Criteria for rating films

Nordwind · 11-05-2008 06:58PM #1

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!

Pigman II · 11-05-2008 07:24PM

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?

Nordwind · 11-05-2008 07:30PM

Yeah kinda noticed that:D

Any suggestions to improve it?

Pigman II · 11-05-2008 07:36PM

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.

Nordwind · 11-05-2008 07:47PM

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.

BlitzKrieg · 11-05-2008 07:50PM

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.

Mark Hamill · 11-05-2008 08:43PM

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?)

Necronomicon · 11-05-2008 09:41PM

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.

Galvasean · 11-05-2008 09:46PM

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

monkeyfudge · 12-05-2008 02:11AM

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.

Nordwind · 12-05-2008 09:03AM

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.

humanji · 12-05-2008 12:39PM

monkeyfudge wrote: »

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.

monkeyfudge · 12-05-2008 12:41PM

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.

humanji · 12-05-2008 12:45PM

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

Nordwind · 12-05-2008 12:51PM

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

kaimera · 12-05-2008 12:55PM

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

Karl Hungus · 12-05-2008 12:55PM

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.

monkeyfudge · 12-05-2008 12:56PM

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.

Nordwind · 12-05-2008 12:59PM

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.

humanji · 12-05-2008 01:21PM

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).

Nordwind · 12-05-2008 01:42PM

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

humanji · 12-05-2008 01:46PM

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.

monkeyfudge · 12-05-2008 02:13PM

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...

johnny_ultimate · 12-05-2008 05:37PM

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.

Placebo · 17-05-2008 12:43PM

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]

faceman · 17-05-2008 04:29PM

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.

Criteria for rating films

Comments