The IMDB 'Top 1000 voters' ranking was always my go-to for a reliable assessment of a film's worth, and it still holds true for films from yesteryear (anything more than 6.7 for anything not big budget or pre-dating 2005 is probably going to be worth a watch). But I can't help feeling that 'the fix is in' for modern films pushed by the main movie studios of the day.

It seems the interests of IMDB adverisers are best served by removing comments on films on spurious grounds and then start fixing the scores (although scores were becoming increasingly inflated prior to Amazon's takeover in their defence). Case in point with this film. I can see why many would like it despite it not being my cup of tea, so the headline scores on IMDB and here dont surprise me. Punters are voting with their wallets and lapping this stuff up. But I think it is clearly inferior to the first installment in several areas and that those who watch thousands of movies spanning most genres would pick up on this inferirity. It gets 7.4 from the 'Top 1000 voters' (the same voters who rate films like the Godfather highly, we are led to believe) and a mind-bending 7.9 from women over 45 years.

Really? The average women over 45 years logs on and gives this an 8? Am I missing something with scoring or making horrifically old fashioned stereotypical judgements about the target demographics of this film?

But more importantly, is there anywhere in internet land that provides a more nuanced and reliable voter average for modern, big budget films? I'd hate to overlook a modern, big budget studio gem just because I'd lost confidence in mainstream voter ratings.