I've had a long yet sporadic conversation with a fellow movie geek about rating movies - specifically, in giving something a top score (10 out of 10, 5 out of 5, or where The Matinee is concerned, 4 out of 4).
While I believe that most other scores can't be taken at a glance, a top mark is a pretty clear declaration that the film achieved something extraordinary...be it scary, funny, or moving. But is that top mark lessened if its given out too often?
Scanning the reviews I've written since starting this blog, I see that I've given 168 films the full treatment, and that 30 of them nabbed 4 star reviews. That's close to 18%. Remembering that the sample isn't an exact science (since I'm choosing what i want to see, and deliberately skipping titles I think would waste my time) that means that two of every ten movies I watch theatrically rock my world.
Does this mean I'm being too generous? Does it lessen such a high score by giving it out so often?? Perhaps. Looking over the list, there are certainly one or two that I could potentially demote upon further reflection. But how many of those would be offset by elevating a 3.5/4 film to the top of the class after I've had a chance to soak it in?
Of course, the four I'd give THIE GODFATHER and the four I gave INCEPTION aren't equal in the long run. Furthermore, the score I give a film doesn't matter a lick, except to me and to those of you who keep track of such things. But I believe that for those of us who keep score, it's worth looking at how hard a marker, or how lax we tend to be.
Sure every film is different, and in the grand scheme sometimes one can go a wickedly long stretch without any of these touchstone films to rave about...but I think it says more about the critic when they can't hand out a top score with a certain degree of regularity.
What say you folks? How often do you give top marks? Any you'd like to go back and take away? think you're too tough on films and find you like them more in hindsight, or too lax...giving out gold stars like they're candy on Halloween?
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
You're The Best Around
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
27 comments:
I would like to apologize up front for the length of this comment :P.
My thoughts on perfect scores are well documented on you. That also goes with the fact that I believe it's not entirely fair to equate a 4/4 to a 10/10. Not just mathematically, but going on a 4 star basis, with half stars, you've got about 10 different ratings to offer. On a 10 scale with quarter ratings, I've got about 40. The different between my giving something an 8.00 and a 8.50 is minimalistic, almost inconsequential, to a four star system were both would be deemed the same (most likely). However to me those differences are important, chosen for a reason, and reflect how I feel about a film.
That being said, there's a lot to be said of people who give out perfect scores. People who give out a lot, 30-40%+, tend to be people who review a film entirely on its entertainment level. They're not bad reviewers I should point out. Rather that when push comes to shove the immediate rush of satisfaction following two hours of non-boredom is a more important factor than the later questioning of the film they're mind will attempt to do. I've noticed the movies I'm most likely to go back and demote are the ones I reviewed that night, or the following day. They didn't have the time to fester, as you put it.
When I allow a film to settle in my mind, as I most often do (usually about 2-3 days), the review tends to offer more foresight on my long term feelings about it. Of course it's never going to be exact, but to me that's paramount. I hate the feeling of going back, reading a review, and going #!@* why did I give that an 8 or a 7.
The score, just like you mentioned in your post, is mine to give. It demonstrates something about me. Most likely my lack of immediate 10's for newer films (or 9's for that matter), reflects that I'm not quick to love a movie. That I'm cautious when getting emotionally involved in a film, and that I reserve the entirety of my gratitude for something until I've had the time to appreciate it over long terms. Does that spill over into real life, probably. I'm a rather cautious, reserved, person.
Of course that doesn't mean I'm not without my tendencies towards absurd thoughts. So, now that all that emotional baggage has been presented, whose up for a pint and a game of chase the robot zebra?
@ Univarn... I meant to warn you, this post wasn't meant to call you out or anything...more to gauge what others think.
I will say though, that using quater stars when you are already on a scale of 1-10 seems like nitpicking. At the end of the day, what's the difference between a movie that rates a 6.5 and a movie that rates 6.75?
I get what you're saying about not being quick to love a film, but that's the sort of thing I prefer to sort out later. Even if I took two weeks to settle on a 4/4/, it might not crack my all-time top 50.
I actually had a little debate over whether to do away with scores. Over the course of my blog, I have given a top score (A+) only once. I also have been much less likely to give a A or A- (9/10) in the past few months. Overall, I would say about 80% of the scores are either B's or C's with a few D's and one F.
- This high concentration of B's and C's is actually somewhat of a problem because it makes it harder for people to know (from first glance) the true extent of how much I enjoyed a movie
- I agree with Univarn that a 4/4 doesn't always really equate with a 10/10. This is one of the main reason I show both a letter and number score
-
@ Castor... I know what you're saying about doing away with the scoring system in general - puts the emphasis on your written thoughts over the score. Good on ya if you do away with it altogether.
Gotta ask, what was the one that earned a 10?
And yes, a 4/4 does equal a 10/10. It's 100%. Think of it like a GPA:
4 = A
3.5 = B+
3 = B
2.5 = C
2 = D
1.5, 1, .5, 0 = Various degrees of F
You call it nitpicking, I'll call it honoring. The quarter scores appeal to me because I think it represents a more accurate gauge. It seems to me that in recent years we've been slowly decreasing the depth to which evaluate things. Minimizing them into clump groups. From 10's to 5's to 4's. Oh these films over here are part of the 4 star group, those over there are 3's. This has lead to the rise of bloggers and critics whose entire review summarizes in only two extremes, good or bad. Films that sit in the realm of mediocrity aren't allowed, it has to succumb to one of the two basic declarations - "OMG I loved it" or "OMG so boooooring." They forget that opinion is relative, even to the person who holds it. Not everybody loves or hates everything. We love some things, like others, moderately enjoy some, kind dislike those other few, and even have some we hate with passion.
As well it helps people who come to my site see something about my opinion on movies. If you took Social Network and The Kid's Are All Right (8.5 to the former, 8.25 to the latter), read both, and said they sound good you could look at the 8.5 and 8.25 and go "well, I'll see Social Network first." Doesn't mean anything really, but it tells you which one I apply more faith and appreciation in. So to simplify I found Social Network up and Kids down. SN's on a league of its own, so that remains. Now I've got Toy Story 3 at an 8, How to Train your Dragon rounded up at a 7.75 all rounding into the same score, but I don't think they're all equal. Then I have to tell people that. Not hard, but redundant, and leads to lots of those reviews (especially in responding to comments) where people spend time referencing other movies of the year that are similar in score, but not in opinion of the reviewer. If I give two films an 8 I want to say these two are on level playing field. Watch them as you will.
4 stars isn't bad, and I could go to it if I felt it honestly mattered (or if I was paid to write for a site that evaluated on those terms). At quarter scores I'm avoiding percentages, which I would consider nitpicky, where I complain at 97.65% is vastly superior to a 97.64%. The difference between an 8.50 and 8.25 isn't huge, but it's important. Well, too me at least.
in my prior comment found = round*
OK, I actually want to backtrack because I think you and I are getting off-message.
I didn't mean to write this about whether a scale of 10 is better than a scale of 4...I'm interested in if/why/how often we give a film top marks and why.
Sorry, just saw this going down a semantics road and that wasn't my intent.
I think I'm a little too sympathetic when it comes to rating a movie. But then again, I tend to watch movies critics rave about more than ones they would pan.
Mental note: see crappier movies.
@ Movienut... No - don't see crappier movies. Life is too short. Perhaps just raise the bar a bit if you know that everything you're seeing is a B or better.
@ Univarn... Let's go back to your comment for a sec. SOCIAL NETWORK. Interestingly, it didn't get a top score from me, but so far it's the best thing you've seen this year.
I think about that joke my parents would say when I brought hom an essay that scored 96%:
"What happened to the other 4%"
So where S-N is concerned as an example...what didn't it do for you that held it back evenm that little bit?
KK, Three things held Social Network back from perfection for me: 1) I felt the movie dragged towards the middle before it began getting into the real relationships issues of the finale.
2) The characterization of the supporting cast felt jumpy at times. A bit, oh I'm cool, now I'm crazy (especially with the Asian girlfriend of Saverin's).
3) The ending. I get that it's a bookmark piece to the film, but I spent the entire time going "that's not how they're going to end it, is it? really?" It wasn't a bad ending, just left me feeling a bit glum. I wanted a more visual closure to the law proceedings, not a text on screen description. However with time I overlooked it with Unbreakable so I probably will here as well.
I tend to be really picky towards new films and tend to over analyze scenes and films to the extent that my girlfriend won't let me express myself through body language or mutterings during a screening and when we discuss it afterwards she feels that I ruin the experience for her when hacking a film she liked.
With that in mind I try not to think in grades at all.
The last new film that I reall liked and would have given a full score for is Toy Story 3.
I discovered the US grades with stars, halfstars etc. When living in Kansas. In Sweden the general grade is through 1 to 5 (sometimes they have a bomb marker less than 1 to signal if its really bad).
I'm with Univarn when it comes to Social Network. But I would have gone a lot lower if I would have graded it.
http://www.joelburman.com/2010/11/the-social-network-what-am-i-missing/
Have this debate all the time with Kurt - who won't score anything at all. Period. I like scores since they give a reader a quick idea of what I thought of a film and the fact that it's so damn easy for me. Star ratings (for which I use a scale of 5) are snap, gut reaction judgement and they are almost always right (for me) and even hold up after time (again, for me). I think I've publicly said many times that my star rating for Transformers is pretty wrong, but I stand by everything I actually wrote in my review - so sometimes I get it wrong if I'm excited or duped by smoke and mirrors. I think King Kong is another example. But for the most part my star ratings are right on with how I felt about the movie.
However, a 5-star film only seems to come along once or twice a year for me. It has to be flawless in appearance, execution, acting, storytelling, dialogue and to give it the five star perfect score it must gut punch me in some way - I wanna feel and feel hard! (Atonement, Toy Story 3, Rescue Dawn - all absolutely flawless films that kicked me in the face with emotional awesome to boot).
To complicate matters, just because a film gets 5 stars doesn't necessarily mean it's #1 on my top ten of the year list - in fact I'm not sur Rescue Dawn would make my list at all (can't remember for sure). It hit me in every way I want a movie to, but that doesn't mean it was the most enjoyable or entertaining or that I want to watch it 100 times over in the future. Even Inglorious Basterds didn't get 5 from me, but was easily in my top 2 or 3 from last year. And that's a movie I saw three times in the theater and will watch right now if presented with the opportunity.
Also, I don't use a star rating to compare films. The rating system fits for that particular film in that time. Different criteria can be laid for different films. Giving the Hangover 3.5 stars does not mean it's a worse movie necessarily than something like The Expendables (to which I gave four stars). Two different movies, two different sets of criteria. I also gave Centurion 4 stars and I like that movie WAY more than The Expendables. So it's tough but again, it's all gut level reactions.
As to the guy with a ten star rating, that's ridiculous (no offense). I essentially have a ten star rating as well without half stars. In other words, with 3.5 = 7, 4.5 = 9 etc. So if you have a ten star rating system, that's fine, but how can you narrow that down to 7.5? So now you have a 20 point scale. And then quarter stars? C'mon, now you have 40 point scale? Insanity. I agree with Hatter that at that point you're nitpicking and the only way to make it ke it "correct" is to go through every little detail in the movie and assign it a rating. You could argue it's a gut level reaction as well, but how in the hell can you honestly differentiate between a 9.25 and a 9.5? Why isn't it 9.42? The level of differentiation at some point has got to run out.
5 stars is a perfect system for me. To continue (sorry)...
I hate the 4 star system. I can't do it for some reason. In the 5 star system there is a negligible, but still fairly tangible difference between 3.5 and 4. Likewise with 4 and 4.5 (anything 2 and under is generally shit no matter the score). To me with a 4 point scale, it's just too much of a leap between 3 and 3.5. Take Centurion for example. I gave it a 4/5 and stick by that. How does that implement into a 4 pt. scale? 3.2? Again, ridiculous. Five is a nice round number with wiggle room for half stars.
@ Univarn... Dragging in the middle, I can see that...and that alone might be enough to bring it down that little bit.
As for wacky bit characters and title card ending, I think those are a bit more nitpicky...but they're likewise a moot point given your previous statement to a saggy middle.
At the same time, I have to wonder if you're giving your top mark for excellence or perfection? Thoughts??
@ Joel... Y'know, i notice during the odd time when I'm taking notes at a movie, that picking it apart as I go along can sometimes take away from my experience of it as a whole. You ever find that?
One movie all year huh? Well, I can't argue with that since I gave that same movie top marks.
(PS - I'll read that post in a bit)
@ Andrew... Damn - epic comment dude! You and I seem to be on the same wavelength, even if I give out a few more 4/5/10's than you do.
For me, the films that get those marks are the ones that rock me...the ones that make me wanna get right back into line and see 'em again. While a lot of the movies I see in a year might be pretty darned good...only a few get to that plateau.
Likewise agree that not all ratings are created equal. Ata a glance I gave both DUE DATE and THE GIRL WHO PLAYED WITH FIRE 3's in the last few months. 'Course the latter is better by a healthy margain since we're really comparing apples and oranges.
Good point though on *when* we see something...just in terms of what we've already seen, the hype surrounding a movie, our outlook on life when we see it, and a film's innovation...timing can be everything. Well said.
(PS - Ignoring your point on 10's vs. 4's vs. 5's. As I mentioned to Univarn, that wasn't really what I was trying to get into with this post)
Hatter: I totally recognize that feeling. My background is that I have studied film history and dramaturgy in both Sweden and USA and I have always had a clear mind of what I think work. Now I work in the business aswell so it has helped me get further in this obsession.
Finally, to answer your question. Yes it takes from the moviegoing experience, I very rarely feel totally into a film and simply enjoy it to the fullest. Toy Story 3 was such a film.
However, I can go to the oppsotie route also and start to think of how perfect the construction is and admire it (All the presidents men).
@ Mad: The movie in question was LA Confidential
Out of 324 reviews, I've given 64 5/5 (20%).
Normally, I give my top rating when I can sum up the movie in one word: AWESOME.
What have I found awesome this year? Inception, Scott Pilgrim, The Social Network and HP7:I. For me, all of these movies grabbed me in my theater seat and refused to let go. They are all movies I wanted to own as soon as the end credits rolled.
It's not scientific by any means, but that's how I decide.
@ Joel... I think that should be a homework assignment for you - the next film you watch, shut off the analytical part of your brain and just allow yourself to fall into it.
@ Castor... Can't argue with giving top marks to L.A. It's one of the all-time best for me!
@ Rachel... Looks like you and I come at this while thing the same way. Same reaction ("Wanna watch it again!!!") and even a similar ratio.
Great minds and all that...
@Mad http://univarn.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-we-review-look-at-my-reviewing.html
I wrote that over a year ago, probably before you started reading my blog to any length. It doesn't answer your question, but it says everything I really have to say about the issue at hand.
@ Univarn... Thanks for the link, I'll give it a look-see.
Admittedly most of the reviews I write are for music not films. I've never given a film I've reviewed a perfect score and I believe I've only ever given 1 CD a perfect score (Steve Hackett's Out of the Tunnel's Mouth).
I tend to find books and movies a bit more difficult to write reviews for as there's that fine line of how much of the book or movie does one give away without taking away that enjoyment from other viewers/readers? I think what has soured me from writing more movie reviews is that I've read a few very poorly written movie reviews... ones that didn't have spoiler warnings and in turn gave away the endings the movies I'd planned to see. I think one of the most egregious was The Sixth Sense... the review I read before seeing the film didn't say what the surprise ending was, merely that there was one. Finding out there was a surprise ending then seeing the previews again it wasn't that difficult for me to put 2 and 2 together to discern what that "surprise ending" was.
As such a movie has to either be really good or really bad for it to inspire me to write a review on it. It needs to elicit some tangible emotional response in me. And usually it's the latter as I find it far more fun to write bad reviews (For example, I tore Woody Allen's Match Point to shreds when I reviewed it.)
I run into the same problem with my ratings. I tend to rate higher because I see what I want to see. I switched from doing star ratings to doing letter grades to give myself a few more options. Looking back at my reviews, I've only given "A+" about 5 times.
I think that rating higher is actually better than rating in the middle. (Something I've been a little bit guilty of lately) You can recommend a C, and also not recommend it. It gets confusing.
At least I've only flat out failed something once!
I've always felt queasy about putting a score up on my reviews. I rate movies with Netflix, etc., but I know my own behavior; I tend to look at the score first. Sometimes I then choose to not read the whole review.
So I guess you could say I'm irrationally projecting what I do on my readers... I want them to read what I have to say, so I don't rate.
That could absolutely change on a whim though.
@ Perplexio... Not to get off on a tangetnt, but a lack of 'perfect score' music reviews perplexes me too.
Looking back though rock writing, there are a lot of instances where critics hear something new and short-change it...only for the passing of time to prove it as a classic.
Case in point? Lester bangs panned The Stones' Exile on Main Street.
Thoughts?
@ Britni... Curious to know what your five A+ movies were.
Perhaps if you know that what you see comes with the precursor of you already wanting to see it, keeping the bar high isn't such a bad thing? You're not working for a publication forcing you to see D movies like SCARY MOVIE, so saying that a film which is still "okay" rates a D because it didn't deliver might be a course worth taking.
@ nayana... (Hey stranger!!) Totally get what you're saying, but that's a bit of a different conversation. I too have films that are "weak 3's"...or "strong 3.5's"...and trust my reader to look at what I'm saying at put more stock into my reaction than into the score.
But I vote you rate...for whatever my vote is worth.
I feel kinda left out the fact that I don't give ratings when I review movies. I guess I just find it too hard to 'quantify' how I feel about a given movie... and whether or not a movie is 'good' has to do with a lot of personal factors too, I think. I may like a movie more despite say, lack of coherence for example, if I feel a personal connection to a subject matter or what have you. I guess I'm never going to be a proper movie critic... not that I'm aiming to be one anyway :)
@ Ruth... It can be good for reference later...flipping back a few pages and seeing which films really grabbed you by the collar and made you pay attention.
I vote you institue some sort of a rating/tagging system with your (very eloquently writen) reviews.
Eloquent? WOOF... that's huge coming from you dear Hatter... thank you for the kind words. Reviews are so challenging to write for me.
As for the rating thing, I'll keep that in mind... I probably go with a 1-5 star rating, which gives me an excuse to create a pretty graphical treatment for it :D Thanks for the encouragement.
Post a Comment