Yeah, I don't trust any rating alone. Obviously big money can be paid to manipulate any rating. But it's still better than a Rotten Tomatoes. Which I think is a joke.
There's not many true great critics left - so I don't really enjoy critically acclaim horseshit fed at me. Roger Ebert was solid. Not perfect, but solid. And he passed away.
But you'll often see IMBD doesn't stand right up along Rotten Tomatoes, given its still a people based voting system. Not that I think its perfect.
Especially when it comes to newer stuff compared to older stuff. Its so slanted compared to older movies/shows, because not a lot of the newer generations watches them, and when they do it feels outdated to them. Some of it might, but some not as much.
Like a movie like Shawshank Redemption compared to Cool Hand Luke. Two similar genres/movies. Despite which movie you like more, no way in hell Shawshank should be ranked so heavily higher compared to a movie like Cool Hand Luke.
I think Cool Hand Luke personally is better, with way more ambiguous/dynamic characters, along with a more intriguing plot. Where Shawshank Redemption although great, feels too wishy washy and a big giant cliche. But done pretty fucking good though.
But over a million votes for Shawshank, and just over hundred thousand for a movie like Cool Hand Luke. It's just more people in the last 10 years are going to watch a movie more relevant, compared to movie that's over 40 years of age.