How do YOU Rate Movies?

[Willets Point]

I thought it would be helpful to spin this off from the Crash thread. Everyone has different criteria for rating movies -- which is quite fine by me -- and I figured it would be helpful if people explained their methodology.

Me, I use three stars as the baseline. Three stars means that I found the movie entertaining from beginning to end. Well, entertaining may not always be the right word -- you may want to substitute gripping for a drama or informative for a documentary -- but regardless of adjectives it's a good movie.

Moving up one notch, four stars means a particularly good film that is well-written, features excellent acting performances, and is well-directed and produced. This is a movie I'm going to want to see again.

At five stars are my all-time favorites. I should add that as far as historical evaluation goes it's in comparison to movies I've seen and liked not to every movie ever made. So films like "Donnie Darko" and "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" are going to get five stars because they're MY all-time favorites not because they are objectively the greatest films of all time.

Moving in the other direction, two stars is a bad movie that has some redeeming quality - perhaps a dumb comedy with quotable one-liners or a drama where one actor puts in a memorable performance.

One star films have only one redeeming feature in that I was able to watch the movie end to end without leaving the theater or turning off the TV.

I also reserve the right to award zero stars for something that is unwatchable. Half-stars grant a little nuance in between these rankings. I tend to be highly-selective in the movies I go see so I tend to award a lot in the three to four star range since I just don't go see the movies that would get lower ratings.

So that's me, how about you?

[Elster88]

The posts in the Crash thread are great. Maybe a friendly neighborhood mod could throw them in here?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I also consider a movie within its genre.

I think Vic had said something like, "How can you give The Incredibles five stars? What then, do you give Citizen Kane?"

Me, I think the The Incredibles was as good as it could be. It wasn't trying to be Citizen Kane. It had no chance of being Citizen Kane.

I don't see any contradiction in giving The Incredibles five stars while acknowledging that it's not the equal of the best movies ever made.

[Willets Point]

Elster88 wrote: The posts in the Crash thread are great. Maybe a friendly neighborhood mod could throw them in here?

That wouldn't be me, I'm a rocker.

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

I thought you were a mocker.

[Willets Point]

That too.

Here's the discussion from the Crash thread (sorry I can't make it prettier):


ON EDIT: Elster made it prettier. I suck.

[Guest sharpie]

For the most part, I agree with Willets, and Vic in the other thread. I grew up with the four star system and when the galaxy formed a fifth star I thought it a good thing, to distinguish the very good from the great. Also distinguishes the movie that doesn't reach as far as from one that does.

The Incredibles could get the five star nod, but for me a four star movie is a really, really good movie and fives are the kind of movies that make all-time great lists, personal or otherwise. I think I gave The Incredibles three or three-and-a-half stars (if that was available), a fine movie but I don't feel the need to see it again (and this is a movie that resides in my household as someone gave the DVD to my son as a present). I'd see it again on an airplane or if someone else wanted to see it, but if I never see it again, then fine.

[Elster88]

Some simple formatting, along with deletion of post designation, subject line, and sig lines:

Here's the discussion from the Crash thread

Elster88
Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:35 pm

Best movie of the year means five stars to me. Vic called it the best movie of the year and RealityChuck called it the best Hollywood film in years, and one of them gave it 4.

I remember someone saying they only give 5 stars for one of the best movies of all time.

Not that either way is better or worse.

Or maybe we don't need a single system. This is a baseball forum.

sharpie
Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:08 pm

A movie could be the best movie of a particular year and still not be an all-time great.

Elster88
Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:49 pm

I realize.






But when it is worth five stars? Hmmmmmmmmmm?






You see where I'm going with this?

Willets Point
Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:12 pm

It's worth five stars when it's FUCKING GREAT and we want to give it FIVE FUCKING STARS! Fuck yeah!

sharpie
Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:52 am

I'm on record somewhere else on this thread about this, but 5 stars means an all-time classic. CRASH was a fine movie, but not a 5 star candidate, IMO. Citizen Kane, Rules of the Game, The Bicycle Thief, Lawrence of Arabia, Raging Bull, Casablanca etc. need their own spot free from merely very good films like Crash.

Edgy DC
Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:21 am

Yes, but many of those movies become all-time classics only with the passage of time and the perspective it lends. If one is to do this thing, he or she has to make snap judgements on films that have been recently been released, without the benefit of time, and the perspective it lends, to say nothing of the years of exposure to the winds of critical consensus (and the erosion of original thought that they lend).

And if that means you risk over-reacting to a film you saw last night, and you're afraid you'll wake up years from now to find you gave a perfect or near perfect rating to the equivalent of Rocky III, too bad. A life well lived is a life of risk.

Elster88
Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:25 am

I have no desire to ever see Citizen Kane, despite the fact that its cinematography was out of this world when it was first released.

sharpie
Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:48 am
Why, Elster? Hearst partisan, are you?

Vic Sage
Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:54 am

Quote:
Yes, but many of those movies become all-time classics only with the passage of time and the perspective it lends. If one is to do this thing, he or she has to make snap judgements on films that have been recently been released, without the benefit of time, and the perspective it lends, to say nothing of the years of exposure to the winds of critical consensus (and the erosion of original thought that they lend).

And if that means you risk over-reacting to a film you saw last night, and you're afraid you'll wake up years from now to find you gave a perfect or near perfect rating to the equivalent of Rocky III, too bad. A life well lived is a life of risk.


i could not agree less.
i mean, i suppose i could, but its highly unlikely.

Edgy and I have discussed this before, without satisfying conclusion.

Time, context, perspective... according to Edgy, these lead to an understanding that "erodes original thought"? How about the notion that new information builds on the past to lead to a greater understanding of a subject, not an "erosion" of it?

As for this rating procedure, all we have to do "to do this thing" is either rate a movie we've just seen on a purely SUBJECTIVE basis (e.g., "this is one of my favorite films ever! 5 stars!") or attempt to rate it on a more objective basis (e.g., "while i only saw this film yesterday, i realize that it exists in the context of the entire history of film to date, so while i really enjoyed it, upon reflection i can see that its not quite in "Casablanca" territory, so I'll give it 4 stars instead of 5.")

The point Elster made is that people are using both bases to rate it, so the result is confusing. Personally, i think you should "do this thing" using whatever criteria you want. Its not a scholarly treatise, its a way of giving consumer information to our fellow CPFers about movies we've seen.

That being said, I think "over-reacting" to a film you saw last night is a much more SIGNIFICANT danger to a real understanding and valid evaluation of a movie than viewing it in historical context. If a viewer is rating it without putting it in historical context, then his/her rating is simply a reflection of whatever he/she liked last night... which itself can be a reflection of mood, energy, level of distraction and whatever was eaten for dinner. And why would i care about that? It is the logical fallacy of the new.

Contrary to edgy's assertion, "historical context" doesn't mean bending to the will of scholarly consensus. If you've seen CITIZEN KANE and don't like it, fine. that's an expression of preference and needs no further justification. But if you don't think it's a "good movie", that's an objective evaluation, and that's fine, too, but the burden of supporting that assertion is on you, because, for the last half century, people who study film for a living have come to a consensus that its the best movie of all time. That doesn't mean that you couldn't make a compelling argument for it NOT to be deserving of such accolades. (wow, a triple negative!). In fact, many an interesting discussion can be had on that subject, which does not ERODE our understanding of KANE... it augments it. But, like anything else, the more you KNOW about something, the more pursuasive your arguments are likely to be.

As for me, when rating films here, my subjective evaluation is informed by my objective understanding of the historical context of the film being rated. You might be rating films as a pure expression of personal preference, regardless of context. If enough people respond, then whatever bases they use, the aggregate numbers should reflect a "consensus" (it rears its evil head once more!) of opinion that others on the CPF might find useful.

but be aware that the more 5 star ratings you hand out, the less meaningful they are. This is why a great review by Jeffrey Lyons is entirely meaningless.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Time, context, perspective... according to Edgy, these lead to an understanding that "erodes original thought"?

That's really not what I said.

[Vic Sage]

For context, here are some of my personal 5* movies (in alphabetical order):

7 Samurai
12 Angry Men
Adventures of Robin Hood
All that Jazz
Annie Hall
Apocalypse Now
Atlantic City
Beauty and the Beast (French)
Ben-Hur
Bicycle Thief
Blade Runner
Casablanca
Chinatown
Clockwork Orange, A
Double Indemnity
Dr. Strangelove
Duck Soup
ET
Empire Strikes Back
Gallipoli
Ghost & Mrs. Muir
Godfather II
Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Great Escape
It’s a Gift
It’s a Wonderful Life
Jason & the Argonauts
Jaws
King Kong
La Strada
Lawrence of Arabia
Mad Max 2: Road Warrior
Magnificent 7
Maltese Falcon
Man who Would be King
Modern Times
Night of the Living Dead
Psycho
Producers (original!)
Pulp Fiction
Quiet Man
Raging Bull
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Rear Window
Rules of the Game
Searchers
Shane
Singin in the Rain
Some Like it Hot
Stairway to Heaven
Sullivan’s Travels
Sunset Boulevard
Sweet Smell of Success
Thief of Baghdad
Third Man
Unforgiven
Wild Bunch
Wizard of Oz

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm glad you're in the Duck Soup camp, and not hanging with the A Night at the Opera crowd.

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

Hail Fredonia!

[Guest sharpie]

Every five star movie I mentioned save Citizen Kane ended up on Sage's list.

Last week my 13-year-old son and I watched Chinatown one night and The Maltese Falcon a couple of nights later. I'd never thought of them together but it felt like Chinatown couldn't really exist without the earlier picture. While my son liked Chinatown he liked Maltese Falcon much better. They both rock in my estimation.

[RealityChuck]

I rate movies on a scale of 1-10. It's a combination of the quality of the film and its emotional power.

I do tend to rate on the upper end of the scale, but that's because I avoid any films I think would be a 5 or below.

[Guest Impulse2]

I just rate according to how much I liked it. I consider a film entertaining if it makes me laugh or cry, or if it scares me, or somehow affects me. I don't have any real criteria, I just know what I like and how much I liked it.