Palme d’Or Winners according to IMDb Voters
Internet Movie Database, mostly abbreviated as IMDb, is the most clicked website to retrieve quick information about the movie a person has just seen or become curious about. Running into a movie given a low rating is a bit of a discouragement since each and every film lover invests a considerable amount of time in that piece of work in exchange of having joy and good time. Therefore, it is difficult to argue with the fact that ratings of movies on IMDb affect the expectations of people.
That being said, let’s quickly slide to subtopic, so-called the festival movies. Most popular film festival around Europe takes place in year-wise in Cannes/France. Cannes Film Festival acts as a host to many anticipated movies of upcoming season to make their premieres. Last time, in may, Ruben Ostlund’s ‘The Square’ has been announced as the winner of the Golden Palm. But, how do regular people, apart from critics or professionals, approach to that type of movies. Here is the numeric history of the Palme d’Or Winners, from 1960 to 2016, based on the ratings of users on IMDb
In terms of runtime, Gus van Sant’s “Elephant” (2003) is the shortest movie among the winners with its only 81 minutes of duration where Nuri Bilge Ceylan’s “Winter Sleep” (2016) is the longest, 196 minutes. Average rating for the winners is 7.74(out of possible perfect 10), considerably high score but not a surprise for most people. Tarantino’s spectacular classic “Pulp Fiction” (1994) got the highest grade from the users on IMDb and achieved a rock-solid 8.9 which placed this cult motion picture at top-notch movies on IMDB’s famous top 250 list. To derive some further insights, let’s take a brief look at the chart:
The curve displays the trend between runtime and rating of the movies. It is pretty clear that relatively longer movies are rated a bit higher than the shorter ones, considered as common and comprehensible when it comes down to topic of festival movies.
There is another myth spoken loudly that users pay more credit to older movies than what they deserve in reality. That allegation can instantly be refuted by a quick glance:
No recognizable pattern to confirm that there is a biased vogue for old movies.
Let’s take a brief look at the relation between number of votes and rating. Surprisingly, among the winners, only 3 movies climbed over 500,000 votes. And not that surprisingly, they were all American-made, incredibly famous movies by very well-known directors. In this category, “Pulp Fiction” also leads by far.
Lastly, we have graphical representation of movies’ rating vs. the number of votes. That trio, and “Apocalypse Now”, which lags slightly behind with 485,238 votes as I write this, appear as true outliers. Here, take a look: