1 registered members (m2w),
362
guests, and 44
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums21
Topics43,350
Posts1,086,311
Members10,381
|
Most Online1,254 Mar 13th, 2025
|
|
|
Re: Film: Art or Escapisim?
#123612
08/13/05 08:16 AM
08/13/05 08:16 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,309 Austin, TX
suspect_5
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,309
Austin, TX
|
Originally posted by Don Vercetti: Sure it's ridiculous to have a 66% scale or Yahoo's shitty ABC scale Crap I include both, my reviews must really suck Yes I give movies a percentage score AND a letter grade, not only that but I *gasp rate on entertainment/merit  . I know but it is stupid and inane to rate on how I feel about a film’s entertainment value, it is sooooo subjective, well so is a four star system – it is all subjective to what we think is important. I have watched a lot of movies, more than the average American. I have taken classes in production and appreciation. I know that some movies are better constructed than others, I mean even I won’t argue a Man on Fire over a Birth of a Nation but I rate how I do because not everyone is like me. (or Don V/Capo/Ronnie or any number of other board members) When I was watching Million Dollar Baby with my family and there were those excellent shots of the gym in darkness, I commented on how beautiful the shots were with the harsh shafts of light and they just looked and me like “shut up”. I’m not saying that well constructed films can’t be entertaining but still yet Thirty Two Short Films About Glenn Gould is not for everyone. Just like some people refuse to “read” a movie (I’m talking literally Capo, I know you “read” film but I’m talking subtitles here) some people just want to see something. I rate how I do because when a friend or friend of a friend asks “Hey what is good in the theater or DVD” I give them an answer I think is suitable to them, sure I’ll still try to throw out a well constructed film but I also give them the latest Ice Cube film because that is what they want to see. Don V, Capo, and Ronnie rate on historical merit and that is fine with me, I read their reviews and thoughts and I actually like them, I like to read a hardcore somewhat pretentious opinion because I like to watch films for their construction too. But to me the guy down the street doesn’t care about tracking shots or canted angles, he wants to know if there are tits in it or if the fight scenes are that Wire-fu stuff. I’m a critic for that guy.
-------------------------------------- This signature has been sanatized for your protection - The Staff
|
|
|
Re: Film: Art or Escapisim?
#123613
08/13/05 12:31 PM
08/13/05 12:31 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 12,155 Some anonymous motel room.
Don Vercetti
|

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 12,155
Some anonymous motel room.
|
I don't review movies just for historical merit. What historical merit does Collateral have? It just came out and it's still a great movie.
Anyway, the reason I dislike a 70%-ish scale is that it's too much for me at least. If I use a scale like that I feel reduced to turning cinema into a math equation. When I first began rating with a /10 scale, I rated some movies 6.9/10 and I realized how stupid it was for me, so I just did 7/10 and 7.5/10, then I soon went to **** scales. As for ABC, I have no problem with it, but Yahoo's is horrible.
B+ = Memorable A- = Almost Perfect A = Outstanding
What the hell? Kind of a big leap. And A+ is "Oscar worthy" which to me is a bad rating description. If anything I'd switch A and A+'s descriptions. However, Yahoo is good in organizing a Top 100 list, among other things.
Proud Member of the Gangster BB Bratpack - Fighting Elitism and Ignorance Since 2006
|
|
|
Re: Film: Art or Escapisim?
#123614
08/13/05 03:04 PM
08/13/05 03:04 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 12,543 Gateshead, UK
Capo de La Cosa Nostra
|

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 12,543
Gateshead, UK
|
A word or two on my personal rating system. I rate films from zero to four stars. I don't use half stars, because to me it makes things unnecessarily complicated, and, as Don V stated about the percentage system, makes filmwatching oddly mathematical.
My system is as follows (with examples, I've tried to choose one from each decade when possible)...
Four stars marks a film of outstanding and lasting quality, a milestone in cinema history, remarkable for such aspects as direction, writing, acting, cinematography or some other aspect of filmmaking technique. Examples: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1919), Battleship Potemkin (1925), Duck Soup (1933), Double Indemnity (1944), Vertigo (1958), Weekend (1968), Taxi Driver (1976), A Short Film About Killing (1988), American Beauty (1999), Gladiator (2000).
Three stars indicates a film of excellent quality, but cannot be given four stars due to a lack of cinematic importance, or the film is simply too much of an acquired taste to be classed as a wide-appealing masterpiece; or, on the other hand, a film worth seeing only for historical reasons. It can also be interpreted that three stars indicate three strong, unrelated reasons for admiring a film. Examples: Easy Street (1917), Bringing Up Baby (1938), Laura (1944), All That Heaven Allows (1955), Goldfinger (1964), Medium Cool (1969), Eraserhead (1976), Full Metal Jacket (1987), The Shawshank Redemption (1994), Batman Begins (2005).
Two stars is a generally entertaining or engrossing film of high production values; perhaps an underrated small feature or an overrated classic, or even a provocative film deemed too gratuitously controversial or limited in its audience appeal. Examples: The Floorwalker (1916), Un Chien Andalou (1928), Chickens Come Home (1932), It's a Wonderful Life (1946), Limelight (1952), Lolita (1962), New York, New York (1977), Paris, Texas (1984), Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999), Snatch (2000).
A one star film marks either a watchable second feature or a disappointing film which should have been better, if it was to be made in the first place. Examples: Midnight Patol (1933), Deux Hommes dans Manhattan (1958), Peeping Tom (1960), Live and Let Die (1973), Made in Britain (1982), Fight Club (1999), Mystic River (2003).
No stars indicate a totally routine production or worse: they may be watchable, but no merit is to be found in doing so, and are at least equally missable. Examples: Police (1916), Midnight (1934), Pollyanna (1960), Soldier Blue (1970), Annie (1982), Armaggedon (1998), The Butterfly Effect (2004).
Why do I rate films? Well, a friend of mine, who's been watching films for many years, rates them by colour, for personal preference, in his film log: red for his favourites, green for watchable, average films, and blue for stinkers. A very simplistic system, but one which brings personal preference into it more than anything.
I only rate films as a means of recommending them to other people. As long as they know what I mean by the stars, and not what they assume them to mean, it's an effective system. But in all honesty, I prefer the actual review of the film more than any amount of stars. That's why, in the reviews I write and post, you don't find any star ratings in them. Just like Time Out and Sight & Sound's reviews, which are the best you can read in terms of critical analysis. If I wrote a review on every single film I've ever seen, I'd do away with stars. But until then, this is the only way of keeping personal track of what films to watch and not to watch.
Thanks for reading, Mick
...dot com bold typeface rhetoric. You go clickety click and get your head split. 'The hell you look like on a message board Discussing whether or not the Brother is hardcore?
|
|
|
Re: Film: Art or Escapisim?
#123620
08/13/05 08:50 PM
08/13/05 08:50 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,273 Hell
Mike Sullivan
OP
Underboss
|
OP
Underboss
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,273
Hell
|
Originally posted by Irishman12: [quote]Originally posted by Don_Andrew: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Irishman12: [b] Yeah but my posts aren't half a thread page. They're usually just a line and not long to read x3000 over 1-2 weeks... [/b][/quote]  That's your own choice if you choose to read them all  [/b][/quote]It wouldn't be as much a problem as long as you'd try to put more quality into some of them.
Madness! Madness! - Major Clipton The Bridge On The River Kwai
GOLD - GOLD - GOLD - GOLD. Bright and Yellow, Hard and Cold, Molten, Graven, Hammered, Rolled, Hard to Get and Light to Hold; Stolen, Borrowed, Squandered - Doled. - Greed
Nothing Is Written Lawrence Of Arabia
|
|
|
Re: Film: Art or Escapisim?
#123627
08/14/05 12:34 AM
08/14/05 12:34 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,273 Hell
Mike Sullivan
OP
Underboss
|
OP
Underboss
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,273
Hell
|
Originally posted by Irishman12: Well it just proves my point, how much quality can you put in the games thread? I didn't know quality was such a big part of Mike's life It should be a big part of your life too... Or do you just like shit?
Madness! Madness! - Major Clipton The Bridge On The River Kwai
GOLD - GOLD - GOLD - GOLD. Bright and Yellow, Hard and Cold, Molten, Graven, Hammered, Rolled, Hard to Get and Light to Hold; Stolen, Borrowed, Squandered - Doled. - Greed
Nothing Is Written Lawrence Of Arabia
|
|
|
Re: Film: Art or Escapisim?
#123629
08/14/05 01:15 PM
08/14/05 01:15 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 12,543 Gateshead, UK
Capo de La Cosa Nostra
|

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 12,543
Gateshead, UK
|
Good quality or bad quality? Anyway, this thread is serving little purpose now, other than to debate something which wasn't in the original art vs. escapism subject. Mick
...dot com bold typeface rhetoric. You go clickety click and get your head split. 'The hell you look like on a message board Discussing whether or not the Brother is hardcore?
|
|
|
|