Tits + Gore + Pretty Images doesn't equal excellence

[someguy]

So many times I've seen people handing out 8s, 9s and even 10s at movies that offered nothing but excuses to throw tits and blood at the screen. It's not that these movies are all bad, some of them are enjoyable but are they really deserving of a 10? There's absolutely no substance to these kinds of things. Are we living in some sort of retarded generation where all it takes is shiny bloody titties to make people freak out and consider what they're watching a masterpiece? I honestly believe that if The Spirit was rated R and was the exact same movie but with more tits/blood it would have been hailed as genius by plenty of people. So can someone explain to me why people consider this shit brilliance or even perfection?

[LordSimen]

If a movie delivers exactly what it set out to do, completely fulfills your personal expectations and gives you a good time at the movies- I see no reason why it doesn't deserve a 10/10.

[The Heart Collector]

That doesn't make any sense, LordSimen.

Have you ever considered that we can actually judge that which a film set out to achieve? Not how the film achieves it; what it tries to achieve as a general concept.

[The Heart Collector]

Let me explain that in another way.

If a film sets out to achieve something that isn't really a particularly interesting achievement, why should we give it a 10/10?

If a film achieves being funny and cute, why should I give it a 10? Shouldn't I reserve that 10 for a movie that achieves something harder to achieve?

The whole idea of rating a movie based on what it tries to achieve is some retarded bullshit. just because Roger Ebert says it doesn't lend it any validity whatsoever. The entire point of having a numerical scale is to place objects in it relative to each other.

If you were a professor grading an exam, would you use a curve just for some students?

[The Heart Collector]

hey look i am grading exams.


hey tony achieved excellence pretty well, let's give him 100.


hey mike achieved mediocrity pretty well. but hes black, so lets make that what he set out to achieve and give him a 100 too! fuck yase im roger ebert

[LordSimen]

I see what you're saying, but if you really get right down to it, a rating scale is nothing more than a personal scale set forth by the user. However he chooses to use it depends upon how he feels a movie should be reviewed. There are really no set rules for that.

Ultimately it's kind of pointless to put a scale on art or entertainment. They're both in the eye of the beholder. To say that your mediocrity is the same as mine, well, that would be false.

[Brendan M.]

Is this a rant against Crank 2?


If I had a really good time at a movie, I'll give it an 8,9, even a 10. Not every filmmaker wants to change your life or make you think and thank god for that. Some should just stick to balls to the wall action and horror and god bless them.

[Brendan M.]

hey look i am grading exams.


hey tony achieved excellence pretty well, let's give him 100.


hey mike achieved mediocrity pretty well. but hes black, so lets make that what he set out to achieve and give him a 100 too! fuck yase im roger ebert

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that example in any way relates to rating a movie.

[someguy]

Is this a rant against Crank 2?


If I had a really good time at a movie, I'll give it an 8,9, even a 10. Not every filmmaker wants to change your life or make you think and thank god for that. Some should just stick to balls to the wall action and horror and god bless them.

It's not a rant against Crank 2, I enjoyed Crank but I still wouldn't give it a stupid rating like 10 or 9 or something.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that example in any way relates to rating a movie.

What he says makes sense. A scale is, by definition, comparing items to each other. The scale for hotels is 5 stars (I think) so when you see a hotel rated 4 stars you say 'okay that one is better than the hotel that has 3 stars.' What you don't do is go to a 1 star hotel and say 'I wanted to fuck a hooker and feel like a piece of shit, this hotel gave me exactly what I wanted so it gets 5 stars!' That doesn't come off as right.

[Brendan M.]

Here is an example of three very completely different movies that I have given high ratings to.

Hard Boiled - One of my favorite action movies. The director set out to entertain me and he did very much so.

The Seventh Seal - A movie that made me think about life and my very own existence, continued to do so even more after I wrote a paper on it. That is what the director set out to do and he succeeded.

Kids - This movie disturbed me and left me feeling pretty angry. I'm pretty sure the director intended for that and I admire him for tackling that subject in such a way.

[Tweek]

Is this a rant against Crank 2?


Ooh-ho-ho, snap!



If I had a really good time at a movie, I'll give it an 8,9, even a 10. Not every filmmaker wants to change your life or make you think and thank god for that. Some should just stick to balls to the wall action and horror and god bless them.

I agree. I don't judge every movie on the same merits. There are also times where I could 'get' a movie, understand what the intention was and still not like it. Do I have to give it a 10/10 then?

I also agree a bit with what someguy is saying. As much as I tend to enjoy them, I'm not sure if there's a gorefest I'd think of as brilliant and worthy of a 10/10. I might have to do some thinking on that.

[Brendan M.]

What he says makes sense. A scale is, by definition, comparing items to each other. The scale for hotels is 5 stars (I think) so when you see a hotel rated 4 stars you say 'okay that one is better than the hotel that has 3 stars.' What you don't do is go to a 1 star hotel and say 'I wanted to fuck a hooker and feel like a piece of shit, this hotel gave me exactly what I wanted so it gets 5 stars!' That doesn't come off as right.

That example with the hotel makes more sense but I didn't understand the previous one with grading a kid's paper based on whether he was white or black. Wasn't sure at what he was getting at but that one little element throw me off big time.

[LordSimen]

Here is an example of three very completely different movies that I have given high ratings to.

Hard Boiled - One of my favorite action movies. The director set out to entertain me and he did very much so.

The Seventh Seal - A movie that made me think about life and my very own existence, continued to do so even more after I wrote a paper on it. That is what the director set out to do and he succeeded.

Kids - This movie disturbed me and left me feeling pretty angry. I'm pretty sure the director intended for that and I admire him for tackling that subject in such a way.

Here's why the whole idea of comparing movies falls apart. You can't compare Hard Boiled and the Seventh Seal using the same ratings system. They're completely different movies. They have completely different intentions, audiences and give different experiences. How the hell can anyone really say that one doesn't deserve a 10/10 simply because, the other has one? The Seventh Seal has nothing to do with Hard Boiled.

Thank you Brandon M. for giving such good examples.

[someguy]

A scale is all about comparison though, that is the exact purpose of a scale. If you give a movie like The Seventh Seal a 10 but give Crank 2 a 4 people will look at that and see that the first movie is seen as better than the other and therefore might be worth their time more (god help the person who has to decide between those two though). If you give both The Seventh Seal and, let's say, 300 a 10/10 people are gonna think what the hell.

[The Heart Collector]

If you want to give a 10 out of 10 to Hard Boiled, or any movie, then give serious and well-thought out reasons for why, instead of some wishy-washy relativist nonsense.

The whole "why can't I rate a movie that sets out to achieve something simple a high rating" reeks of "I don't want to come right out and say this movie is great".

[LordSimen]

A scale is all about comparison though, that is the exact purpose of a scale. If you give a movie like The Seventh Seal a 10 but give Crank 2 a 4 people will look at that and see that the first movie is seen as better than the other and therefore might be worth their time more (god help the person who has to decide between those two though). If you give both The Seventh Seal and, let's say, 300 a 10/10 people are gonna think what the hell.

Well those people look at scales much differently than I do. I give movies there own personal scales, based on themselves and themselves alone. What they promised, what they delivered, and what it appears they set out to do.

If all you do is set out to compare movies, there's no point to the scaling in the first place. Movies cannot be compared. There's no real way to compare 300 and The Seventh Seal other than to say "Well, I like this movie... But I don't like this one."

If you want to give a 10 out of 10 to Hard Boiled, or any movie, then give serious and well-thought out reasons for why, instead of some wishy-washy relativist nonsense.

Cause it's got some of the best action scenes some of I have seen put to screen, it's got an engaging story and has characters I enjoy watching.

That enough for you?

[Brendan M.]

The whole "why can't I rate a movie that sets out to achieve something simple a high rating" reeks of "I don't want to come right out and say this movie is great".

Cause this is the post-modern age we're living in. Some movies set out to do way too much and the overall film suffers because of it.

Think of it in terms of music. There are songs that are memorable just because they have a catchy melody and they work. Some musicians set out to make you dance, others set out to relax you.

[Brendan M.]

A scale is all about comparison though, that is the exact purpose of a scale. If you give a movie like The Seventh Seal a 10 but give Crank 2 a 4 people will look at that and see that the first movie is seen as better than the other and therefore might be worth their time more (god help the person who has to decide between those two though). If you give both The Seventh Seal and, let's say, 300 a 10/10 people are gonna think what the hell.

If I was making a top ten list of my favorite movies, I'd probably put The Seventh Seal first and 300 somewhere lower, but that is a completely different case.

If I thought 300 was an amazing time and it entertained me, then of course I'd think it would be worth the time of others.



I just realized some of these examples aren't great. I haven't seen any of the Crank movies so I can't speak on behalf of them, and I didn't enjoy 300 as much as some people so it would not be a 10/10 movie for me.

One of my favorite movies of all time though is The Evil Dead and is a personal 10/10 for me. I also love say a movie like Lawrence of Arabia, but the experience I got from Evil Dead was a bit more memorable. Since Lawrence set out to do more, I'm not going to give it a 10/10 and Evil Dead something like a 5/10 based on what you think is mediocrity.


Some people love Star Wars and its their favorite movie and I personally don't think its on the same level as say a movie like Citizen Kane or the Seventh Seal.

[A.J. Hakari]

This thread has me recalling one of Ebert's reviews, wherein he discussed his star rating scale. His reasoning was along the lines of LordSimen's, in how all films can't be rated in comparison to filmdom in general but compared to other films like them. What I believe his example was that if Superman is a **** movie, then Hellboy is a *** and The Punisher a **. When people look at his reaction for a movie like Hellboy, they shouldn't compare the rating against something radically different like You've Got Mail but by other superhero films and how well they did what they set out to do.

Makes sense to me. I do admit that you can prefer one movie to another; I gave The Reader and Jackass: The Movie the exact same rating, but I'd watch the latter again first any day. But they're still completely different films with completely different objectives and should be judged on separate scales, not stacked against one another.

[razgriz21]

So many times I've seen people handing out 8s, 9s and even 10s at movies that offered nothing but excuses to throw tits and blood at the screen. It's not that these movies are all bad, some of them are enjoyable but are they really deserving of a 10? There's absolutely no substance to these kinds of things. Are we living in some sort of retarded generation where all it takes is shiny bloody titties to make people freak out and consider what they're watching a masterpiece? I honestly believe that if The Spirit was rated R and was the exact same movie but with more tits/blood it would have been hailed as genius by plenty of people. So can someone explain to me why people consider this shit brilliance or even perfection?

Shock value and exploitation my friend.:)

There is a niche audience looking for that pleasure and I hope it makes a comeback.

[Smarmy Douche]

I don't believe that a complicated opinion can really rightly be represented numerically, so the number thing is useless to me. All it really comes down to is Do you recommend it or not? I've never understood why people do that. It's alright if you just do it to kind of sort films in your head depending on their attached numeric value of how much you like them, though that still seems strange, but, a lot of the time people don't even have any comments on the film, they just post "10", "6", "1". Why bother?

I'm just not big on attaching something like a number to things. If I were to delude my thoughts on a film to labels, it would be Exemplary, Exceeded Expectations, Enjoyable, Lacking, Poor, and Without Merit/Get me my rope.

[smok3h]

Sure it might not equal excellence, but it almost always equals a good time!

[drc5145]

If I was making a top ten list of my favorite movies, I'd probably put The Seventh Seal first and 300 somewhere lower, but that is a completely different case.

If I thought 300 was an amazing time and it entertained me, then of course I'd think it would be worth the time of others.

One of my favorite movies of all time though is The Evil Dead and is a personal 10/10 for me. I also love say a movie like Lawrence of Arabia, but the experience I got from Evil Dead was a bit more memorable. Since Lawrence set out to do more, I'm not going to give it a 10/10 and Evil Dead something like a 5/10 based on what you think is mediocrity.


Some people love Star Wars and its their favorite movie and I personally don't think its on the same level as say a movie like Citizen Kane or the Seventh Seal.

This pretty much echoes the way I grade my movies. We all have our ways of grading movies, but ultimately it comes down to how much you enjoyed a movie.

2 examples I can think of would be say, comapring The Departed and Goodfellas. I agree that Goodfellas is the superior film but The Departed gave me a different (and incredibly enjoyable) experience.

Maybe a better example would be comparing Ghostbusters and City of God. I would give BOTH 9/10s but I would say City of God is the better film, yet both provided me with a fantastic experience that I love time and time again. :) They have different intentions and both excelled at their objectives. I would not grade Ghostbusters a 6/10 based on someone else's film scale.

I highly doubt Roger Ebert would actually put all movies under the same one umbrella. Do you really think he thinks A History of Violence and A Bug's Life are on exactly equal planes? or 2001: A Space Odyssey and Across The Universe (both have 4 Stars)
I highly doubt that.

I think the tougher problem is grading by numbers. This would a little easier on a different scale. Maybe the example Smarmy provided would make it a bit clearer than by numbers.

[poopontheshoes7]

I dont think about it to much. If I love a movie. I love a movie. Doesnt matter what genre it is, how old it is, or what the critics say. If I was completely entertained and immersed in a film then it gets an 8, 9 or a 10.

Simple as that.

[Sad man]

This rant is stupid, IMO. We all have different tastes and we all grade movies according to our own personal thing. If someone wants to give WHITE CHICKS a 10 I don't see the problem. Art shouldn't be graded in the first place.

Pretty much everyone loved THE DARK KNIGHT and bitched about it not getting a Best Picture nomination, I thought the movie was really good but far from being a masterpiece and the best of the year. If I compare Batman to, I don't know, SOLARIS then THE DARK KNIGHT looks like a fool. They are different products, different movies aimed at different audiences. Why can't someone grade both with a 10/10? Just because a movie aims at a bigger, more complex subject matter it doesn't mean it's already superior to something that simply wants to entertain people.

[Shinigami]

10/10 ratings are lousy anyways because everybody tends to use 6 through 10 and that's it. Few movies are actually below competent, when 5/10 is apparently the universal border of competency. If you only watch theatrically released movies chances are it's going to be proficient enough to at least get a mediocre 5/10, which means 4 and below are reserved for...what? Home videos on youtube? That's probably where all this goofy 7.5 or 8.134 stuff comes from...

This rant seems like a thinly veiled gripe about people who don't take their ratings seriously. There are plenty of visitors on this website who get really excited when they come out of a movie, and go "10/10!!!!!!!", which translates to "I REALLY REALLY HAD FUN!" It's easy to spot those casual moviegoers, and easier still to separate them from the more serious fans. You know the knowledgeable post when you see it because it usually has a detailed or coherent writeup about its reasons why.

[fooknasty]

The bottom line is, a person's rating is all subjective anyway. For grading papers or reviewing a hotel, there is a list of criteria that HAS to be met in order to meet the standard. If you are a teacher you have a rubric that a student must meet and you can give a grade for each section (grammar, punctuation, theme, etc.)

There is no DEFINITIVE criteria that a movie must meet. A movie may make you feel a certain way (stirring up emotions), but you don't know why. Also, you have to consider that there are many different genres of movies, so all personal ratings are subjective from genre to genre (there is really no way to compare The Departed and The Descent).

I would love to have a sheet for each genre of movie that lists criteria that must be met but in the end it's unrealistic to disect every movie watched (unless it's your job). Often times, people rate movies based how much they enjoyed them and not how technically perfect they are. Movies create emotions for certain viewers (why Transformers can get the same rating as Psycho for some people).

[APzombie]

this rant is completely valid. So many people loved Watchmen because it simply unleashed a lot of tits blood and glitter. Seriously, the 8/10,9/10 and 10/10 reviews mostly only talk about these aspects.

[adamjohnson]

so far, I havent found any movie deserving of a 10/10.

[The Postmaster General]

A scale is all about comparison though, that is the exact purpose of a scale. If you give a movie like The Seventh Seal a 10 but give Crank 2 a 4 people will look at that and see that the first movie is seen as better than the other and therefore might be worth their time more (god help the person who has to decide between those two though). If you give both The Seventh Seal and, let's say, 300 a 10/10 people are gonna think what the hell.

Yeah, but you are leaving out the differences of comparisons between people. If someone gave Seventh Seal and 300 a 10/10, you are going to be like "What the hell?" but not about the movies, about the reviewer. (other people might think nothing of it.)

Going off what Smarmy says...

I don't believe that a complicated opinion can really rightly be represented numerically, so the number thing is useless to me.

Everyone is going to look at movies differently.

Between you and me, someguy, I might be more prone to rate children/family movies higher than you because I might watch a lot more than you, and have a bigger pool of films in which to compare. To you, Hotel for Dogs might be a 1/10, because the last family movie you saw was Wall-E, whereas having come off seeing Beverly Hills Chihuahua, I might give it a higher rating.

That's just one type of example pointing at the fallibility of getting hung up on anyone else's rating system, but to touch on what Tweek, Brendan and Simen have been saying - I think there is nothing wrong to gauge movies based on what their intent was.

If you give movies that are nothing but tits/gore/pretty images low ratings, then any movie that intends to be nothing more than that, you will probably give a low rating too.

In turn, if someone gives a movie like this a high rating, it should just give you an idea of what types of movie the person likes, not rock your perception of these movies or anything.

Ebert doesn't rate movies high that he hates. We all know his formula, and I'm pretty sure that Ebert likes all types of movies.

Personally, I generally I only use numeric ratings as a gauge of my willingness to invest time into the film, where 10/10 means a movie I will be willing to talk about endlessly, reference, rewatch, own on video, rewatch in the theaters... a 5/5 is a movie I'd probably watch on TV if there was nothing else to do, and a 1/10 is a movie I'd try to forget if not to deride.

It's just all so subjective to person-to-person and I think the ratings really depend more on the person rating than the movies. Trying to mandate, normalize or standardize this shit is pointless, much less getting all ranted up about it...

Still, a good 8/10 thread because it has achieved it's intent to generate discussion and I'd be willing to check back in with this thread.

[NathanRomano]

If a movie delivers exactly what it set out to do, completely fulfills your personal expectations and gives you a good time at the movies- I see no reason why it doesn't deserve a 10/10.

This does make sense. Take Hatchet for example. What that sets out to do is an homage to 80's style slasher movies. It accomplishes that.

7/10.

But then there's something like Frost/Nixon. It has a different goal, and also accomplishes it.

8/10.

Is that to say that these two as a film are nearly equal? No.

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

Well, I have done this-but I try not to. If a film is intended to be nothing more than tits and blood and succeeds in doing so, then I won't judge it on the same regard as a high-class film. I tend to go a lot easier on "fun flicks" than "serious movie-films."

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

This does make sense. Take Hatchet for example. What that sets out to do is an homage to 80's style slasher movies. It accomplishes that.

7/10.

But then there's something like Frost/Nixon. It has a different goal, and also accomplishes it.

8/10.

Is that to say that these two as a film are nearly equal? No.

I love your Avatar...again. :)

[poopontheshoes7]

this rant is completely valid. So many people loved Watchmen because it simply unleashed a lot of tits blood and glitter. Seriously, the 8/10,9/10 and 10/10 reviews mostly only talk about these aspects.

Mmmm no, not really. At least not for me.

[LordSimen]

Mmmm no, not really. At least not for me.

Nor me.


In fact, more often than not it's people praising the movie for being a great movie with interesting and compelling characters and then the people who HATE the movie going "Yeah, if what interests and compels you is blood, tits and glitter."

[ericdraven]

so far, I havent found any movie deserving of a 10/10.


I thought you gave Unbreakable a 10/10.

[adamjohnson]

I thought you gave Unbreakable a 10/10.

I doubt it. 10/10 means flawless and no movie has been flawless.

[Reigh Kaufman]

I doubt it. 10/10 means flawless and no movie has been flawless.

I concur.

I still have a list of 10/10 films, though.

Actually, I don't own any film I would rate less than a 7...and I own about 1400 DVDs. I sell my mistakes on Amazon. (What the hell was I thinking when I bought Clockers?)

Hmmm.

[The Heart Collector]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that example in any way relates to rating a movie.

Because horror movies are the special-ed students of filmmaking.

[The Heart Collector]

Cause this is the post-modern age we're living in. Some movies set out to do way too much and the overall film suffers because of it.

Think of it in terms of music. There are songs that are memorable just because they have a catchy melody and they work. Some musicians set out to make you dance, others set out to relax you.

what the fuck? this has nothing to do with postmodernism.

[The Heart Collector]

so far, I havent found any movie deserving of a 10/10.

then by all practical purposes, whatever the highest rating you've given is a "ten". ten is an arbitrary number to use for the end of the scale, if you don't use it (perhaps more importnatly, if you dont think it can even be used) its pointless.

[zombievictim]

Because horror movies are the special-ed students of filmmaking.

So apparently horror fans are retarded according to your logic.

[someguy]

Yeah, but you are leaving out the differences of comparisons between people. If someone gave Seventh Seal and 300 a 10/10, you are going to be like "What the hell?" but not about the movies, about the reviewer. (other people might think nothing of it.)

That's really obvious Bubba, I thought it didn't have to be said. These movies don't assign ratings to themselves, my rant is talking about people who give these ridiculously high ratings to movies for no substantive reasons. I don't know how you got the impression that all of this is directed towards the movies and not the people.


It's just all so subjective to person-to-person and I think the ratings really depend more on the person rating than the movies. Trying to mandate, normalize or standardize this shit is pointless, much less getting all ranted up about it...

This rant is entirely a subjective topic/issue. I'm not denying that, I think that movies like 300 offer up nothing more than shiny tits and blood and that giving a 10 or 9 to it is ludicrous. I'm always baffled by the extreme praise these kinds of movies get because they're not perfect. Of course this has resulted in the debate on ratings/scales in general. It looks like everyone has their own definition of how they rate movies, so in the end they are completely arbitrary. Everyone is going to look at someone else's evaluation according to how they evaluate movies, so people might say 10/10 for 300 is good while others will think it's idiotic to put it as perfection. That's more OT than what this was about originally anyways.

[The Heart Collector]

So apparently horror fans are retarded according to your logic.

No. You should probably re-read my posts, since that is not in fact what I meant. Sorry if that's what you got from it.

[Brendan M.]

Because horror movies are superior to all other kinds of movies.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[someguy]

So apparently horror fans are retarded according to your logic.
He was talking about the genre. If I say romantic comedies are gay do you think that I'm saying every single fan of romantic comedies are homosexuals?

[ericdraven]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I think he was being sardonic.

[bsquared318]

Tarantino believes that violence, sex, and language should not rule the film. They should simply be used to tell the story. If that stuff IS the story, then the movie isn't a good movie for me.

[The Postmaster General]

That's really obvious Bubba, I thought it didn't have to be said. These movies don't assign ratings to themselves, my rant is talking about people who give these ridiculously high ratings to movies for no substantive reasons. I don't know how you got the impression that all of this is directed towards the movies and not the people.

This rant is entirely a subjective topic/issue. I'm not denying that, I think that movies like 300 offer up nothing more than shiny tits and blood and that giving a 10 or 9 to it is ludicrous. I'm always baffled by the extreme praise these kinds of movies get because they're not perfect. Of course this has resulted in the debate on ratings/scales in general. It looks like everyone has their own definition of how they rate movies, so in the end they are completely arbitrary. Everyone is going to look at someone else's evaluation according to how they evaluate movies, so people might say 10/10 for 300 is good while others will think it's idiotic to put it as perfection. That's more OT than what this was about originally anyways.


No, you aren't ranting directly about movies, but if we remove movies from the equation, then what? You are ranting about people giving high ratings for reasons you don't think are "substansive" and I'm trying to be diplomatic in wondering why you give a shit. They are still the same movies, and you are going to rate them what you rate them and tittybloodfan18 is still going to rate them like The Seventh Seal. Like I said, I don't think it's something to get all ranted up over.

[CyclicNightmare]

Yeah what is this rant about?

"People have different opinions than me"

[someguy]

No, you aren't ranting directly about movies, but if we remove movies from the equation, then what? You are ranting about people giving high ratings for reasons you don't think are "substansive" and I'm trying to be diplomatic in wondering why you give a shit. They are still the same movies, and you are going to rate them what you rate them and tittybloodfan18 is still going to rate them like The Seventh Seal. Like I said, I don't think it's something to get all ranted up over.

So you're assuming that I'm frothing at the mouth over people giving stupid ratings to stupid movies, alright then.

[The Postmaster General]

So you're assuming that I'm frothing at the mouth over people giving stupid ratings to stupid movies, alright then.

No, I said that I didn't think it was something worth ranting about.

Don't try to make it out like this has to do with me being crazy. I'm not the one who started a rant about other people's ranking systems as it pertains to examples like 300.

[someguy]

I think your ranting about how I should not be ranting over this rant I made is certainly not worthy of any ranting on your part!

[The Postmaster General]

I was pretty dead-sure that you'd reply saying that what I'm on about is on the money, and that you totally see where I'm coming from. So forth, I'll have to admit that this has all thrown me for a loop. I'll have to think a lot about this and get back to you.

[The Postmaster General]

Okay, I thought about it. What I've decided is that I wasn't at all ranting, but at the same time even something presented as a rant would still have been in good fun. So I'm not sure how, but I think maybe it could be annoying hearing people constantly saying 300 is a perfect film, if you think 300 is a bunch of balls.

[Potzer! 37]

If a movie delivers exactly what it set out to do, completely fulfills your personal expectations and gives you a good time at the movies- I see no reason why it doesn't deserve a 10/10.
That's how I see it too...a simple rom com that develops the characters without any plot holes or story contrivences and has laughs and sweet scenes gets a 10/10...it achieved what it set out to do.

Ditto on on gory horror films. Hostel might not be your cup of tea, but that flick is easy a perfect 10...it looks great, there are no plot holes, the scares work, the effects from KNB are awesome and it as no flaws...ditto on Watchmen...that movie works on every level to me...

My Bloody Valentine 3D however, despite the awesome naked kill sequence and a few good scares, has a lame conclusions, plot holes and doesn't develop the characters enough, so it doesn't get a 10/10.

[Potzer! 37]

After reading more of the thread I'm throwing these out there too:

Die Hard: 10/10
The Godfather: 10/10
Which is better? I dunno. I think they're both perfect films. Die Hard is a balls out, action comedy with a few dramatic scenes and a lot of swearing, gun shots and explosions. The Godfather, is a serious drama, witha f ew comedic scenes, lots of serious and intelligent dialogue, and action that is presented not in an entertaining way, but in a matter of fact way.

Ditto on No Country for Old Men and Burn After Reading, two wildy different films from the same writer/director. Which is better? I dunno. If I want to laugh a lot, I'd say Burn...if I want an intense character movie that bums me out I'd say no country.

[Potzer! 37]

Because horror movies are the special-ed students of filmmaking.
What about "The Thing"? "Silence of the Lambs"? "Alien"? "Seven"? "The Exorcist"? "Psycho"? "Peeping Tom"? "The Virgin Spring"? "The Descent"? "Jacob's Ladder"? Any number of great films going back to beginning of cinema?

[bsquared318]

They started it, but it is starting to deteroriate.

[Jon Lyrik]

I'd give Evil Dead II a 10, but I would give Saw a 7. Both movies accomplish what they set out to do. Evil Dead II does it better and pulls off something way more impressive. It has a creativity, originality and passion that works wonderfully.

Heart Collector has a point on horror, though. But see, because you people are so goddamn serious all the fucking time, you take his and someguy's baitings word for word. While he's exaggerating, the American horror film has always been treated as a cash cow for people to eat up more than any genre (even comedy), because it has a guaranteed audience no matter how poor it is. You can't do that with sci-fi or drama due to expense and generally different audiences. I can't name more than a few key good American horror films a decade.

[Reigh Kaufman]

[QUOTE=Jon Lyrik;3027559]

Heart Collector has a point on horror, though. But see, because you people are so goddamn serious all the fucking time, you take his and someguy's baitings word for word. [QUOTE]

True. I like that they don't give a shit what we think. The Heart Collector calls it as he sees it. someguy is actually insightful once you read his responses satirically.

Horror is a horribly debased genre (still one of my favourites), but there is not much art in it any more.

I should know - I have just sat through Stuck, Hit and Run and Dead Snow.

Not a one of these films is worth owning.

[LordSimen]

I can't name more than a few key good American horror films a decade.

I can name many. Because horror rules all. :D

[zombievictim]

Wow. I just...wow. Baiting at it's finest.

[Reigh Kaufman]

Wow. I just...wow. Baiting at it's finest.

Where? I'm not being dense - I'm curious. PM me if you want to stay OT.

[Jon Lyrik]

Horror is a horribly debased genre (still one of my favourites), but there is not much art in it any more.

There are whole mediums like that. See animation, though it's in better shape than horror at least.

[someguy]

Wow. I just...wow. Baiting at it's finest.

This is actually quite a nice post/sig combination

Also I'm the kind of horror fan who is silently hoping that Lars Von Trier is gonna swoop in and save the day with Anti-Christ.

[Servo]

This is why I use the check/check minus rating system. It pretty much sums up how the average movie goer feels about a film anyway.

I fuckin' hated check minus's in grade school.

[echo_bravo]

I have noticed that someguy has absolutely no problem with French horror films that have insane amounts of gore...hmmm.:confused:

[someguy]

Talk about missing the point. I have no problem with movies like Inside or Martyrs because the violence was executed properly or had some purpose to it. This was targeted towards movies that did the exact opposite of that.

[CyclicNightmare]

Of course you have no problem with movies you like. It's other people's taste you have a problem with.

[Sgizzy316]

So many times I've seen people handing out 8s, 9s and even 10s at movies that offered nothing but excuses to throw tits and blood at the screen. It's not that these movies are all bad, some of them are enjoyable but are they really deserving of a 10? There's absolutely no substance to these kinds of things. Are we living in some sort of retarded generation where all it takes is shiny bloody titties to make people freak out and consider what they're watching a masterpiece? I honestly believe that if The Spirit was rated R and was the exact same movie but with more tits/blood it would have been hailed as genius by plenty of people. So can someone explain to me why people consider this shit brilliance or even perfection?

you're absolutely right, people should abide by your opinion on their basis of rating movies

[echo_bravo]

Hmmm I bet if Hostel was in french, someguy would praise it.;)

[Brendan M.]

Horror is a horribly debased genre (still one of my favourites), but there is not much art in it any more.

I should know - I have just sat through Stuck, Hit and Run and Dead Snow.

Not a one of these films is worth owning.

Well there you go, you're watching all the wrong horror movies.

[Reigh Kaufman]

Well there you go, you're watching all the wrong horror movies.

I watch all the horrors that I can, but I sometimes just try a 'pot luck'. This was just a bad mix. Stuck was okay-ish.

I'm watching Cold Prey at the moment. Not as good as people made out - so far.

[fooknasty]

I'm watching Cold Prey at the moment. Not as good as people made out - so far.

I just watched that a couple of weeks ago. It was a decent slasher movie, but nothing spectatular.

[The Postmaster General]

Timecrimes kicked all kinds of ass.

[Reigh Kaufman]

Timecrimes kicked all kinds of ass.

I will have a verdict in t-minus 90 minutes.

[The Postmaster General]

dang ole information super fly way more like it man.

[Reigh Kaufman]

dang ole information super fly way more like it man.

Are you accusing moi of watching a film illegally, sir?

:D

[The Postmaster General]

no, just saying that was fast. I assumed you're watching it off Netflix or something.

[countchocula]

This is a pretty stupid thread. I've never read the type of review that Someguy is describing. I wonder if he can cite a specific example. Probably not.

[someguy]

Why do you assume I'm talking about critics?

[echo_bravo]

Well, doesnt the Arrow have sections of his reviews specifically dedicated to "Tits and Gore"? LOL

And if you go to the IMDB message boards, there are plenty of "gore whores" over there.

[Donnie_Darko]

If a movie delivers exactly what it set out to do, completely fulfills your personal expectations and gives you a good time at the movies- I see no reason why it doesn't deserve a 10/10.

I agree. And I also believe in the inverse of that.

"If a movie DOESN'T deliver what it set out to do, and completely fails to fulfill your personal expectations, and gives you a terrible time at the movies - I see no reason why it doesn't deserve a shit rating"

Hence...

Unbreakable - 2/10

[DaveyJoeG]

In all honesty, what does a 10/10 from a movie forum poster mean? Not much, whether you're an artsy foreign film lover or somebody who actually enjoyed Live Free or Die Hard. Entertainment, and art is subjective. So who really cares if somebody gives From Justin to Kelly 10/10. That means that they loved it, and were very entertained, should we really put energy into disliking somebody for their taste?

[overwatch]

In all honesty, what does a 10/10 from a movie forum poster mean? Not much, whether you're an artsy foreign film lover or somebody who actually enjoyed Live Free or Die Hard. Entertainment, and art is subjective. So who really cares if somebody gives From Justin to Kelly 10/10. That means that they loved it, and were very entertained, should we really put energy into disliking somebody for their taste?

People can like/dislike whatever they want. However is someone said From Justin to Kelly > Touch of Evil. Then we got a problem.

[CyclicNightmare]

To some people, Tits + Gore + Pretty Images (which are extremely subjective, what does "pretty images" even mean?) does equal excellence. That's like bashing someone's opinion simply because you don't share it.

[APzombie]

Do i think tits, gore and pretty images equal excellence? No. They are simply colors to a painting. It doesn't matter how much red you put on a painting, it matter how you apply it. Thats all thats being argued here. There are many people who like certain movies just because they have tits and gore and filters even though they are not good movies.

Which is like saying

"Man that painting sure does have a lot of red. Red is a color you don't see a lot of these days. Nobody has the balls to put a lot of red on a painting anymore!"

"Ok. What does the painting mean to you?"

"Well it's sure as shit cool... because of all the red."

"What is it of? What is it saying?"

"It's saying artists need to grow balls and not skimp out on red!"

Many of the Watchmen reviews i've read seem to reside on the fact that it's pretty and it doesn't skimp out on tits and gore. Same can be said of any Zach Snyder movie. But what does it say? What does it achieve?

Absolutely nothing at all.

[someguy]

APZombie gets it

[QUENTIN]

I tend to agree with APZombie here too.

I see a lot of that, especially from my generation of filmgoers. "Cool" somehow = Great. I don't get my panties in a twist about it, I just tend to think those people look for different things in a movie than I do and that our tastes are unlikely to match up much.

Also, I've noticed a strange tendency on this forum for people to get bent out of shape about something and this thread is a good example.

Schmoe A states his opinion.

Schmoe B criticizes schmoe A's opinion.

Thirty other schmoes jump on schmoe B for "bashing" schmoe A when "he's just stating his opinion, man."

Aren't they both just stating their opinion? (this is rhetorical, the answer is yes). I don't see why anyone has less of a right to be critical of someone else's opinions or explain why they think that opinion is ill-founded, doesn't make sense, or is stupid, than the initial person had the right to that criticized opinion. Yes, everyone has a right to think and state their opinion, this should go without saying. Being critical of someone else's opinion doesn't take away their ability to hold it regardless, it just offers an alternate argument. What's wrong with that?

I don't see someguy saying "Burn those stupid motherfuckers who rate gory movies highly," I see him saying "How can people seriously think something as superficial as tits, gore, and pretty images are on their own sufficient qualifiers to deem something excellent?"

It's just his opinion man, quit bashing him!





* I realize I've got myself in a logical loop here. Those criticizing someguy for stating his opinion, implicitly arguing he shouldn't have because it's just other people's opinions he's criticizing, are themselves just stating their opinions. Drats.

[someguy]

Quentin gets it*




*I assume that 'it' is getting high

[Bourne101]

Yeah, Quentin and APzombie summed it up very well.

As for the rating systems (10 scale, star ratings), everyone uses them differently and has a different perspective on them. Some people believe that since no film in history is absolutely 100% flawless then no film can receive a 10/10 rating. While I understand where you are coming from and respect your use of the rating system, it really doesn't make any sense. You can argue it if you want (I've seen arguments about it numerous times) but it will ultimately go no where. If you want to challenge someone's thoughts, feelings and opinions of a film that's fuckin' excellent, but if I give good, logical reasoning for giving a film a 10 and a non-10-believer criticizes me for giving it a 10 when no movie is perfect then they can fuck right off. :D Criticize the points I'm making in my review, and not just the rating I assign to it.

In short, it's better to criticize or argue one's written opinion and thoughts on a film than to criticize a number that one has distributed to a particular film. A scale rating just sums up a person's opinion of a film. Obviously, anything from 0-5 ranges from absolute hate to complete mediocrity. A 6 usually describes a flawed film that entertained on some level, a 7 usually describes a "good" film. An 8 describes a "very good" or "great" film. A 9 describes an "excellent" film, most likely one of the best of that particular year. And a 10 usually ranges from "one of the absolute best of the year" to "one of the best of the decade" to "one of the best of all-time". But, I will agree that you can't just throw down a 10 without backing it with some thoughts and feelings. Some of you may notice that when I review a film that ranges from a 0-7, the review is usually just a short paragraph in length, which essentially means I didn't care about the film enough to give it more time than I did watching it. Once I get up to the 9s and 10s though, I always write a lengthy, detailed review to back my opinion up, as most people do. But if you throw down a 10 and say "best movie ever" without any logical reasoning to back it up then don't except anyone to take what you say seriously.

[LordSimen]

I doubt it. 10/10 means flawless and no movie has been flawless.

I have a real hard time understanding this line of a thinking and there's three main reasons why.

The first reason is that if we all lived under the indication that no movie has ever been flawless, that means the 10 on the scale will never under any circumstances actually be put to use and there's no reason for it to exist in the first place.

The second reason is that flaws are inherently subjective and that what you might consider flawed, which in this case seems to be EVERY movie, someone else might not consider to be flawed at all. Flaws are only flaws if one perceive them to be so. In fact, something someone might consider a flaw, another might consider it's charm. One's man's trash is another man's treasure, and all that.

The third reason is that not everyone applies the 10/10 scale the same way. To you it might mean 10 is a perfect film that is utterly flawless in every way, but to another it might simply mean they really loved the film and thought it deserved a high score for being entertaining.

Sorry to ramble on, but when I see people throw this "10/10 means flawless and no movie is ever flawless" thing at others for giving a movie they dug for one reason or another that rating, it bugs the crap out of me. :p

[The Heart Collector]

Not awarding movies a 10 out of 10 because they are not perfect is completely absurd.

There is that classic scene in the movie Spinal Tap when they're talking about the numbers on the amp, and how they go to 11. And then the guy is asked:

Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.

See... It is a scale from one to ten. A scale. The top number on the scale is the maximum of what is achievable. The bottom is the minimum of what is achievable. Saying that a ten is not possible because no movie will be perfect simply means that the actual top of your scale is not ten. It's 9.9 or 9.5 or whatever you consider appropriate. There is no fundamental difference between that and giving movies a 10, but saying your rating scale goes all the way to 11, and no movies can actually ever get to 11. Same fucking shit. The only reason that one is less justifiable is because 10 looks rounder.


Non-ten graders: You are Nigel Tufnel. That is who you are. Nigel Tufnel.

[Reigh Kaufman]

That is the best post in the history of the world and will never be surpassed for awesomeness.

I give it 9/10.

[Bourne101]

Not awarding movies a 10 out of 10 because they are not perfect is completely absurd.

There is that classic scene in the movie Spinal Tap when they're talking about the numbers on the amp, and how they go to 11. And then the guy is asked:



See... It is a scale from one to ten. A scale. The top number on the scale is the maximum of what is achievable. The bottom is the minimum of what is achievable. Saying that a ten is not possible because no movie will be perfect simply means that the actual top of your scale is not ten. It's 9.9 or 9.5 or whatever you consider appropriate. There is no fundamental difference between that and giving movies a 10, but saying your rating scale goes all the way to 11, and no movies can actually ever get to 11. Same fucking shit. The only reason that one is less justifiable is because 10 looks rounder.


Non-ten graders: You are Nigel Tufnel. That is who you are. Nigel Tufnel.

Bam! :D

[Brendan M.]

Not awarding movies a 10 out of 10 because they are not perfect is completely absurd.

There is that classic scene in the movie Spinal Tap when they're talking about the numbers on the amp, and how they go to 11. And then the guy is asked:



See... It is a scale from one to ten. A scale. The top number on the scale is the maximum of what is achievable. The bottom is the minimum of what is achievable. Saying that a ten is not possible because no movie will be perfect simply means that the actual top of your scale is not ten. It's 9.9 or 9.5 or whatever you consider appropriate. There is no fundamental difference between that and giving movies a 10, but saying your rating scale goes all the way to 11, and no movies can actually ever get to 11. Same fucking shit. The only reason that one is less justifiable is because 10 looks rounder.


Non-ten graders: You are Nigel Tufnel. That is who you are. Nigel Tufnel.

Thanks to you, I will for now on rate all my movies on a scale from 1 to 11.

[SoCool]

Not awarding movies a 10 out of 10 because they are not perfect is completely absurd.

There is that classic scene in the movie Spinal Tap when they're talking about the numbers on the amp, and how they go to 11. And then the guy is asked:



See... It is a scale from one to ten. A scale. The top number on the scale is the maximum of what is achievable. The bottom is the minimum of what is achievable. Saying that a ten is not possible because no movie will be perfect simply means that the actual top of your scale is not ten. It's 9.9 or 9.5 or whatever you consider appropriate. There is no fundamental difference between that and giving movies a 10, but saying your rating scale goes all the way to 11, and no movies can actually ever get to 11. Same fucking shit. The only reason that one is less justifiable is because 10 looks rounder.


Non-ten graders: You are Nigel Tufnel. That is who you are. Nigel Tufnel.

Horrible post. Not nearly enough tits and/or gore. 2/10.

[LordSimen]

I still find it funny that pretty images in an art form that's a good 50-75% or so percent image based is apparently not enough for excellence. :rolleyes:

[Pentangeli]

The 10 system always proved too complicated for me. Often I would use the same numbers (1,6,10) while neglecting to use others (2,3,4). And I could never quite work out whether to give a mediocre film a 5 or a 6. There was too much to think about. I would get stressed out. Often I would awaken with a fever, deliriously shouting: "it should have been five! it should have been FIVE!!!".

But now I'm on the 4 system, and I've never looked back. The rating system is so simple: 1/4 I dish out to films I don't like, 2/4 films are ok, 3/4 are good, 4/4 are films that belong to my top 250.

Thank you 4 system!

4 system can be yours, now for only $9.99. Buy now and get Split Second Abs absolutely free.

Home _________Order_________How It Works_________Real People's Results

[APzombie]

i agree Pentangeli. I've been using the Four system for the most part, ten is excessive. It's basically the five system with halves, which is too much for me.

If i really loved a film, i can give it a four without question, without arguing if it should be a 9 or 10.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Gratuitous nudity ,massive amounts of gore and " pretty " images are the main reason i love cheap Italian horror . You never knew when you would see some boobies , in some films you get the whole enchilada concerning the female form ( Zombie , Zombie Holocaust ) . Who says it's not art , art is in he eye of the beholder , it's such an ambiguous concept based on opinion .

I think some of the latest generation of horror tries too hard to emulate the innocent exploitation of the 70s and 80s and it comes across as manipulative not inspired . When you saw bare breasts in some low bud Italian movie back then , it was almost a matter of fact experience , now it feels seedy in these newer films .

T+G+PI does equal excellence depending on how it's utilized but even if a film seems to have no reason to exist other than exploiting those three elements , it can still be entertaining , that's why i still love tat bygone era , those films never failed to deliver and still do .


About the rating system , i think it's a joke . I simply don't see a film experience as something you can sum up with a number .

[LordSimen]

Gratuitous nudity ,massive amounts of gore and " pretty " images are the main reason i love cheap Italian horror . You never knew when you would see some boobies , in some films you get the whole enchilada concerning the female form ( Zombie , Zombie Holocaust ) . Who says it's not art , art is in he eye of the beholder , it's such an ambiguous concept based on opinion .


Exactly. Long live tits, gore and pretty images! Those are definitely traits of an excellent movie in my book. :D

[QUENTIN]

I think it all comes down to taste, like I said, and what one looks for in a movie. For me, what makes movies worthwhile and occasionally great is their unique ability to do what Joe Dante recently described (http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/08/joe_dante_one_of_us_one_of_us.html) as, “telling stories and having characters that you could relate to and be emotionally moved by.”

So I consider Lucio Fulci’s Zombie and Peter Jackson’s Dead-Alive to be two of the worst films I’ve ever seen because I think they’re nothing more than an excuse to show constant gore and occasionally tits without the fundamental backbone of story and character which no amount of pretty images can make up for. This bores me to no end. To a gorehound, these may be 10/10 films if what they’re looking for from the experience is good gore effects and perky tits. Some people like both kinds of movies, The Arrow is a good example, some only like exploitation stuff, some only like the story or character-based stuf. Ultimately this whole conversation is just about the differences between what we look for and want to get out of a movie.

[The Postmaster General]

So I consider Lucio Fulci’s Zombie and Peter Jackson’s Dead-Alive to be two of the worst films I’ve ever seen because I think they’re nothing more than an excuse to show constant gore and occasionally tits without the fundamental backbone of story and character which no amount of pretty images can make up for.

I think you're giving Dead-Alive a bad wrap here, because it's a lot different than most gore films in that it's as much a comedy of errors as it is a horror movie, and maybe more so. That's what connected me to it. The poor guy, his horrible mom, that girl he was in love with, the horrible family members... It all really quite comical, and THEN you have these crazy visual effects that are pretty one of a kind.

Cemetary Man is a movie with a lot of gore, imagery and tits, but the story is really a mind twister.

I like to see more than tits and gore, but I also like to see beyond the tits and gore. Suspiria comes to mind because that really is just visual, a pretty weak story, but the music, visual imagery, and mood is really something to admire.

I've often said what you are saying of the first Matrix film, because I'm not as enamored with the story as most fans are. To me, it was just a clever concept, a very clever concept that justified the use of special effects. The story, if you break it down and get rid of all the new age dressing is really pretty weak. That's probably why I liked the sequels more than most other people, because they actually expanded the ideas and started completing what to me just felt like a tagline.

[jamir154]

If a movie delivers exactly what it set out to do, completely fulfills your personal expectations and gives you a good time at the movies- I see no reason why it doesn't deserve a 10/10.