Here's my review:
I don't know why they even bothered. It's not much of an improvement and there's a lot of missed opportunities to utilize the visual nature of TV and film to help guide visitors' eyes towards their interests.
Its mega menu is a stale wall of text that tacks on larger categories to a hairy mess of options, mixing concepts of: top ratings, chronology (out now vs. coming soon), availability (in theater vs. out of theater), etc. with no rhyme or reason as to how they're ordered. I'm assuming they used their analytics to order by hits.
The main news feed needs more typographic contrast, and the supporting photos/imagery is more distracting than anything--it interrupts the readability and flow and forces the eye to toggle between different types of content.
While the information architecture on the title pages is great, the visual design is pretty dated, so I'm not inclined to spend much time on IMDb.
Finally, it's still not responsive. Now, without their analytics, it may be a different story, but I'd wager most visitors come through Google, or their favorite search engine to visit IMDb the site instead of their native app for a quick look up. Although, Google has been providing basic info and casts for TV and film for a while now, saving the need for IMDb most of the time anyway. Maybe their target audience aren't consumers after all?
I find myself agreeing a lot with your comments. When I looked at the visual design I couldn’t help but think it felt a bit dated. As others have said, there is some improvement but it’s not really a total redesign or anything making me take notice.
Why a "dated" design that felt right at a time, it feels wrong, all of a sudden?
Redesign is a bit of a stretch. Looks a little cleaner and more modern but the features, layout, and even colour scheme are identical.
The same comment I made the last time this was posted. Roboto, Arial / Helvetica AND Verdana? Yikes.