On what basis do you rate films ?

Introduce yourself to the community or chat with other users about whatever is on your mind
IsaacM
Posts: 2
698 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed May 03, 2017 8:00 pm

Re: On what basis do you rate films ?

Post by IsaacM »

I watch films for these general and oversimplified reasons
1. better understanding myself/humanity/the world around me
2. Escape from regular life/entertainment
3. Appreciation for the technical skill/innovation

If a film does these things exceptionally well I'll give it a higher score. If it doesn't do so a lower score. Of course the issue of certain films (Spring Breakers, Inherent Vice) which strive to achieve an artistic goal rather than satisfy the above reasons make things a bit difficult. but in my limited experience in viewing film the aforementioned goals work well.

LEAVES
Posts: 28
1225 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:16 am

Re: On what basis do you rate films ?

Post by LEAVES »

On Ratings: Ratings are hilariously reductive and are useful only for recommending films to others, especially those of similar tastes. Since that is what this site is about, I'm OK with it.

On Art: One can look at the value of art in many contexts, but perhaps it's simplest to think of it in terms of scarcity. We are bombarded with art in our lives, with music, photography, film, architecture, sculpture, and drawing/painting available in unlimited supplies in almost every part of our lives. In this way, it is easy to forget the fundamental element of art, which is the simple act of unnatural creation - taking the world and twisting it to our own ends. Kids and adults have a difficult time appreciating many of the plastic arts these days, but imagine if you had never seen a painting before and were introduced to a Rembrandt - the experience must have been overwhelming. Or a Bosch, and terrifying. I try to orient my experience and appreciation of art with this in mind: Art is a fundamentally wondrous creation, an attempt at creating something that would never arise in the natural world. In a world without music, the worst pop song is a refreshingly enchanting encounter with rhythm. At worst, all art is merely something to be indifferent to, to me. Hatred, dislike... these things are the result of losing sight of the essential wonderment of art. I prefer to appreciate or to pass over without feeling and nothing less.

With that in mind, what makes one piece of art preferable to the other?

On Heirarchy: I could think of many ways of trying to order my preferences for art, but I prefer the mortality test: How much blood would I give to keep a piece of art in the world, with the knowledge that all the art that isn't sufficiently bled for will be destroyed. I can only give so much without dying, and I would certainly give some, so the only question remaining is the rationing. This scheme cuts through all pretense and all other forms of rationalization - facing my own mortality and the mortality of the art is so easy! And yet, this method may also lead to preferring art that works on many levels, such that it can be savored again and again in many phases of life and in many different contexts. Such is life.

But, then, to try to get into the nuances might be more difficult. In what ways does art impact me, and which of these ways are most important, and how much importance is laid on art that affects me in multiple ways strongly versus fewer ways more fiercely? I tend to prefer complicated, dense works of art, from densely layered books to wildly imaginative and complicated films to intricately orchestrated and developing soundscapes - and yet I also have a strong attraction to the simple and the pure in each domain as well. To those things in the middle, well: "In Danger and Dire Distress the Middle of the Road Leads to Death". I might describe the quality I most treasure to be "richness", but I couldn't describe it any better than the ramble I just put forth.

Of this "richness", though, I think the best way to test it would be with this aforementioned "mortality test". And so perhaps this is the answer: You should determine some way of allocating importance which aligns with what you appreciate most in art. Some people may dislike intellectual art, some may dislike complicated art, some may dislike serious art, some may dislike silly art, and there may be some way in which the pure, simple, unintellectual joys of a Transformers sequel tops all - and while my method may not make sense for that person, there could be another method. Perhaps: On my darkest day, when the weight of the world is eating away at me, what can lift me up most effectively without paralyzing me in a fog of conflicting thoughts and emotions? This would make no sense for me, but I'm not everyone.

Out of this, my hierarchical system makes sense to me, and people who have a lot of both fascinatingly complicated and wonderfully pure films, along with certain other assorted proclivities, are going to have a high statistical commonality, and the site will work and be useful. As long as you understand yourself, and are being true to yourself, the rest should fall in place.

It doesn't much matter that I think of my rating system as almost entirely appreciative, starting with "dismissive" and quickly rising to "supportive" before sailing higher and higher past "Exclamatory" and "Hyperbolic" all the way to "Beyond Words" where others might throw half of those films under "dislike" - the hierarchy eradicates all of these meaningless distinctions and all that is left is each of us holding up highest the biggest chunk of our still beating hearts, or at least that's how it works for those who think like me.

SpeedlimiT
Posts: 2
1529 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:11 am

Re: On what basis do you rate films ?

Post by SpeedlimiT »

No Matter how Awful is the movie, I Never Rate that until Finish That. but my rating system is an Excel file. Important Parameters Like Screenplay, Direction, Acting, Editing and ... included and each of them have a Weight. for example Screenplay has 5 and Costume Design has 1.Also for each Parameter i Give a Score Between 1-10 and Weighted Average of all Parameters shows my Score to a movie.

paulofilmo
Posts: 2586
2428 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:40 pm

Re: On what basis do you rate films ?

Post by paulofilmo »

LEAVES wrote:Some people may dislike intellectual art, some may dislike complicated art, some may dislike serious art, some may dislike silly art, and there may be some way in which the pure, simple, unintellectual joys of a Transformers sequel tops all - and while my method may not make sense for that person, there could be another method. Perhaps: On my darkest day, when the weight of the world is eating away at me, what can lift me up most effectively without paralyzing me in a fog of conflicting thoughts and emotions? This would make no sense for me, but I'm not everyone.


struggling a bit to parse this

mattorama12
Posts: 887
3086 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:05 am

Re: On what basis do you rate films ?

Post by mattorama12 »

movieboy wrote:
livelove wrote:I think it's hard to enjoy a film full of such misery as much as you would enjoy a good comedy.

If I purely had to rate the film on the basis of "how much did I like the film", I would rate it 6/10.


I find the opposite happening here. I see a lot of rom coms or coms here which will have a mini-review which says "This is hilarious", "very funny" etc & nut the person who wrote that mini-review would have ranked it to fall in their Tier 6. I think most people here rank light movies lower than they rank serious movies.

My ranking is totally based on how much I enjoyed the movie. I also add points if I enjoyed it as much the 2nd time. And some more if I enjoyed it the 3rd time. I think except for may be a couple of movies, all movies in my T10 are movies I have watched multiple times.


I rank films based on how much I "enjoyed the movie" as well. BUT, I don't just take into account enjoyment of the 90 minutes I spend watching a movie. I also take into account how the film lingers in my mind, which usually benefits deeper or heavier movies, but definitely not always.

For example, I ranked Spotlight a 77, or T9. On the other hand, I ranked The Night Before a 68, or T6. While I was watching them, I definitely enjoyed The Night Before more. I like comedies in general more than anything else, so that helps. But it was pretty forgettable and as I sit here right now, nothing really jumps out about the movie. On the other hand, Spotlight has many memorable scenes and I think of it often when I am thinking about issues of investigative journalism or child sexual abuse.

And while this sometimes benefits deeper or heavier movies, it's not always the case. Comedies that are tremendously quotable (The Big Lebowski) or make light of relevant social situations (Seinfeld) get a boost because they provide so much more than just the entertainment during their runtime.

paulofilmo
Posts: 2586
2428 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:40 pm

Re: On what basis do you rate films ?

Post by paulofilmo »

^ similar to leaves bloodletting mortality thing, i go by which would i have wiped from my memory (never to be seen again) if i had to

LEAVES
Posts: 28
1225 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:16 am

Re: On what basis do you rate films ?

Post by LEAVES »

paulofilmo wrote:
LEAVES wrote:Some people may dislike intellectual art, some may dislike complicated art, some may dislike serious art, some may dislike silly art, and there may be some way in which the pure, simple, unintellectual joys of a Transformers sequel tops all - and while my method may not make sense for that person, there could be another method. Perhaps: On my darkest day, when the weight of the world is eating away at me, what can lift me up most effectively without paralyzing me in a fog of conflicting thoughts and emotions? This would make no sense for me, but I'm not everyone.


struggling a bit to parse this
I guess the idea is similar to what others have said: Expanding into the nuances requires grappling with intrinsic preferences like the value of irreverent comedy vs heavy-handed social commentary. They each have a place in the greater world, but I would relate to the spirit of irreverence far more than a fiction-as-stern-lecture, and I can imagine a person like the poster above who finds heavy material to be inherently negative, thus meaning a film that is "rich" may also be "soul-crushing" and a Transformers sequel will in every instance be better. I can certainly empathize with the principle, although I might make some better recommendations.

hellboy76
Posts: 446
6339 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 1:53 am

Re: On what basis do you rate films ?

Post by hellboy76 »

Just out of curiosity, would you be drawn to or repelled by a site that you ranked relevant aspects of filmmaking (acting, directing, editing, cinematography etc.), along with an x factor (entertainment value?) that created a score for you based on the totals?

paulofilmo
Posts: 2586
2428 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:40 pm

Re: On what basis do you rate films ?

Post by paulofilmo »

that sounds fucking grim mate. me parting-out a film like tht is usually a bad sign

lately i've wanted something instead of genres - like tones or moods. watching lost in translation the other day, has given an appetite for nocturnal opium den films. i guess collections could do it, but it's so much clicking. sometimes it's 2am, i can't sleep it's hot and i just want to melt, unthinking.

LEAVES wrote:I can certainly empathize with the principle, although I might make some better recommendations.


? sorry, is this you providing someone with a better recommendation after they've told you they dislike heavy content?
it being 1:30 in the morning prolly isn't aiding my struggle

LEAVES
Posts: 28
1225 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:16 am

Re: On what basis do you rate films ?

Post by LEAVES »

hellboy76 wrote:Just out of curiosity, would you be drawn to or repelled by a site that you ranked relevant aspects of filmmaking (acting, directing, editing, cinematography etc.), along with an x factor (entertainment value?) that created a score for you based on the totals?
Repulsed to a degree I can't even begin to explain. As I said, I love films that stretch the gamut of all factors as well as films that are pure and have, let's say: no acting, long shot lengths and hence minimal editing, etc. Essentially, it would require me to place value on something that has no inherent value, only sufficient value, and it would also require me to weight elements equally across different films despite varying levels of importance of those elements across different films. It would go against everything I think is important in art, and in life.

So, like, maybe I wouldn't be that interested.

Post Reply