Topic: Rating movies

[GSyren]

I have realized how inconsistent my ratings of movies may seem. For example, I have given both The Expendables and Wild Strawberries 4 1/2 stars. One might conclude that I think that these two movies are of the same cinematic quality. That, however, is not the case. My ratings are based solely on how much I appreciated the film at the time that I viewed it, and how well it met my expectations. As such they are highly subjective.

It is, of course, impossible to write totally objective film reviews. However, I suspect that some of you at least try to review your movies in a wider context. Personally I find that extremely hard to do. I would be interested to know, though, what your thoughts are on this.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Same here,

ratings are based on how much I enjoyed a movie when I watched it, not on its cinematic value (e.g. "Apocalypse Now" (no matter which cut) ; "We're the Millers" ).
This rating is highly subjective, depending on my mood and several other variables. and may even change when re-watching the feature.

[Danae Cassandra]

I try to take cinematic quality into consideration when rating.  I really enjoy Death Race 2000.  But it's not really a good film.  I had a good time watching Santa Claus Conquers the Martians ... and that's actually a pretty bad film.

My conscience won't let me rate films like that - even if I enjoy watching them - up with something like Wild Strawberries, Grave of the Fireflies or City of God. 

[Blair]

I base my ratings on how much I enjoyed a movie and would care to see it again. Cinematic value (or at least what I perceive to be cinematic value) be damned.

I don't directly care how well the movie was made or if other people loved it (how well it is made can have an affect on how much I enjoyed a movie, but that depends on the type of movie.) Garbage is garbage no matter how well you dress it up, and hidden gems of great enjoyment can be found in the dirt.

I consider my reviews to be objective: they rate the movie on quality of enjoyment else every summer blockbuster movie for the past three years at least should get 5 stars for their massive productions. That does not seem like a fair system. That's why I don't believe in the Academy Awards like I used to. Do you want a Grammy? Your best chance of getting nominated and possibly winning is to get the most funding and make the biggest production possible, because even if people did not love it, they still went to see it thinking that it was going to be amazing.  That is not objective; that's prejudicial against the movies that never had a chance because they were amazing films with much smaller budgets.

[DSig]

Blair, I pretty much agree.  To me it is all about how the movie involved me.  Like a book ... i get enveloped into the film and if I am noticiing things like cinemetography or edit slips or ... then I am not in the movie.  That is a low rating to me.  I loved Dark Star .. but let's face it for science this science fiction film really sucked.  And filming and special effects (a beach ball .. really ) didn't meet up to any real criteria .. but oh boy what a fun film . 

[Dragonfire]

I try to rate based on how much I enjoy a movie...but there are some....well bad movies that I really enjoy.  With those movies, I am aware that they are campy or stupid or full of bad acting - whatever - and I will deduct stars for that - or I did at Epinions.  But if I enjoyed the movie, I wouldn't go too low with the rating.  I don't think I went below 3 stars - out of 5 - for the bad movies that I enjoyed.

[DJ Doena]

That's why I don't rate movies in the first place.

Most of the movies I truly enjoy are not the best ones from an objective viewpoint. I'm aware of that but still doesn't diminish my enjoyment of them.

[Danae Cassandra]

else every summer blockbuster movie for the past three years at least should get 5 stars for their massive productions.

In considering "cinematic quality" I don't just mean the production values - a film can be bright and shiny, with great effects, and be a terrible film, completely hollow on the inside.  Sure, production values are a part of cinematic quality, but for me they're almost the least important.  What I think of as "cinematic quality" are all the parts of the film - first the story, the script, the acting, all of that is the most important in a film to me, then the cinematography, production values, setting, and all the other parts.  Those should all support the heart of the film (story/script/acting).  I also give a film points if it has something important to say.

So I gave 4.5/5 to a film like Night of Truth, which was filmed on 35 mm hand cams and is obviously super low budget but had such a strong story and powerful performances and then at the other end of the spectrum one of the worst things I've ever seen is Dogma, and imdb lists the estimated budget at 10 mil.