In an interesting (arguably) illustration of the fallibility of IMDCB, I watched two films last night with near-identical ratings (8.0 v 7.9), one of which was superb, the other of which, IMHO, a bit of a stinker.
I've seen To Have and Have Not a couple of times before, but it's one of the few films I could cheerfully watch again and again. Bogart was never better, Walter Brennan is superb as his 'rummy' sidekick, and as for Lauren Bacall, in her first ever movie, well, if there's a better performance by any actress in any film, ever, I've never come across it. The on-screen chemistry between her and Bogart is electric (I believe they were becoming an item off-screen at the time), the basic story (from Hemingway) is great, and the script about as good as it gets. Even the musical numbers are wonderful. I'd give it a straight 9, and even then I'm not sure what I'm docking the point for. How could it be better?
Then Wait Until Dark. Great reviews, and starring one of my favourite actresses, Audrey Hepburn - what could go wrong? Well, pretty much everything, as it happens. Her performance is fine but the whole thing labours from the outset under the deadweight of an utterly implausible basic premise: that a blind woman finds herself beleagured by bad guys because she has unwittingly come into possession of a smuggled doll containing what's clearly a few dollars worth of heroin. Presumably they were tapping into the 'reefer madness' madness of the time. With hindsight it just looks daft. Other than that, it's painfully plotted, pedestrianly stagey (adapted from a play, it really shows it), and full of absurdities. Even dear Audrey can't save it. And yet it gets 7.9, rather than the 6ish I'd grudgingly offer. Go figure.