How do you decide on the rating of films?

[MmzHrrdb]

1. No. It depends on the conditions under which the painter had to work to produce the painting.
2. My answer will always be the same. They are equally great, yes, in that they are equally as enjoyable; but as I said, I believe a great low-budget film is making more of an achievement than a great high-budget film. As ridiculous as that sounds.

1. I guess I'll have to respectfully disagree.
2. So do you rate the low-budget film higher because of this? Or not?

1. :]
2. If I enjoy both the low-budget film and the massive-budgeted film on exactly the same level as each other, then yes, I'll always naturally side with the low-budget film by a fraction because of the aforementioned reasons. But yes, I only ever do this when I feel there's a tie of preference on the films. If I prefer the film with a skyrocketing budget more, then there's absolutely no question which movie I'm going to consider is better - that one.

[MmzHrrdb]

1. No. It depends on the conditions under which the painter had to work to produce the painting.
2. My answer will always be the same. They are equally great, yes, in that they are equally as enjoyable; but as I said, I believe a great low-budget film is making more of an achievement than a great high-budget film. As ridiculous as that sounds.

1. I guess I'll have to respectfully disagree.
2. So do you rate the low-budget film higher because of this? Or not?

1. :]
2. If I enjoy both the low-budget film and the massive-budgeted film on exactly the same level as each other, then yes, I'll always naturally side with the low-budget film by a fraction because of the aforementioned reasons. But yes, I only ever do this when I feel there's a tie of preference on the films. If I prefer the film with a skyrocketing budget more, then there's absolutely no question which movie I'm going to consider is better - that one.

I'm totally opposed to considering external factors when evaluating movies. After the filmmaker releases a movie for public viewing it becomes a self-contained artistic entity that should only be evaluated based on what is seen on the screen. Every person is free to interpret and appreciate the movie based on how their own background, psychological makeup, preferences, beliefs, ect. gels with the finished product. However, the viewer should not evaluate any movie based on a criteria that exists outside the finished product.

Sure, Francis Ford Coppola went through hell to make Apocalypse Now, but that does not make the movie in any way better than a movie that was less difficult to complete. Perhaps other filmmakers should be inspired by Coppola's dedication, but this has nothing to do with what each audience member personally experiences in a movie theatre. Also, it doesn't matter what a filmmaker claims that a movie is about. Sure, a director might say that the movie is a metaphor for capitalist greed and foot fetishism, but no person viewing it is required to interpret the movie that way. Like I said, once the movie is available for public viewing then it stands on its own.

[paulofilmo]

Sure, a director might say that the movie is a metaphor for capitalist greed and foot fetishism, but no person viewing it is required to interpret the movie that way. Like I said, once the movie is available for public viewing then it stands on its own.

I think that movie is more likely to be decadently splayed out on a Chez Lounge; gently caressing one leg with the other.

[MmzHrrdb]

Sure, a director might say that the movie is a metaphor for capitalist greed and foot fetishism, but no person viewing it is required to interpret the movie that way. Like I said, once the movie is available for public viewing then it stands on its own.

I think that movie is more likely to be decadently splayed out on a Chez Lounge; gently caressing one leg with the other.

Admirably abstract humor, but still, that image kind of turns me on. Makes me think of Haydee Politoff at the beach in La Collectionneuse.

[paulofilmo]

Admirably abstract humor, but still, that image kind of turns me on. Makes me think of Haydee Politoff at the beach in La Collectionneuse.

Oh, me too. Like. Totally.



/wishlists film

[MmzHrrdb]

Admirably abstract humor, but still, that image kind of turns me on. Makes me think of Haydee Politoff at the beach in La Collectionneuse.

Oh, me too. Like. Totally.



/wishlists film

While this is undeniably more appealing, http://www.vimeo.com/1829650, I will be offering the photo you submitted to lonely prison inmates with some pocket money to burn. Do you have more, perhaps, so I can put together a calender?

[AFlickering]

I'm totally opposed to considering external factors when evaluating movies. After the filmmaker releases a movie for public viewing it becomes a self-contained artistic entity that should only be evaluated based on what is seen on the screen. Every person is free to interpret and appreciate the movie based on how their own background, psychological makeup, preferences, beliefs, ect. gels with the finished product. However, the viewer should not evaluate any movie based on a criteria that exists outside the finished product.

Sure, Francis Ford Coppola went through hell to make Apocalypse Now, but that does not make the movie in any way better than a movie that was less difficult to complete. Perhaps other filmmakers should be inspired by Coppola's dedication, but this has nothing to do with what each audience member personally experiences in a movie theatre. Also, it doesn't matter what a filmmaker claims that a movie is about. Sure, a director might say that the movie is a metaphor for capitalist greed and foot fetishism, but no person viewing it is required to interpret the movie that way. Like I said, once the movie is available for public viewing then it stands on its own.

spot on

[maarten]

I use the entire 1-100 scale, so 50 to me is not a bad score; it's average. Anything 70 and above is something that I would recommend without any reservations.

Same here, but 70 -> 80.

I previously used a 0-10 scale for myself, each score having a separate meaning. I still use the score, but I use the 100-scale to make small differentiations between e.g. "just a 7" (66 or so) and "a good 7" (74). As you see, a 7/10 for me is anything that rounds to 7, so 65 - 74/100. The meanings are as follows:

0/10 = utterly disastrous
1/10 = terrible
2/10 = very bad
3/10 = bad
4/10 = not all that bad, but certainly not a "pass"
5/10 = OK. Just enough. With the %-scale, this also includes films that are "very close to being a pass, but just not quite so". But it's ok for this one time. (A bit like in our school system)
6/10 = decent
7/10 = good
8/10 = very good. Thoroughly enjoyed it, but there are some weaker spots.
9/10 = brilliant. The domain of the very few. (90 is the upper limit for most of the films, only an extremely limited part reaches the areas above).
10/10 = perfection. Almost impossible, but should always be the aim...

[MmzHrrdb]

Sure, Francis Ford Coppola went through hell to make Apocalypse Now, but that does not make the movie in any way better than a movie that was less difficult to complete.

Yes, but Apocalypse Now is already the greatest film ever made - it doesn't need any extra credit to put it above the rest of the pack.

I agree with what you're saying though. As for my own methods of judgment, it's really completely arbitrary. Two things I'll say: first, I don't do relative scales. I don't rate Dumb and Dumber compared to Stepbrothers and Tommy Boy, I rate it compared to all the movies I've seen - I extract a certain amount of enjoyment out of each film I watch, and assign it a number on an absolute scale that compares all movies directly. My system is far from perfect, and I'm constantly discovering rankings that are out of whack because of two movies where I have scored one higher than another movie that I know in my heart I prefer. But it is what I attempt to do.

And that actually leads me to my second point. I have this weird system of using certain movies as mental benchmarks that I compare a recent film I've seen to. For example, I recently saw Pather Panchali and thought it was fantastic. I was prepared to give it a score in the upper 90s; however, I had Network at 95, and I asked myself, "Do I like Pather Panchali more than Network?" The answer is no. So I put Pather at 95 instead of something higher. (I actually rescored Network to 97 just now, which makes this exercise sort of moot, but you get the point.)

As a total anal-retentive, I'm extremely picky about my rankings and they can drive me nuts sometimes. I recently rescaled all 900 movies I've seen on this site over the course of a few days because I was unhappy with how they were titled towards higher scores. I needed to flatten them out.

[MmzHrrdb]

Well, Criminal5, Apocalypse Now has brought joy to many hearts, I'm sure, but in my case the Raising Arizona/McCabe & Mrs Miller/Suspiria/Raiders of the Lost Ark combo is what gets the job done.

I basically have two major guidelines for rating movies:

#1 How much I like them
#2 The Bandidas Measuring Stick (Would I rather watch the movie more than Bandidas, which I gave a rating of 64? By using this method, I do not give undeservedly higher ratings to movies that do not entertain me more than Bandidas.)

I am still rearranging my ratings in order to better follow those guidelines, but most of my ratings are pretty close. Occasionally I do catch myself rating a movie higher based on certain aspects that I like rather than the overall entertainment value, but I'm getting better at telling the difference. Ultimately, the whole entermainment package is what I want to evaluate. So I gave Bandidas a 64, which means it's pretty entertaining but not a personally fulfilling movie. A personally fulfilling movie starts around 72 (by "personally fulfilling" I mean that the movie appeals more specifically to my personal tastes rather than just being generally entertaining.) While Bandidas does have things in it that I definitely enjoy, like hot women and gunplay, overall it doesn't "speak to me" as a viewer. The movie Who Are You, Polly Maggoo?, on the other hand, which I gave a 76, not only has things I like (hot women, visual flair, 60s style) but it also gives me that warm feeling of familiarity, as though it's reaching me on a more personal level.