30) Did you know this movie was about racism? Subtle isn't it?
This got me thinking, I've been using Criticker for a long time, and while it's usually really good at predicting what score I'll give a movie, sometimes it's wildly off. The predicted score is calculated based on the scores people who tend to agree with me on movies. Therefore, when a predicted score is way off, it means that I'm not in agreement with people who have similar taste as me. So I decided to take a look at the movies that I thought were bad, but almost everyone who share my tastes disagree.
In parenthesis is the score I gave the movie and how much lower it is than the predicted score.
-Dancer in the Dark (0, -67) I hate it when movies move the plot forward by having characters act like idiots. In this case, the entire movie was carried on the back of characters with a collective IQ of 12.
-Quills (14, -55) I don't understand at all what people found enjoyable about this movie. The entire last act is people being tortured or dying in horrible ways. It's an incredibly uncomfortable movie to sit through.
-Face/Off (11, -46) Nothing in this movie makes any kind of sense. I don't remember any of the actions scenes that supposedly make this a decent movie.
-The Dreamers (20, -46) Many of the scenes come across as laughable instead of artistic. It's a great example of the plot being progressed through idiocy.
-There's Something about Mary (17, -44) I think I may have been too young to really get this movie when I first saw it. All I remember is it being really gross, which I don't really care for.
-The Passion of the Christ (21, -43) Personally, I don't see the appeal that many Christians saw. Virtually every non-Christian I know was horrified by this movie and I'm inclined to agree with them.
-Bambi (29, -40) it has no plot!
-Frankenstein (39, -40) I felt bad giving it such a low score, but it's really not a good movie. It's filled with plot holes and illogical actions. It might be a classic, but it's hard to overlook its flaws.
-The Last of the Mohicans (33, -36) This may have just been a result of not being able to hear the audio very well, but I had no idea what was happening.
-Hercules (23, -35) I'm generally not too hard on movies that don't stick to the source material, but this movie was just insulting.
-Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (37, -31) I don't remember much about it, I just remember not finding it engaging at all.
-Sweeney Todd (36, -31) I told someone that the reason I didn't like this movie was because the music was bad and forgettable. They said it still had an interesting story. My response was, if it had such a good story, why did they make it a musical?
-Crash (40, -30) Did you know this movie was about racism? Subtle isn't it?
Friday, April 15, 2011
Tall Buildings
After reading about some monstrosity they want to build in Saudi Arabia, I got curious as to how quickly the world's tallest buildings rise in height, similar to how the Top 500 keeps track of how much faster computers are getting. I got data from Emporis about the current tallest buildings in the world and then figured out what would have been the tallest buildings in previous years by removing newer buildings. The WTC Towers were the only ones I had to look up to add to the data for years prior to 2001 as demolishing skyscrapers is kind of rare.
I took the top 30 from each year and averaged their heights. I picked 30 somewhat arbitrarily as it was a small enough number that most likely 30 of them were from long enough ago to give me plenty of years to work with. I was able to go back to 1984 before the list dropped below 30, meaning of the current top 200, less than 30 were built before 1984. It is also a large enough number that I hoped the annual change in heights would be steady.
The data shows that the average height increases by 3.5 meters, or 11.5 feet, annually. This is a rather steady increase with only 2010 being an outlier due to the completion of the Burj Khalifa. Currently the average height is 405 meters (1328 ft), 24 meters taller than the Empire State Building, and slightly shorter than Trumps new building in Chicago.
Projections (year, average height, current building closest to that height)
2015 - 423 meters - Jin Mao Tower
2020 - 441 meters - Sears Tower
2025 - 458 meters - Petronas Towers
2035 - 494 meters - Shanghai World Financial Center
2040 - 511 meters - Taipei 101
...
2130 - 830 meters - Burj Khalifa
2178 - 1 kilometer - none
I took the top 30 from each year and averaged their heights. I picked 30 somewhat arbitrarily as it was a small enough number that most likely 30 of them were from long enough ago to give me plenty of years to work with. I was able to go back to 1984 before the list dropped below 30, meaning of the current top 200, less than 30 were built before 1984. It is also a large enough number that I hoped the annual change in heights would be steady.
The data shows that the average height increases by 3.5 meters, or 11.5 feet, annually. This is a rather steady increase with only 2010 being an outlier due to the completion of the Burj Khalifa. Currently the average height is 405 meters (1328 ft), 24 meters taller than the Empire State Building, and slightly shorter than Trumps new building in Chicago.
Projections (year, average height, current building closest to that height)
2015 - 423 meters - Jin Mao Tower
2020 - 441 meters - Sears Tower
2025 - 458 meters - Petronas Towers
2035 - 494 meters - Shanghai World Financial Center
2040 - 511 meters - Taipei 101
...
2130 - 830 meters - Burj Khalifa
2178 - 1 kilometer - none
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Who won in 2008?
I recently came upon a new idea for counting votes in an election. Instead of only counting votes cast and ignoring those who abstain, abstentions would be counted in their own category. For example, in a district one candidate might get 55% of the vote and the other 45%. However, if over half of the population didn't vote at all, then abstaining votes would win and no candidate would be selected. While this might seem bad, it gives political parties a stronger incentive to see that everyone votes. Currently, those incentives don't really exist, all a candidate has to do is get more voters than the other candidate, regardless of how many people vote. It would also limit voter disenfranchisement as they would then count as abstaining votes and cause neither candidate to win.
I decided to see what would have happened if this rule was applied to the 2008 election. In 2008, 58% of everyone over the age of 18 voted, the highest voter turnout since 1968. However, this means that 42% of potential voters abstained. If these abstentions were counted, the break down of the vote would be:
Abstain: 42%
Obama: 31%
McCain: 27%
Other: 1%
Abstentions end up winning by a wide margin. Broken down to the state level, the results are very ugly:
Obama and McCain only win a handful of states, the majority, and the winner of the Electoral College with 428 votes. Clearly, a huge portion of the US population isn't having their voice heard.
In order to produce a situation where Obama beats abstentions, voter turnout would have to be over 69%.
I decided to see what would have happened if this rule was applied to the 2008 election. In 2008, 58% of everyone over the age of 18 voted, the highest voter turnout since 1968. However, this means that 42% of potential voters abstained. If these abstentions were counted, the break down of the vote would be:
Abstain: 42%
Obama: 31%
McCain: 27%
Other: 1%
Abstentions end up winning by a wide margin. Broken down to the state level, the results are very ugly:
Obama and McCain only win a handful of states, the majority, and the winner of the Electoral College with 428 votes. Clearly, a huge portion of the US population isn't having their voice heard.
In order to produce a situation where Obama beats abstentions, voter turnout would have to be over 69%.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)