Topic: Thoughts on Ratings ...

[DSig]

I am wondering if you all rate a film/series/episode by a single criteria or does it depend more on when/where/who etc.  Media etc??

For example I just posted a *review* of my recent purchase/watch of "The Lone Ranger".  I gave it 4 stars because I really find it captivating (probably from my history etc) and think it is a great representation of the era it was created.

Now I am wondering about that rating ...  for example in my collection I have also rated "3:10 to Yuma" (1957), "1408" and "2010: The Year We Make Contact" also as 4 stars.  But of course 'The Lone Ranger' is not as well crafted as these other films so rating??  Although I think I have answered my own question while writing this, meaning each film etc really needs to be evaluated on its own taking all things into consideration, I was/still am wondering how you rate yours?

Thanks

[Tom]

I rate each film on its own. And the most weight has my enjoyment of it. It does not really matter how well craftet it is. A movie which is highly considered as great movie, will still get a low rating, if I don't enjoy it. And the enjoyment can be of course very much influenced by my mood. A movie can potentially get different rating each time I watch it.

[addicted2dvd]

I am the same way as Tom.

[GSyren]

The objective of a film is to entertain, engage and/or enlighten. How well it does that can only be a subjective personal view. And as Tom says, the mood of the viewer is certainly one aspect. There are of course many things that can color your opinion of a film, for example interest in technique or location.

A case in example, Blonde in Bondage (1957). No, it's not what it sounds like. It's basically a Swedish film noir filmed in Stockholm with English dialog. It's not a terribly good movie, but not bad either. But for me, it's enjoyable because it shows Stockholm from a time that I just barely remember; I was 10 when it was shot.

As a contrast, I also enjoy The Prize (1963) because the story takes place in Stockholm, but apart from some second unit shots and some background projection footage it is all shot in Hollywood. And it's amusing to see the Hollywood version of my home town.

In both these cases I would probably rate these films higher than the average non-Swedish viewer. And I don't apologize for it, but I think I would be amiss if I didn't mention in a review that I am somewhat biased.

But it's not always easy to tell how much certain knowledge or interests affect your enjoyment of a certain film. My all time favorite film is King Kong (1933). It is a very good film, but I am also impressed with the techniques that Willis O'Brien uses. Not only the stop motion, but all of it, for example his use of miniature screens embedded in the scenery used to project live action into the stop motion sequences. How much does that knowledge affect my enjoyment of the film? I can't tell.

In the end, the only fair assessment of a film is how it affected you when you saw it. You can't tell anyone else how they will feel about a film (unless you know them very intimately).

[Dragonfire]

I tend to base it mostly on how much I enjoyed the movie.  A movie can have great acting..effects...whatever, but if it bores me or I just don't like it, then I won't rate it high.  By the same token, a movie can have crappy effects, be cheesy, have acting issues, but if I enjoy it, I'll rate it higher.  Which is why I've given some movies 4 or even 5 stars that some people hate.  I think I have to be in the mood for certain types of movies too..If I'm not, then I won't be as interested, and I won't feel like it deserves a higher star rating.

[Najemikon]

I remember getting a kicking for rating The Untouchables 5/5, which was seen as an obvious clash with more important films that I had also given full marks for. I think what I tried to explain then is that I simply rate the balance between what I believe was intended, and what was achieved, plus Genre has to be considered; old Hollywood would follow genre like a set of rules and just because it obeyed them slavishly wouldn't detract from the quality of the film overall.

It can make for some odd ratings! Just because you enjoy a film, doesn't make it perfect and the opposite is true.

Another way of looking at it is... if it made me laugh, was it supposed to, and did that matter?

EDIT: Ah, here was the original healthy debate! http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,6515.msg121324.html#msg121324

[Achim]

In the few reviews I wrote I always mainly looked at my personal enjoyment of the film and just as an afterthought factored in the "general opinion".

[Blair]

I always base my rating entirely on how much I enjoyed it. However, how much I enjoy it may depend on independent factors. What I mean is, I don't single out video quality and say "the quality of the video is poor; I give that a 2 out of 5" then average it in to my total rating. However, I do at times say "the quality of the video is so bad that it's making the movie less enjoyable" and my rating goes down.

How I come up with a specific scaled rating is based on the cumulative experience from previous ratings: I started with movies 1 through 5 and it was easy to determine which I enjoyed most and then work down the line. After a while, though, there are 100s of movies and only 10 possible ratings, so I think of how much I enjoyed a movie, look back and find other movies that I enjoyed at that same level and then give the new movie that same rating.

[Antares]

EDIT: Ah, here was the original healthy debate! http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,6515.msg121324.html#msg121324

Ahhhh....those were the days!!!!!! 

I was going to post my thoughts on this subject too, but the thread Jon linked says it all already.

[GSyren]

A review is obviously something very subjective, but I think that if you give an extremely negative or positive review, you owe it to your readers to put it in some perspective. Let me give you an example:

The morning newspaper that I read always has three or four short reviews of films that are shown on TV the same day. When The Expendables were shown, the reviewer gave it 1 star, the lowest possible rating. He basically said that this film was absolutely no good. And I respect that this was his honest feeling about the film. But he had to know that this is a ”love it or hate it” film. And I think he did his readers a great disservice by not mentioning that a lot of people really like this film. I’m sure that some people who would have enjoyed the film missed it because of his very negative review.

[DSig]

Yep ... as a sw developer you get tired of hearing ... "it don't work"

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yep ... as a sw developer you get tired of hearing ... "it don't work"

Shouldn't this be "IT don't work"?