|
Zogo posted:When I first saw the 100 point scale I thought it was overkill but teachers do evaluate papers and school grades on that scale. Most people don't review films rigorously like they're grading a paper doling out specific penalties and infractions however. I may have to start using this site. I feel like 100 point scale would also be convenient when you have initially given two films the same score, but you like one a tiny bit more than the other.
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
Bolek posted:Why oh why do these websites have rankings out of a hundred. What kind of maniac goes "hmm yes, this is a 35" I looked it up and I have two 35s. One is First Knight and the other is Ghoulies. Feels about right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
I always have a hard time grading movies on like Netflix and stuff because I don't really think about the quality of the movie like that. If I would ever become a film critic I would never give out stars just a "yes" or a "no" on whether people should see it. Which is probably already someone's gimmick so it's good that I don't plan on becoming a film critic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:If I would ever become a film critic I would never give out stars just a "yes" or a "no" on whether people should see it. Which is probably already someone's gimmick so it's good that I don't plan on becoming a film critic. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
I actually really like a 4 star system, 1 star =terrible, 2 stars=okay, fans of the particular genre might get more out of it, 3 stars=really good. 4 stars=everyone should see this film. no half stars, 0 stars =an affront to humanity/too weird for the author to comprehend.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I actually really like a 4 star system, 1 star =terrible, 2 stars=okay, fans of the particular genre might get more out of it, 3 stars=really good. 4 stars=everyone should see this film. no half stars, 0 stars =an affront to humanity/too weird for the author to comprehend. Agreed
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I actually really like a 4 star system, 1 star =terrible, 2 stars=okay, fans of the particular genre might get more out of it, 3 stars=really good. 4 stars=everyone should see this film. no half stars, 0 stars =an affront to humanity/too weird for the author to comprehend. That's the great thing about Criticker's system, if that's how you feel then you can just rank everything 0/25/50/75/100 and it will still work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Bolek posted:Why oh why do these websites have rankings out of a hundred. What kind of maniac goes "hmm yes, this is a 35" I rate in increments of five because I think it's an accurate method. 100 is relative perfection, 50 means I'm completely apathetic, and 0 is worthless in every way. I rate a ton of films at 80 because that's kind of the average for the quality of films. The closer it is to 50, the less I care about it. So, a film with a 55 would be one I have no feelings about except maybe one little bit that I thought was clever. That reasoning is why I didn't give Christmas With the Kranks a 0 because it had something I liked lost within a sea of evil.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
What I end up doing is rating a film at a number, approximately where I feel it belongs. Then, if it falls on the same rating as a movie I like a bit more or less, I remove or give it a couple points.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:I rate in increments of five because I think it's an accurate method. This is how I do it. I bet a good 90% of the stuff I watch on Netflix is rated 4 stars because sure I enjoyed it why not. 0 is reserved for base incompetence like Cool World.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Dr Monkeysee posted:This is how I do it. I bet a good 90% of the stuff I watch on Netflix is rated 4 stars because sure I enjoyed it why not. 0 is reserved for base incompetence like Cool World. Cool World is a typical 50 for me. I can't think of any emotions I had from watching it. My 0s are films that I find morally wrong. They're cancerous to the art of cinema. The Princess Diaries, Mrs. Doubtfire, Patch Adams, Ghost Dad, and Nothing But Trouble to name a few.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Heteroy posted:What I end up doing is rating a film at a number, approximately where I feel it belongs. Then, if it falls on the same rating as a movie I like a bit more or less, I remove or give it a couple points. I do something similar. I also give myself a ratings cap when I've just seen a movie for it the first time. Like, I'll never give a movie I've just seen more than an 85. If I want to mark it as truly great or life-changing, then I need to think about it for a while with some distance, and/or see it a second time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Cool World is a typical 50 for me. I can't think of any emotions I had from watching it. I haven't seen it in ages but what's so terrible about Princess Diaries?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:I haven't seen it in ages but what's so terrible about Princess Diaries? It basically says happiness is achieved by stripping yourself of identity to look pretty. They make Anne Hathaway look nerdy with dark hair and thick eyebrows only for her to be changed into a beautiful blonde princess. It's an evil film, whether it was intentional or not. Herr Goebbels would have loved it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:It basically says happiness is achieved by stripping yourself of identity to look pretty. They make Anne Hathaway look nerdy with dark hair and thick eyebrows only for her to be changed into a beautiful blonde princess. It's a lesson reinforced by a lot more than that movie, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
She changes into a beautiful brunette princess, thank you very much! < >
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
If active moral evil is a prime criterion, where does actual Nazi propaganda fall on that scale? Edit: Like, those are all lovely disposable comedies that most people forgot about a week after release CharlieFoxtrot fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Honestly it seems kind of petulant to me to slam a movie simply because you disagree with it. I mean, you're certainly entitled to that and it's not something I can really argue with, but personally I usually find movies that share different morals than mine intriguing (usually). If I were to describe a movie as 'immoral', I'd probably be referring to the act of making the movie rather than its inherent values of the story. Funny Games might qualify as I find that to be a movie abusive to its audience (a while ago I was a bit taken aback when someone used the term 'abusive' to describe a movie, but thinking about it Funny Games is one I'd use the label on). Not sure if anyone would agree with me on this but I've always been put-off by Starship Troopers being a deliberate reversal of the source material's themes, and I say that as someone who has no affection or even experiene with the property (what was it, a book?). Like, it'd be great if Verehoven made his own satirical anti-Fascist space bug war movie in response, or even a direct parody, but it strikes me childish to deliberately remove and reverse an established work's meaning out of spite.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
lizardman posted:Honestly it seems kind of petulant to me to slam a movie simply because you disagree with it. I mean, you're certainly entitled to that and it's not something I can really argue with, but personally I usually find movies that share different morals than mine intriguing (usually). Theoretically it started as a different movie and one of the producers noticed the similarities to the book, so they bought the rights, changed a few names and ran through a couple more drafts. Aside from the very beginning of the movie, some of the names, and his girlfriend being a pilot the movie is very, very different from the book.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
^ Huh, that sounds quite a bit more innocent than how I'd always understood it, which was that it was from the get-go an adaptation and the filmmakers kind of going "yeah, no" to the material and deliberately changing it. Interesting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
I'll admit it's been a really long time since I've seen the film, so maybe it's not as bad as I remember it. Mrs. Doubtfire is still an evil movie, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:I'll admit it's been a really long time since I've seen the film, so maybe it's not as bad as I remember it. The only thing that would make it better is if the parents' divorce was the kids' fault and it made Robin Williams not love them any more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
lizardman posted:^ Huh, that sounds quite a bit more innocent than how I'd always understood it, which was that it was from the get-go an adaptation and the filmmakers kind of going "yeah, no" to the material and deliberately changing it. Interesting. I don't have a source for that, but I seem to remember it, and, having read the book, they are very different beasts. The books have a third alien race that we are allied with, but humans don't actually give a poo poo about them, so we'll nuke a city full of them, as long as it also kills a bunch of bugs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 02:04
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:I'll admit it's been a really long time since I've seen the film, so maybe it's not as bad as I remember it. What's wrong with Mrs. Doubtfire?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:The only thing that would make it better is if the parents' divorce was the kids' fault and it made Robin Williams not love them any more. And Pierce Brosnan's character died from his pepper allergy. The cops are on the lookout for Mrs. Doubtfire, so he stages her demise, but the children witness it on TV. Instead of bringing Mrs. Doubtfire to TV, he invents a new character. Rainbow Randolph.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:What's wrong with Mrs. Doubtfire? Where do I start? Robin Williams' character is an unlikable jerk, the conceit of a divorced father dressing up as an elderly woman to be with his children is creepy, he tries to kill his ex-wife's fiancee, and the children find out who Mrs. Doubtfire is because they look at him taking a piss. Also, he's somehow able to have ultra-realistic makeup from a mask that just slips on and off. And his wife, children, and case worker are apparently too stupid to notice. And after all that, on top of trying to kill the fiancee, they still give the creep limited visitation! Or you can just watch the Mrs. Featherbottom episodes on Arrested Development to get an idea of what's wrong with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 02:57
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Where do I start? So, tactical realism? Also, Arrested Development is loving terrible.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:So, tactical realism? Lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Also, Arrested Development is loving terrible. I liked Arrested Development better when it was Soap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
I still want to see the We Hate Movies vision of a Mrs. Doubtfire sequel as a psychological thriller where the daughter is pathologically incapable of having a relationship because she can never escape the idea that anybody she gets close to is going to peel their face off revealing her father underneath. And she starts seeing Mrs. Doubtfire again in the corner of her eye and is unsure if it's real or a hallucination until the end when it turns out it's her brother and he's been killing and skinning women to make his own Mrs. Doubtfire costume.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
Sleeveless posted:I still want to see the We Hate Movies vision of a Mrs. Doubtfire sequel as a psychological thriller where the daughter is pathologically incapable of having a relationship because she can never escape the idea that anybody she gets close to is going to peel their face off revealing her father underneath. And she starts seeing Mrs. Doubtfire again in the corner of her eye and is unsure if it's real or a hallucination until the end when it turns out it's her brother and he's been killing and skinning women to make his own Mrs. Doubtfire costume. Alan Moore's Mrs. Doubtfire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
In Con Air, what type of diabetic is Baby-O suppose to be? He's perspiring heavily and near death (symptomic of hypoglycemia) yet he's looking for insulin?? Shouldn't he be looking for sugar?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
Disharmony posted:In Con Air, what type of diabetic is Baby-O suppose to be? He's perspiring heavily and near death (symptomic of hypoglycemia) yet he's looking for insulin?? Shouldn't he be looking for sugar? Probably movie diabetic. Are the symptoms of needing insulin as dramatic in appearance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 10:17
|
|
|
Why did vincent vega shoot marvin in the face?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
zVxTeflon posted:Why did vincent vega shoot marvin in the face? He's a junkie fuckup, as he demonstrates again and again during the movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 12:35
|
|
|
zVxTeflon posted:Why did vincent vega shoot marvin in the face? As the goons say..... trigger discipline.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Where do I start? ...How serious are we being here? I mean the entire reason the movie is a comedy is the absurdity of the premise. Sure, it gets a little "tugging on the heart strings" with the Williams' character's desire to be with his kids, I feel like it's kind of a given that his behavior would be unacceptable in real life. It's called 'farce' for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
lizardman posted:...How serious are we being here? I mean the entire reason the movie is a comedy is the absurdity of the premise. Sure, it gets a little "tugging on the heart strings" with the Williams' character's desire to be with his kids, I feel like it's kind of a given that his behavior would be unacceptable in real life. It's called 'farce' for a reason. Even if you accept the premise, Mrs. Doubtfire is a really lovely movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Even if you accept the premise, Mrs. Doubtfire is a really lovely movie. Imagine if you took the plot of Tootsie and added children to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
Snak posted:Imagine if you took the plot of Tootsie and added children to it. Oh, Clifford.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 23:34
|
|
