Greatness vs. Likeness

[icarusdive]

When rating movies numerically, do you rate according to how "good" the movie was, or how much you liked it? I know both of these metrics are completely subjective, but they're sometimes very distinct in my mind and make it difficult to decide on a rating.

For instance, The 400 Blows is a masterpiece of a film, but I never really "liked" it all that much. On the other hand, Predator is a pretty awful movie, but for some reason I have to watch it every time it's on TV because I really like it!

[Gregzilla]

Likeness is my main concern. Other qualities of a film MAY help the rating from dipping to low, But it woudn't get nearly as high a rating if I actually liked it.

[Anomaly]

I rate by how much I liked it. Something can be really well put together or historically significant but if I find it boring or lifeless then I'm not going to lie about what my opinion is. I've rated by greatness before on here (a few ratings I think are still like this, need to rewatch those films) and it's ultimately dishonest, as I see it.

[b4con]

I rate by how much I liked it. Something can be really well put together or historically significant but if I find it boring or lifeless then I'm not going to lie about what my opinion is. I've rated by greatness before on here (a few ratings I think are still like this, need to rewatch those films) and it's ultimately dishonest, as I see it.

Yep this is how it is to/for me too.

[Ranald]

Criticker is supposed to be for giving recommendations based on your own tastes, so why would anyone rate a movie here on any scale other than how much they like it? A movie reviewer, in a newspaper say, may well adjust their ratings to compensate for their personal biases when it comes to genre etc, but with Criticker the personal biases are the whole point!

And that's why I gave The Room a tier 10 rating .

[MmzHrrdb]

(Okay, I'm gonna go on a bit because this topic's got me interested. Kudos to the OP...)

I suppose it depends on the philosophy the individual viewer brings with him/her when they watch movies. Personally, I think that I weigh "greatness" versus "likeness" at a fair rate when I judge films, though I guess I'm inclined more towards responding to a film's greatness that how much I "liked" it. Fact is, it's easy to like a film if you don't look hard enough for whatever may or may not be great about it. Banal films get mass approval this way all the time (and at least two or three per year are hailed as if they're nothing less than some of the greatest movies of all time).

I think it's useful to be able to compare and contrast movies that I see with other similar movies that have been seen and made before. It would be easy for me to say that I liked Toy Story 3 if I didn't concern myself with how it's basically a retread of the preceding two films (especially 2), or how it copped out when presenting itself with an opportunity to be distinct (I think most people know what deus ex machina moment I'm referring to here). There were moments in that movie that I really liked, and I could easily have bestowed a positive rating on it if I didn't weigh it up against its predecessors or those other films it referenced. But if I think about it I know that I much prefer the other Toy Stories, which are way more worthwhile and unique.
-
As a viewer, I look for movies that challenge me, that are inventively arranged and that say something about the human experience that I can identify with. The exciting thing is that there can be films like that across the board -- from Hollywood blockbusters to art movies to B-movies; from horror movies to comedies, etc. Filmmakers like Jean-Luc Godard, Steven Spielberg and Brian De Palma are three of my favorites precisely because they try and say something with the films they make, whether I agree with their specific messages/viewpoints or not -- and on top of that they know all the fundamentals of filmmaking. This is in contrast to a director like Ron Howard, who technically knows how to make movies but is at a loss to imbue them with any kind of useful meaning or soul.

Of course, sometimes my simple, most basic enjoyment of a film can overwhelm whatever critical judgment I like to apply. A movie like Halloween H20 is completely redundant and yet I've seen it about a dozen times and maintain a positive slant on it. Yet while I know I probably won't watch something like Au hasard Balthazar that many times, I understand that it's a much much stronger work, and appreciate that it does something beyond merely titillating me. In any case, I'm not about to dismiss a film that I enjoy.

[Dorkovsky]

I rate by how much I liked it. Something can be really well put together or historically significant but if I find it boring or lifeless then I'm not going to lie about what my opinion is. I've rated by greatness before on here (a few ratings I think are still like this, need to rewatch those films) and it's ultimately dishonest, as I see it.

if this does NOT describe you, you are most likely pretentious and insufferable. Objectivity is inherently arrogant.

[MmzHrrdb]

I definitely rate by how I liked a movie. I really don't care what most other people think about a film, if I like it then that's that. Some movies that come to mind are Chris Farley movies (as I am a huge fan) and I have probably ranked Tommy Boy much much higher than the average rating. Everyone has those movies that, even though many would call poor, they love.

[SirStuckey]

I'd like to think that I rate movies solely on how much I like them, but I know my scores can be a bit skewed if the movie is considered a "classic." I don't convince myself to like movies that are classics, but I've probably rated movies higher that were considered classics.

That being said, there are classics I didn't like that I've rated low (or will rate low when I get around to rating them): 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Apocalypse Now and Braveheart to name a few.

[TonythePony]

Great topic.

I rate by how much I liked it. Something can be really well put together or historically significant but if I find it boring or lifeless then I'm not going to lie about what my opinion is. I've rated by greatness before on here (a few ratings I think are still like this, need to rewatch those films) and it's ultimately dishonest, as I see it.

This. There are quite a few films I need to rewatch, especially early classics I watched.

What frustrates me though is how some people dismiss or bully those who equivocate. "You either like it or you don't, it's simple!" or "Enjoyment is the only factor to consider". Well I call bullshit on that.

The Bicycle Thief is a perfect example. I doubt many people finished watching that and thought "Wow, I really enjoyed that, I can't wait to see that again." Something as harrowing as Night and Fog clearly doesn't fit neatly on a smiley thumbs up/ frowny thumbs down scale.

I like films that fuck with my head, but I don't like being confused for confused sake. I like movies that are so truthful and honest that they are depressing, but I don't like being depressed. I like some films that depict graphic violence and torture, but the idea of someone being tortured sickens me.

A film that can trigger strong emotions of ANY kind is clearly worthy of deeper consideration. That includes those that anger, disgust, depress or confound.

Sure, sometimes it is a simple binary switch to flick, but if I choose something challenging to watch it's almost never as simple as "like" or "enjoy" when it comes time for a rating.

I guess what I'm saying is the idea of rating based on "like" is simple, the execution is not.