Alexd wrote : Anyway, as we can see on IMDB, the negativity is the minority:

You need to specify where you negativity line begins. Since this is popular entertainment, shouldn't everyone like it, so if that's your line of measure then. Above 7 = 33.8% Below 7 = 44.1% When the Arithmetic mean is below the median, your stats are tilting negative. Of course like public opinion polls for a president you can do with anything over 50% is winning the battle. Also note that the weighted average is below both the arithmetic mean and median.

IMDB explains Weighted Average:
Weighted Average Ratings IMDb publishes weighted vote averages rather than raw data averages. Various filters are applied to the raw data in order to eliminate and reduce attempts at 'vote stuffing' by individuals more interested in changing the current rating of a movie than giving their true opinion of it.
The exact methods we use will not be disclosed. This should ensure that the policy remains effective. The result is a more accurate vote average.

zombie84 wrote: That book is not something to throw around as though it has much merit. It's self published.

From what i've read, the book often rewrites newspaper articles. So i'm basing it's merit on that he's read many reviews and the one conclusion posted is verifiable if we backtrack. Sure there are passages I disagreed with before the conclusion but the final statement that most of the reviews were 3 stars seemed logical. People wanted to like this film, and they tried to find parts which moved them.

Throwing the self published line doesn't seem like a good move btw.

Swept the razzies?

An award given to the worst movies of the year. And according to the link below TPM was nominated for just about every category, but Wild Wild West took many of the awards:

http://www.razzies.com/forum/1999-razzie-nominees-winners_topic349.html

TPM did tie for worst picture of the year.