Movie reviews

[mcj metroid]

I really feel in the last while movie reviews have lost touch with what general filmgoers want. They're so unpredictable it's crazy.

 

The biggest contrast here is the recent Transformers: Dark of the Moon movie. ON rotten tomatoes it's at 33% from critics and 90% from audiences. I've learned from this site to go halfway between the audience and critic score, to get a good estimate of how much I would like a movie. But still I know it's early days for the movie yet, but it comes highly recommended from most people.

 

On the flip-side of things. A lot of REAL people HATED "No country for old men", I've yet to meet someone in person that didn't hate it. When I was working at the cinema, people actually asked for refunds. Surely this means that movie wasn't doing something right? So what's with all the perfect scores?

 

I know a focus shouldn't be placed on scores either.

How do you think movie reviews should be handled?

[ReZourceman]

I just....don't get critic reviews. What the fuck are they after? The thing is....popcorn movies like Transformers and Green Lantern.....why do critics even bother rating them....its....it doesn't provoke the mind, or have memorable performances etc so its not up their alley. I don't know. It just seems so unfair.

 

Like.....I don't know. I mean I can tell the difference between Thor and GL in terms of film quality, but critics just seem to;....be so unbelievably harsh to some things, and it does kill some films performance. They piss me off.

[The Bard]

A critic's response is supposed to inform the public opinion, not reflect it verbatim.

[ReZourceman]

Verbatim?

 

*Googles*

 

Ooooh. I'ma use that.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

...

 

Y'all know what I'm gonna say. :p

[Kurtle Squad]

Rotten Tomatoes' system isn't exactly brilliant:

A 50% and 10% give the same degree towards rotten as far as I'm aware.

 

 

I'm possibly going to start reviewing films soon, which I'll put on RTs. I feel I'm pretty firm but fair*; a lot of critics seem to either be over-critical or rather/complete fanboys: Something I noticed tonight is overcriticalness of the Bluth classics.

 

For now you can take a peek at the ratings for the films I've watched semi-recently and been bothered/remembered to rate if you like. There's not much there at the moment though. Actual reviews take a bit of effort, but I'll do one or two soon.

 

 

*There's a reason I never give 100%s

Edited July 1, 2011 by Kurtle Squad

[Retro_Link]

...

 

Y'all know what I'm gonna say. :p

[Paj!]

I should start reviewing films since I'm a film student and have lots to say on the matter that is true and is completely based in fact and could never be disputed.

 

I assign a shitty/meaningless star rating on my LISTOFEVERYMOVIEI'VESEEN but that's more like 'I loved.' as opposed to quality.

[EddieColeslaw]

This is like the thread about video game ratings/scores.

 

Anyway, I find it more interesting to read reviews of movies after I've watched them. Just in case I missed something, and to see what other people thought. I don't base my opinion of movies on someone else's opinion.

[Kurtle Squad]

This is like the thread about video game ratings/scores.

 

Anyway, I find it more interesting to read reviews of movies after I've watched them. Just in case I missed something, and to see what other people thought. I don't base my opinion of movies on someone else's opinion.

 

Nor should you, or anyone.

[Magnus]

*There's a reason I never give 100%s

If you never give any movie 100%, you're essentially just shifting the 'perfect score' to 90% and rating on a 1-9 scale. That seems unnecessarily complicated.

 

It might help to look at it as a 10 rather than 100%. Seems less... perfect that way.

[mcj metroid]

This is like the thread about video game ratings/scores.

 

Not exactly. Videogame reviews are for better or worse MUCH different to Movie reviews.

 

Movie reviews tend to treat movies as an art form. They hate cliched stories and are constantly looking for something we haven't seen before. Something fresh. There's more to it than that and someone else can probably go into what makes a good movie WAY better than I can.

 

Videogame reviews embrace gameplay innovations and lessons learned from the past from another developer and I don't just mean graphics and sound. Top reviewed titles like Uncharted have used techniques and gameplay innovations from previous titles to come together as an amazing package.

 

I also find videogame reviews embrace top-selling games a LOT more than movies embrace box-office smash movies..

Basically I think game reviews are closer to the public conscious than movie ones.

 

I have my issues with game reviews too, but for different reasons.

[EddieColeslaw]

Not exactly. Videogame reviews are for better or worse MUCH different to Movie reviews.

 

Sorry, didn't mean the reviews themselves, I mean the threads are similar in that people are disagreeing about the standards, fairness, and "technique" of rating things ("things" being games and movies) XD; But yeah, I agree with the rest of your post, especially:

 

Basically I think game reviews are closer to the public conscious than movie ones.

 

Because everyone has to interact with the controls and reach the goal (of the game, whatever it may be) in the same way, whereas what you thought of a movie depends solely on your own taste and how you process it in your mind. e.g. someone with different experiences to me may think of a movie differently, but that's not my fault, it's just life.

[Kurtle Squad]

If you never give any movie 100%, you're essentially just shifting the 'perfect score' to 90% and rating on a 1-9 scale. That seems unnecessarily complicated.

 

It might help to look at it as a 10 rather than 100%. Seems less... perfect that way.

 

It doesn't make 90% a perfect score, just a high one; I'm not shifting anything anywhere. Show me a perfect (or even near) film/game, and I'll give it 100%, or maybe a 99%.

If anything, it's people who give things 100% who're shifting the idea of great/brilliant onto perfect; or they're just easily pleased, like a child.

 

I still see 10 as giving a "perfect", primarily because 100% systems might aswell be reduced to 10 point systems in the first place (what on Earth's the point of giving 77 or 78?). I don't have anything against .5 (20 point) systems though.

 

I actually use a 7 level system myself (not that I've used it properly yet), mainly because I find a 5 star rating too restrictive.

I have to change how I use it on sites like Rotten Tomatoes and IGN however - obviously reducing range when sites use 5 stars.

[jayseven]

No, no, no, no, no.

 

Respected critics try to review things against a universal/classical meter. While it's nice to play Spot The Novelty, ultimately anything committed to film is committed to the history of mankind forever. Imagine if/when aliens arrive and go "hey lol. So we wanna catch up with your blox-cool art/culture. Please provide us a list of your 100 greatest movies!" .... then we present them with the 100 latest movies that people lolled at. It's not a fair reflection on our art/culture. It's a fair reflection on current trends and tastes, which will change.

 

Critics these days praise movies they think will be watchable in 10 years time. Critics strip naked and run through streets if they think a movie will still be watched in 50 years time. Movies that do well today... yeah they make money. But movies still rollin' in decades make legends, and end up setting the trends that any ol' regular movie adheres to.

 

There is a larger picture than "well I found it entertaining."

 

Video game reviews... meh. While games have become far less nerdy and secretive in the last 20 years, they're still a very novel form of entertainment and as such there's not really enough history behind it for there to be a fair parallel drawn to movies (and books! Plays! Music!). We may all laud pacman/space invaders/pong, and respect them (despite being shit compared to modern stuff) for the doors they opened to subsequent games, but there's not enough of a folio to truly be able to establish what's Good and Bad and Why. Ok maybe there is, but just not on the same level as there is with movies.

 

... Yeah was gonna write a paragraph about how both (all?) mediums have changed over the years and gaming is still in flux due to there being a new format at least once a decade (consoles) as opposed to trends in other medium being less flakey, and how that affects replay/rewatching of old stuff and thus makes it harder to truly test how good a piece of art is, then go into how 'art' arises from a medium, rather than art being the drive. But I cba.

 

Entertainment is the drive, the impetus for a medium to deliver. Art is born from this, but is the true goal for anyone who wishes to be more than a footnote in the history books (I'll refrain from an essay on how the entirity of modern human history will in itself be a mere footnote/quarkile monofuse disc in due course).

[Coolness Bears]

I like reading critics/reviews of people before or after the movie but I don't not watch a movie just because critics don't enjoy it or its universally panned. I see it as there opinion, I just enjoying reading what other people thought of the movie and then deciding whether I agree with them or not.

 

I'm pretty good at predicting what score a movie will get on IMDB. :p

 

Isla, Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes will be the best movie this year.

[Magnus]

It doesn't make 90% a perfect score, just a high one; I'm not shifting anything anywhere. Show me a perfect (or even near) film/game, and I'll give it 100%, or maybe a 99%.

If anything, it's people who give things 100% who're shifting the idea of great/brilliant onto perfect; or they're just easily pleased, like a child.

Yes, giving something 10/10 makes you as easily pleased as a child. Clearly.

 

The thing is, nothing can ever be perfect. If God himself came down from the heavens and made a romantic action-comedy starring Julia Roberts and Arnold Schwarzenegger as wise-cracking vampires, people would still find flaws in it. So you'll never give a film 100%. Ever. So the score may as well not even exist. If 90% is the highest attainable score, then that's essentially your 'perfect score'. Because there isn't a higher score.

 

10s should be reserved for the very best movies/games/whatever, but there's no point in making them unattainable.

 

I still see 10 as giving a "perfect", primarily because 100% systems might aswell be reduced to 10 point systems in the first place (what on Earth's the point of giving 77 or 78?). I don't have anything against .5 (20 point) systems though.

I agree that rating out of a hundred is stupid and needs to go away forever, but you just said that you'd give a perfect film 99% not two seconds ago, so...

[Kurtle Squad]

Yes, giving something 10/10 makes you as easily pleased as a child. Clearly.

 

The thing is, nothing can ever be perfect. If God himself came down from the heavens and made a romantic action-comedy starring Julia Roberts and Arnold Schwarzenegger as wise-cracking vampires, people would still find flaws in it. So you'll never give a film 100%. Ever. So the score may as well not even exist. If 90% is the highest attainable score, then that's essentially your 'perfect score'. Because there isn't a higher score.

 

10s should be reserved for the very best movies/games/whatever, but there's no point in making them unattainable.

 

 

I agree that rating out of a hundred is stupid and needs to go away forever, but you just said that you'd give a perfect film 99% not two seconds ago, so...

 

 

I'm sorry that Mathematics goes right over your head:

 

The thing is, nothing can ever be perfect.

So you'll never give a film 100%. Ever. So the score may as well not even exist.

 

It does exist. 100% exists 100%. End. It's not my place to warp it beyond meaning.

 

 

I would consider giving something a 10 despite 10 basically representing perfect; which is why I put perfect in quotes: There is such a thing as rounding up ; sorry if I didn't really explain that part and I was misleading.

Also, I never said I'd give a perfect film 99%, I was talking about a near perfect film.

 

P.S. Your Arnie film sounds crap, I expect it'd be a 4/10 at best; especially with that c*** Yaweh's track record.

[Magnus]

It does exist. 100% exists 100%. End. It's not my place to warp it beyond meaning.

It may as well not exist if you never use it.

 

If I make a game with ten levels, but the tenth level is completely inaccessible, the game still has ten levels. Ten. End.

 

If I judge a competition and hand out a special platinum prize to perfect performances but no one can ever get it because no performance is perfect, it still exists. The platinum prize still exists. End.

 

 

My whole issue was with you saying that you would never give a movie 100%, so if you're willing to do so, rate away. Though it seems a bit strange to say that 100% is reserved for perfect films and then say you'd be willing to give a film a perfect score even if it wasn't perfect. Round up from what? 99%? 98%? We both agreed that rating out of a hundred is stupid, so what - you'd be rounding up from 9?

 

There's always going to be a 'but' when you're reviewing something. "This movie was amazing/it was touching/it had a deep meaning/whatever... but... that one extra looked out of place/there was one scene that felt redundant/the lighting was off occasionally/whatever." If you're looking for reasons to give a nine, you're always going to find something that makes the movie not perfect. But when it's deserved (and it sometimes is), you shouldn't be afraid to give a movie a 10. Not all flaws are made equal. The whole notion that 10 means perfect needs to go away.

 

Otherwise, 9 is going to mean less because you give it to every great movie and 10 is going to mean even less because no movie can ever get it.

 

My movie idea is awesome, by the way.

 

Edit: I think my point is that either 10 means perfect, in which case no movie can ever get a 10, or it's just the highest score and you give it to movies that deserve it. I think the latter is preferable.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Magnus

[Daft]

Who cares what other people think?

 

If you like a film, good for you. You shouldn't have to defend your enjoyment of it. That doesn't mean the same film is flawless or free of criticism.

[Kurtle Squad]

It may as well not exist if you never use it.

 

If I make a game with ten levels, but the tenth level is completely inaccessible, the game still has ten levels. Ten. End.

 

If I judge a competition and hand out a special platinum prize to perfect performances but no one can ever get it because no performance is perfect, it still exists. The platinum prize still exists. End.

 

 

My whole issue was with you saying that you would never give a movie 100%, so if you're willing to do so, rate away. Though it seems a bit strange to say that 100% is reserved for perfect films and then say you'd be willing to give a film a perfect score even if it wasn't perfect. Round up from what? 99%? 98%? We both agreed that rating out of a hundred is stupid, so what - you'd be rounding up from 9?

 

There's always going to be a 'but' when you're reviewing something. "This movie was amazing/it was touching/it had a deep meaning/whatever... but... that one extra looked out of place/there was one scene that felt redundant/the lighting was off occasionally/whatever." If you're looking for reasons to give a nine, you're always going to find something that makes the movie not perfect. But when it's deserved (and it sometimes is), you shouldn't be afraid to give a movie a 10. Not all flaws are made equal. The whole notion that 10 means perfect needs to go away.

 

Otherwise, 9 is going to mean less because you give it to every great movie and 10 is going to mean even less because no movie can ever get it.

 

My movie idea is awesome, by the way.

 

You're putting too much thought into what I've said and are mis-cross-referencing my different opinions of different rating scales:

I'll try to be clearer:):

 

A 10 would be rounded up from something I believed deserved more than 9.5: A near perfect film.

I don't believe any film I've seen even nears an 100%/10 anyway.

 

I'm not going to give 100% to a film/game which doesn't deserve it just because it's difficult to reach: It makes a farce of 100%: like Obama getting a Nobel Peace Prize.

 

Sex is insanely more enjoyable than film, but I wouldn't give any of those experiences near 100% either.

[jayseven]

Then what's the point in 100%? I think that's part of the argument, but i dunno as I've skimmed the thread, so I'll moonwalk outta here!

[mcj metroid]

Who cares what other people think?

 

If you like a film, good for you. You shouldn't have to defend your enjoyment of it. That doesn't mean the same film is flawless or free of criticism.

 

but you have to admit the reason you're even on a games forum for example is to discuss games. Be it the good and bad points of it so therefore you DO care what other people think If you get me.

 

A review is offering an opinion, just like every single post on this forum. Fact is we like to discuss what we like and don't like about games, so it shouldn't be any different for movies. Course you should make up your OWN mind, but you'll always want to defend your favourite movies

 

Then what's the point in 100%? I think that's part of the argument, but i dunno as I've skimmed the thread, so I'll moonwalk outta here!

 

Well.... I never really wanted an argument on scores because that shit flat-out bores me. I meant how movies were reviewed really.

[Kurtle Squad]

Then what's the point in 100%? I think that's part of the argument, but i dunno as I've skimmed the thread, so I'll moonwalk outta here!

 

Because it's a number which exists.

It's there because 100% does exist, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a film or game etc which even near deserved it.

 

There's a reason all the chemical companies trying to destroy your immune system aren't allowed to utter "100%".

 

 

Percentage < I can't read most of that either

[Magnus]

Then what's the point in 100%? I think that's part of the argument, but i dunno as I've skimmed the thread, so I'll moonwalk outta here!

"Then what's the point in 100%?" was exactly my point, so I think you've got the gist of the discussion.

 

 

Kurtle, if you still haven't watched a movie that you think deserves a 10, then either you need to lower your standards for what constitutes a 10, or you need to watch better movies. I can think of a bunch of games (I'm not a big movie buff, so I'm not going to pretend to know a lot about movies) that I would give 10s if I reviewed them. Not a single one of them is perfect, of course, but I don't think that really matters.

 

And I say this as someone who's been accused on several occasions of being an overly negative reviewer. :p