10 Most Popular 3 Stars Rated Movies From The 1960s

[claws]

Criteria: rating between 5,4 - 5,8 (IMDb)
Ranking by number of votes (IMDb)

 1. The Green Berets (1968)
 Votes: 12.098 / 5,8

 2. One Million Years B.C. (1966)
 Votes: 7.772 / 5,7

 3. Dementia 13 (1963)
 Votes: 7.114 / 5,7

 4. Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (1966)
 Votes: 4.550 / 5,5

 5. Dr. Who and the Daleks (1965)
 Votes: 3.903 / 5,8

 6. Return of the Seven (1966)
 Votes: 3.792 / 5,6

 7. The Lost World (1960)
 Votes: 3.563 / 5,5

 8. Gorgo (1961)
 Votes: 3.143 / 5,7

 9. Boot Hill (1969)
 Votes: 3.094 / 5,7

 10. Greetings (1968)
 Votes: 3.093 / 5,7

[claws]

Seen: The Green Berets (1968) , One Million Years B.C. (1966) , Gorgo (1961) and Boot Hill (1969).

[RCMerchant]

I watched part of the GREEN BERETS once, but it was so much gung ho bulls**t I turned it off.
Never seen BOOT HILL . Never even heard of GREETINGS or RETURN OF THE SEVEN.
Seen the rest.

[claws]

Boot Hill used to air on TV here quite a bit in my childhood. Greetings is Brian De Palma's first movie I think.

[RCMerchant]

Boot Hill used to air on TV here quite a bit in my childhood. Greetings is Brian De Palma's first movie I think.

Now that I think of it- I have heard of GREETINGS- slipped my mind! 

[Rev. Powell]

Criteria: rating between 5,4 - 5,8 (IMDb)

How did you determine that a ranking between 5.4-5.8 equates to 3 stars?

[claws]

I've been sort of trying to decipher IMDb scores for years, and to make sense of it, so I've been playing around with the ratings matching them to common film ratings. IMDb says the scores are not the averages of votes and they have a secret system they can't share that determine the ratings. What I came up with is this:

7,4 and higher = 5/5 (Perfect)
6,9 - 7,3 = 4.5/5 (Excellent)
6,4 - 6,8 = 4/5 (Great)
5,9 - 6,3 = 3.5/5 (Very Good)
5,4 - 5,8 = 3/5 (Good)
4,9 - 5,3 = 2.5/5 (Flawed but Worthy)
4,4 - 4,8 = 2/5 (Fair)
3,9 - 4,3 = 1.5/5 (Barely Sufficient)
3,4 - 3,8 = 1/5 (Poor)
2,9 - 3,3 = 0.5/5 (Very Poor)
0,0 - 2,8 = 0/5 (Awful)

It's just being experimental and putting names to numbers. Of course all this means nothing because one person's trash is another person's treasure.
It works for me as a guidline and I thought I'd try it out here, but I'm in no way pushing my ratings on anybody. In the end everybody can decide their own ratings.
These polls are just for fun and the ratings are not set in stone or anything and shouldn't be taken seriously.

[Rev. Powell]

I've been sort of trying to decipher IMDb scores for years, and to make sense of it, so I've been playing around with the ratings matching them to common film ratings. IMDb says the scores are not the averages of votes and they have a secret system they can't share that determine the ratings. What I came up with is this:

7,4 and higher = 5/5 (Perfect)
6,9 - 7,3 = 4.5/5 (Excellent)
6,4 - 6,8 = 4/5 (Great)
5,9 - 6,3 = 3.5/5 (Very Good)
5,4 - 5,8 = 3/5 (Good)
4,9 - 5,3 = 2.5/5 (Flawed but Worthy)
4,4 - 4,8 = 2/5 (Fair)
3,9 - 4,3 = 1.5/5 (Barely Sufficient)
3,4 - 3,8 = 1/5 (Poor)
2,9 - 3,3 = 0.5/5 (Very Poor)
0,0 - 2,8 = 0/5 (Awful)

It's just being experimental and putting names to numbers. Of course all this means nothing because one person's trash is another person's treasure.
It works for me as a guidline and I thought I'd try it out here, but I'm in no way pushing my ratings on anybody. In the end everybody can decide their own ratings.
These polls are just for fun and the ratings are not set in stone or anything and shouldn't be taken seriously.

I've done something similar. What I came up with was

1/2 star (IMDB >= 2.6)
1  (2.7-4.0)
1.5 (4.1 - 5.0)
2   (5.1 - 5.8)
2.5 (5.9 - 6.4)
3   (6.5-7.0)
3.5 (7.1-7.5)
4   (7.6-7.7)
4.5 (7.8-7.9)
5   (IMDB <=8.0)

I used some data about IMDB ratings compiled by a site that's since gone offline. An "average" IMDB rating of 5 usually denotes a pretty bad/unpopular movie. I was just trying to fit it into a bell curve shape, and that's what I wrote down. 

[claws]

That's an interesting take, especially this

4  (7.6-7.7)
4.5 (7.8-7.9)

I tried those on my blu-ray collection:

4  (7.6-7.7) from 195 titles down to 40 titles when applying your rating system
4.5 (7.8-7.9) from 127 down to 25 titles 

Basically mine are a bit more generous  

[Rev. Powell]

That's an interesting take, especially this

4  (7.6-7.7)
4.5 (7.8-7.9)

I tried those on my blu-ray collection:

4  (7.6-7.7) from 195 titles down to 40 titles when applying your rating system
4.5 (7.8-7.9) from 127 down to 25 titles 

Basically mine are a bit more generous  

I am a harsh grader. I only rate stuff 5 stars when I think it's essentially flawless and in the top 1-2% of all movies ever made.

[claws]

That's an interesting take, especially this

4  (7.6-7.7)
4.5 (7.8-7.9)

I tried those on my blu-ray collection:

4  (7.6-7.7) from 195 titles down to 40 titles when applying your rating system
4.5 (7.8-7.9) from 127 down to 25 titles 

Basically mine are a bit more generous  

I am a harsh grader. I only rate stuff 5 stars when I think it's essentially flawless and in the top 1-2% of all movies ever made.

If anything, your ratings have inspired me to be a bit more harsher as well. I'm currently in the midst of re-rating the movies I've seen.

[bob]

of these I've only seen The Lost World

[pacman000]

Seen The Green Berets, The Lost World, & Gorgo.

Thought Gappa was better than Gorgo, & I thought The Lost World was too generic.  I actually liked John Wayne's army movie, but I don't think I'll defend it because that's too political.

[Allhallowsday]

The best part of THE GREEN BERETS is the most horrible part: impalement of JIM HUTTON in the jungle booby trap.     Poor JIM.  Rotten movie; sh!t on rye. 

[Allhallowsday]

...
 3. Dementia 13 (1963)
 Votes: 7.114 / 5,7...

I did not count DEMENTIA 13 because I haven't seen all of it.  TCM shows it sometimes.  The beginning is... unforgettable... filmed in Ireland.