Search found 1 match: Peter Sellers

On the two questions from the other threads, my answers are:
- I never rate a film I haven't completed, even if for some reason I only missed the last 5 minutes. Only exception is if walked into the theatre a couple of minutes late. Otherwise no, simply because, if the film is 93 minutes long, well maybe the director wanted it to be that long. Even if you think it's redundant or shitty, you don't have enough data to rate. As zopz mentioned, the finale of a movie can be critical. I usually have a 'potential' rating in mind before the film reaches the end and I've often caught myself thinking stuff like "well if I don't get an inventive ending, this film doesn't get any more than 60". An ending can give my potential rating a boost, or detract a few points if it was a disappointment. So no rating for incomplete films, that's a rule of mine,
- every time I have been confronted with rating a film I'd seen a long time ago I go with gut feeling, the memory I have of how much I liked it. If you are afraid of the inaccuracy, then I suggest you just don't rate those films (although I suppose that kinda sucks), and maybe watch some of them again if you find them of interest.

For me the burning question is, what about films I've seen and rated a long time ago. I was born in '95 and have been watching films for most of my life. As a child I would even get my scores down in notebooks... you know, pen and paper. And that's why I had no problem with ranking my films when I created my account here in dear ole Criticker back in '10 (although I did lower some of them a little bit if they looked inflated due to the 'child' factor). But I'm now 21 and my list includes ratings I gave as a kid, teen and young adult. We all change a lot during those few years, don't we? And I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to be the same person in 10 years either. We constantly change, to a big extent due to our - cinematic and non-cinematic - experiences, and even if we suppose that the older we get the more we know ourselves and our tastes, it's still pretty fair to assume that we will drastically change our minds on certain films over the decades. Re-watching a film you are likely to have changed your mind about some years after the first watch is crucial if you want the recommendations you get from Criticker to be 'up-to-date'.

After all that, maybe I should finally give my view on your current question. The main thing for me is how much I liked the film. But, as ehk2, pointed out, that doesn't work in a vacuum. If I see a 'classic' film (@90sCoffee I gotta tell you, I raised my fist over your mention of "Vertigo" as a bore) and don't have a great time, there's no way it's gonna get a high rating from me. It's probably not gonna get a low rating either if I can appreciate certain aspects of it, but my enjoyment, or lack thereof, of a film is the crucial factor. "Citizen Kane" gets a mere 50 from me. And let's be clear: it's not 20 for the enjoyment and 80 for the historicity, or anything of that sort. Everything is aggregated into one number that is exactly that: one number and not a sum of parts. Right after a film ends I give it a rating in my head, based on how much I liked what I saw, trying to take into consideration both the fun I had and the more 'objective' qualities of it. I will probably think about what I saw for a few minutes, or discuss it if I am with other people, and there is a chance I might change my score slightly after that process. I then come to Criticker in an attempt to crystallize my thoughts in a concise review. At this point I have to mention that I rate out of 100 and in groups of ten (that's 0, 10, 20 and so on). That makes it usually easier to pick a rating because what the fuck does 73 mean. But in truth I have sometimes felt the need for a 5, for instance when a film is more than 70 but not exactly 80 (eg. "I, Daniel Blake"), but I have reasoned that having 5s is overall more of a fuss so I will just accept the occasional flaw of my rating system instead.

Intent is indeed important, as Mentaculus pointed out. And there's no shame if a film aims lower than another. Since when are our high ratings reserved for the elite of cinema? In truth, if I watch a blockbuster, or a not-particularly-deep comedy, and have a great time, it will probably not get a perfect rating because maybe it didn't engage me emotionally as much as other films, but I think it would be pretentious of me to give it an average rating just because "it's nothing deep". Looking back on my ratings, I do seem to have ceiling ratings like BadCosmonaut, for instance I rarely give superhero films a rating higher than 70, but that's not because I think they're a guilty pleasure. If you say a film is great for its genre, thus it's a 100, you don't take your own taste into consideration. I love me a good superhero film but in the end the 'big ones' for me are rarely blockbusters. I find I'm a little more generous with comedies: "Date Night" got a 70, "Easy A" 80, "Crazy, Stupid, Love." 90. How much I enjoyed them mattered more than how 'serious' or artsy they were and their high rewatchability has proven them as reliably successful in my eyes.

Then there's films that I enjoy mildly but at the same time appreciate, like "Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens". I found it creepy but I wasn't scared at all and, frankly, I don't care if I judge it with 21st century eyes because that's who I am. I'm no movie critic. I'm just a dude who loves films. Does "Nosferatu" matter to me, in my here and now? And how much? And it turns out that yes it matters quite a bit, but not all that much: the gothic imagery is amazing but I thought Murnau handled the script in a rather problematic way that failed to engage me enough. So that's a 60. It's good, fullstop. Artsy-fartsy stuff, be it modern ("Carol") or 'classic' ("Zerkalo"), usually get a 50 or lower. They usually have elements in them to appreciate but since both the 'entertainment' and the 'engagement' factor are low, because I don't care about the characters or don't know what the fuck's going on or whatever, the rating is decidedly looking downwards.

If a film made you feel uneasy but you still thought it was great, chances are that that was the filmmaker's intention. "The Sweet Hereafter" is a beautiful yet devastating film that had received a 100 from me upon first viewing, but was then reduced to 80 after a second watch due to the limited pleasure it offers. When I get to see it again, I might end up giving it a 90 or something. The point is, you can detract some points if a film made you really uncomfortable, but that can be part of its greatness too. "Prisoners" would have been shitty if it wasn't uncomfortable. I can like a film with all my heart even if the director didn't pluck my heart-strings and just went for a two-hour, massive punch in the stomach. I walk out of the theatre going "wow that was powerful". Film, or art in general, isn't just about nice and cuddly stuff. Misery, distress and pure shock have to be expressed too, right? Enjoyment for me isn't just 'ha-ha' or a smile on my face. It can be that, if it's a comedy or a fun film or a daft b-movie, but if you go watch a film like "Heavenly Creatures" or "The Life of David Gale", well you should have known better. Most films are honest with you. You know it's gonna be a downer. And then you get a film like "The Lion King" and your childhood has been brutally fucked in the blink of an eye. But you're still in awe at the balls of Disney for pulling that off. Shouldn't I applaud that with a high rating, especially since, well, it's a pretty good film overall?

The part about disliked genres, I can't say I have much experience with, because I generally don't have any disliked genres, and I usually avoid watching films from my least favourite ones. And if I do, I take each film for what it is: how much I liked it. I'm not judging the entire genre, just this one cinematic experience. One type of film I'm having a difficult time with is the really sick horror films. I have seen stuff like "Saw" and "Martyrs" and given them variably low ratings. But then I see something like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and have a fucking blast. It's not about the genre, it's about that one film. If you find 'all' films of a genre shitty, then each and every one of them is shitty for you. If you saw "The Birds" or "Jaws" and can't go near a creature of the air or sea again but still appreciate the mastery of those films, I think deep down you know they're not shitty. They've genuinely made you crap your pants, they've scarred you for life, they deserve your respect. When people were running in the cinema corridors during "Psycho", their lives were profoundly altered. When I saw "Psycho" all those years later I enjoyed the atmosphere and then went on with my life without having to check my house for the killer for the rest of the week. That's a 70. If it was 1960 it would have probably been higher.

- Tastes can indeed change. Rewatch.

- No feelings of guilt for liking some shitty films.

- Really low ratings reserved for extremely awfully made films. Even if I had a good time laughing at a god-awfully terrible picture, like "Zombie Nation" or the Turkish Batman film, chances are the rating will still be in the 'red' (which for me is 0-30). Red zone also honours films that, although they were not objectively badly made (eg. good production values and so on), they had me bored to tears or even infuriated, like "Alexander" or "Le mépris". In this case, 30 and lower means the experience was decidedly negative and this film isn't worthy of my time even if I have nothing better to do.

- Really high ratings definitely not reserved for 'objectively' great, canon-type films. They are reserved for the films that mean a lot to me. And that includes the original "Pink Panther" series of films with Peter Sellers. They're not particularly serious. They're not even the 'serious' type of comedy of Chaplin's best years ("Modern Times", "The Great Dictator"). But I find them brilliant in an extremely reliable way, after having watched them dozens upon dozens of times. I know them by heart and I still laugh my ass off like the first time. Same with the "Blackadder" series, especially seasons 2, 3 and 4. The really high ratings are for films that have spoken to me in a rare, profound way. They can be devastating like "Requiem for a Dream". They can be poignant like "La vita è bella". They can be grandiose like "C'era una volta il West". They can be guilty pleasures like "The Cassandra Crossing". Riveting subject films, like "Entre les murs", or all-around soul- and mind-benders like my soft spot, "Donnie Darko". It's not about the canon, it's not about what others think, it's not about what I 'should' think. It's about what speaks to me, directly, without much overthinking. What strikes a chord with me. What goes 'click'.

One final memory to close this fucking Godzilla of a post that few will read and all of them will regret having done so. I remember going to "Finding Nemo" at the theatre in 2003 and loving every minute of it. I gave it a 100/100 here in 2010. I watched it again in 2016 and that 100 remained intact. It's one of the most perfectly executed films I have watched but also a film that carried me away as a child and as an adult, immersed me in it completely and generated a ton of emotions. That's what the higher tiers are about. They are reserved for what cinema means to you. Those films that remind you why this art fascinates us that much. Why settle for anything less? The perfectly executed films that left me cold, the classics that made me wanna die of boredom, and all the rest, will have to make way for my - each and everyone's - special films. What's the point otherwise?