Buddy Buddy is the movie that ended Billy Wilder's film career. He lived a long time after it. He wanted to make another one, but that one's reputation kept him from getting studio backing to make one. Using your logic, that means Mark thinks Buddy Buddy is only slightly inferior to Citizen Kane, which despite its flaws, is one the most historically important and technically innovative movies ever made.
If you are going to use a skewed, idiosyncratic rating system, then it is best to explain it every time you use it.
I never attacked him until he used the word I never use myself, troll, and even then i just threw the word back at him. I challenged his bizarre notion 7.5 is considered by the average person a good rating for a movie like Citizen Kane.
That doesn't mean there aren't people who like
Buddy Buddy, and that everyone has to dislike it. I haven't seen it, but people can change opinions over time, didn't
Peeping Tom destroy Michael Powell's career but people now regard it as a brilliant classic?
And no it doesn't necessarily mean that it's only slightly inferior to
Citizen Kane. Mark uses his rating system as a good measure of enjoyment, and admits that sometimes he feels he is a bit biased towards old English language films when it comes to rating for enjoyment, and that if people want to add a popcorn to his ratings for certain things they can do so, for example art house ratings, camp ratings, or classic ratings. Whilst Mark can often appreciate the film from an artistic level, for example, he still didn't find it as enjoyable or good as something less artistic but better for him.
And by your own twisted logic, as you would probably put it, Buddy Buddy actually has a 6.4 rating on IMDB, which means Mark actually thinks its worse than the majority of people, this is going by
your logic here.
When will you understand that
PEOPLE HAVE THEIR OWN RATING SYSTEMS. Does everybody who rates a film on IMDB use the same system as Mark? NO.
People, myself included, tend to be more generous to films on IMDB and follow your idea of 6/7 being decent, 8 good, 9/10 great etc. but you get a lot more films rated 7+ this way, and films are divided strangely. When you go on IMDB you judge films relative to other films on IMDB, when you judge films that Mark's rate you judge films relative to other films he's rated. Giving films high ratings all the time makes your ratings lose value in a way to, and means that you rarely use 1-5, so what's the point having those scores, Mark's system gives more value and prestige to those films he genuinely thinks are special and important to him.
I honestly don't get how you find this so difficult to comprehend, do you genuinely not understand how this works or are you just trying to annoy Mark and the rest of us with your constant ignorance? Seriously now.