Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Criteria for rating films

  • 11-05-2008 06:58PM
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 143 ✭✭


    I'm currently trying to get some sort of system going for rating the movies I see. Currently it's just a few certain factors that I take into account and I just throw out a number from that. What do you guys feel are the most important elements (and in what order)? Have you got your own system?

    I came across this one on another site:
    The numbers in the bracket represent the importance associated with the respective criterion. Each movie will receive a score for each criterion out of 10 and then the final score will be evaluated by factoring in the importance of the particular criterion. For example, let's say a movie has the following ratings:

    DIRECTION (3) : 8 = 24
    ACTING (3) : 8 = 24
    STORY (2) : 8 = 16
    DIALOGUES (2) : 7 = 14
    SCREENPLAY (1) : 9 = 9
    MUSIC/CHOREO (2) : 6 = 12
    CINEMATOGRAPHY(1) : 7 = 7
    COMEDY (1) : 10= 10

    The overall rating comes to 116/15 = 7.8.

    Flawed?


    And yes, I am taking this a little too seriously!


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,921 ✭✭✭✭Pigman II


    Yes very flawed. Should 2001 A Space Odyssey instantly lose 7% just because it isn't trying to be funny? Should Star Wars instantly lose 21% because the acting is deliberately hokey? :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 143 ✭✭Nordwind


    Yeah kinda noticed that:D

    Any suggestions to improve it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,921 ✭✭✭✭Pigman II


    I think Roger Ebert had the right idea.

    His system is take a film on it's merits and compare it to what he would consider the pinacle of the genre in question . So for example you don't compare Dumb and Dumber with Citizen Kane or The Matrix to Chinatown. If he was watching Hellboy he would say "How good is this compared to Superman 2?" rather than saying "this film is 1/10 because the acting isn't as good as There Will Be Blood".

    He also looks at a film from to POV of "how much would someone who likes stuff like this like this movie?" rather than "how much do *I* like this movie?". Therefore he ends up giving a high score to some pretty unexpected movies sometimes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 143 ✭✭Nordwind


    I get what you're saying. It's just that I'm pretty meticulous when it comes to this sort of thing and I was hoping to put some sort of system together that will give a truer representation of how good or bad a film is.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    personnally I work from the following system:

    A film is rated out of 10, but that ten is split in two, so the film is actually rated by 5 topics over two catagories.

    The first catagory

    the 1-5 rating is the technical aspect:

    This would be the bare bones of a film, is the acting believable, is the script consistent, is it edited and filmed correctly, are the special effects working.

    Then the 6-10 rating is for where the film excells for me

    This is for how the film appealed to me, its the more personl side of the rating, certain actor's performance, how it was shot really appealed to me or that a certain sfx just made me go wow. It also allows for when something was technically crap was also very enjoyable, therefore negating the earlier negative score.

    By default I give every film 5/5 in both catagories and I deduct rather then add up, that way for a film to get 10 out of 10, I would have to come out of a film and think that firstly it was technically brilliant and secondly it appealed to me in all areas.


    I like my system because it means films that were enjoyable but not brilliant get a fair treatment because while in the initial 5 it might only score a 2 for competant camera work and editing, it would score higher in the second because I would say I really found such and such character consistently funny or such a scene imaginative and while the plot was a shambles how the conclusion was handled made it all worthwhile, that would be a 3 or a 4 from me, bringing the film up to a five or six, which says brain dead popcorn flick thats enjoyable.


    Course it really only works when tagged onto a review before hand, but I use it for every review I have done here and it makes sense in my warped mind.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,806 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Instead of a "comedy" rating, I'd have a "genre" rating which would be considered as comedy for comedies, action for actions, drama for dramas etc. Also maybe another section called "tilt". I've seen this on a computer games website where its used a balancer for when a game gets a low score for something that doesn't actually make it worse. (eg the film WALL-E supposedly has almost no dialogue, but should it get a low score even if the rest of it ends up great?)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,589 ✭✭✭✭Necronomicon


    Pigman II wrote: »
    I think Roger Ebert had the right idea.

    His system is take a film on it's merits and compare it to what he would consider the pinacle of the genre in question . So for example you don't compare Dumb and Dumber with Citizen Kane or The Matrix to Chinatown. If he was watching Hellboy he would say "How good is this compared to Superman 2?" rather than saying "this film is 1/10 because the acting isn't as good as There Will Be Blood".

    He also looks at a film from to POV of "how much would someone who likes stuff like this like this movie?" rather than "how much do *I* like this movie?". Therefore he ends up giving a high score to some pretty unexpected movies sometimes.

    That's the right way IMO.

    Some people have problems with giving a no-brainer a high score. If I go into a movie like Crank, I know exactly what I'm walking into and if I enjoy it then I've no problem giving it top marks.

    I don't have a structured score-system for movies generally, though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    I also agree with Ebert's way (although not necessarily all of his reviews).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,216 ✭✭✭✭monkeyfudge


    Just say what you think of the film... who gives a f*ck about meaningless numbers attached to reviews...? That should only matter if you are incapable of reading.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 143 ✭✭Nordwind


    Well they'll hardly be meaningless numbers if I've put some time and effort into coming up with them? And I 'give a f*ck', I thought that much was clear from my opening post.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Just say what you think of the film... who gives a f*ck about meaningless numbers attached to reviews...? That should only matter if you are incapable of reading.

    That's the best way to do it. Using number systems you'll only end up giving a film a certain value, then see another film that you think is better but don't want to give it a better value as it would seem to high, so you'll modify your results to fit it together. It's pointless.

    And op, why do you need to give them points? What's so bad about saying, I like film x because of ..., but what I didn't like about it is... ? It's much better since your descibing the reasons for your review, rather than giving it a number.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,216 ✭✭✭✭monkeyfudge


    humanji wrote: »
    That's the best way to do it. Using number systems you'll only end up giving a film a certain value, then see another film that you think is better but don't want to give it a better value as it would seem to high, so you'll modify your results to fit it together. It's pointless.

    And op, why do you need to give them points? What's so bad about saying, I like film x because of ..., but what I didn't like about it is... ? It's much better since your descibing the reasons for your review, rather than giving it a number.

    If you use a scale going from 1 to 1,000,000 you can subtly show how you enjoyed Terminator slightly more than Robocop.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    I'm intrigued. I'm going to use this system from now on. No words, only numbers!!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 143 ✭✭Nordwind


    So none of you comedians use IMDB, or have used it in the past?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,392 ✭✭✭✭kaimera


    I keep meaning to use a hex based review system but keep forgetting :/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    Nordwind wrote: »
    So none of you comedians use IMDB, or have used it in the past?

    I'd say that a lot of people who've used imdb.com use it because it's an absolutely fantastic resource, rather than taking stock in their ratings.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,216 ✭✭✭✭monkeyfudge


    Nordwind wrote: »
    So none of you comedians use IMDB, or have used it in the past?

    Yes. There can be some well written user reviews by times.

    As for the numbered scores Empire Strikes Back is apparently better than Casablanca, 12 Angry Men, Rear Window, Citizen Kane and China Town.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 143 ✭✭Nordwind


    Sometimes their ratings can be pretty accurate but a lot of time I'm baffled as to how film x got such a score or whatever.

    Don't get me wrong, I read reviews/listen to reviews/give my own small review after some films.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Nordwind wrote: »
    So none of you comedians use IMDB, or have used it in the past?
    Sure you cane never trust the IMDB ratings. A load of Fanboys giving films 10/10 before a film comes out, or people objecting to a film and doing the same with 0/10 votes. But with the worded reviews you can see what a person thinks of a film and their reasons why they liked/hated it (and in the case of IMDB you can also see who didn't even wathc the film).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 143 ✭✭Nordwind


    But I'm sure you've contributed to the ratings once or twice?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    I honestly don't think so. I might of when I was young and naive. But I never really saw the point once I realised that it was full of muppets just giving 10 or 0 for no real reason.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,216 ✭✭✭✭monkeyfudge


    They put flames on Optimus Prime.... if that's not a reason to mark a film 0 out of 10 before you see it then I don't know what is...


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 30,343 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    The problem with numbers is that a lot of people inherently take that as gospel - so when a new film gets a seven out of ten in a review there is absolute uproar that it didn't get a perfect result. This is far worse in gaming journalism though.

    Its a sad fact that alot of people use a score as a simple way to judge a film without reading the content of the review. I care more about why a film is good or bad, not necessarily how good or bad it is (depending on the circumstances of course). So a review is the only way to really understand a person's opinion on something - hell, even a short paragraph can contain far more information than a simple 8/10.

    Films can't be summarised in numbers, and this is a major problem of current popular culture reviewing. How about coming up with a few sentences about why you liked or disliked it instead of a number? Or look at rotten tomatoes as a quick resource - a % with a short line describing the general consensus. That line alone adds a lot to the percentage score, and then you browse down to read highlighted paragraphs of a review, which you can read at your leisure. IMDB is pretty useless for ratings though - when you see 20% of people giving a one or a ten to a film that is clearly neither of those, you know it isn't exactly trustworthy - IMDB is for trivia and details.

    Don't be so fixated on a score - try and elaborate a bit! I for one find that that truly helps you to analyse a film the way it should be. Writing even a short review is a far better way of reminding you what you felt about something.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,070 ✭✭✭Placebo


    its hard to judge DIRECTION.


    should be based along the lines of

    STORY
    SCRIPT
    ACTING
    CINEMATOGRAPHY [Camera work, shots, lighting]
    MUSIC [how it fits in well with film, soundtrack/background/ambient]


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,662 CMod ✭✭✭✭faceman


    You only have to read Empire mag's reviews to see how meaningless "scores" are for reviews. They often review the scores down when the film hits dvd.


Advertisement