Message-ID: <141@ahuta.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Dec-84 22:14:58 EST
Article-I.D.: ahuta.141
Posted: Tue Dec 4 22:14:58 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Dec-84 04:49:41 EST
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 100
Xref: watmath net.movies:5122 net.sf-lovers:5330
In response to this letter:
> Mark,
>
> I have just finished reading your review of "Terminator." I am somewhat
> confused by your rating system (especially when I make a comparison to how
> you've rated things in the past).
>
> I can recall reading a review where the movie sounded quite interesting and
> well worth viewing, and where the movie received a +1. Now I read this review,
> which makes the movie sound like a real dog and see that it gets a 0 (I would
> have expected a -2).
>
> It might be instructive to put some attributes around your rating system (you
> probably did this once and I missed it) and list some sample movies that fit
> each of the catagories.
>
Good idea. Let me explain what the system is and why it may look like ratings
contradict what is said in the review. There are nine possible ratings for a
film in what I call the "CFQ" rating system. The system rates films from a -4
to a +4 in whole numbers. A neutral film is a zero. This rating system was
used at one time (and unfortunately abandoned later) by CINEFANTASTIQUE
magazine. It has the virtue that positive numbers mean I (or whoever uses it)
feel positively toward the film, negative means I feel negatively. The one to
four rating system has seven possible ratings, so this one is a little more
articulate. It is conceivable that a film could come along that is much better
than any +4 film I have ever seen. I am not sure what to do in this case, but
luckily that has never happened.
A -4 film is one that show a high degree of either incompetence or cynicism
toward the viewer. It has no value in the manner in which it was intended. It
may have some value as a laughing stock, but I always feel self-conscious
laughing at a film because of its incompetence. A -2 is really pretty bad, but
still watchable for more than humor value. A 0 film is ok but nothing very
special. A +2 is well worth seeing. A +4 make a movie one of the reasons I
like fantasy films. It is a memorable and enjoyable experience.
The following are examples of fantasy films I give each rating:
+4 FIVE MILLION YEARS TO EARTH
+3 WAR OF THE WORLDS
+2 KRULL
+1 LAST STARFIGHTER
0 GREMLINS
-1 WARGAMES
-2 SPACEHUNTER
-3 GIANT CLAW
-4 CREEPING TERROR
This is not too helpful, of course, because they are very subjective ratings.
But it will give you an idea of some benchmarks. The following are my +4
fantasy films:
-- KING KONG - A blockbuster and a groundbreaker of a film.
Miles ahead of what came before.
-- FORBIDDEN PLANET - Something for the eye, something for the
mind.
-- PHASE IV - A war between two truly alien intelligences. The
most interesting part is how each uses its own physical
differences against the other. Tremendous insect photography.
-- FIVE MILLION YEARS TO EARTH (QUATERMASS AND THE PIT) - Better
sf than any but a handful of written pieces of sf. It has
some amazing and sweeping ideas.
-- STAR WARS - A blockbuster and a groundbreaker of a film.
Miles ahead of what came before.
-- DRAGONSLAYER - The highest level of traditional-style fantasy
I have seen in a film; an interesting script and impressive
visuals. Extra bonus: it has the only dragon I have ever seen
that really looks like it could fly.
But now, why does one film seem like a complete dog and get a zero rating and
another film sound really good and get only a +1? I will usually try to say
something about a film that I feel should be said. If I were to review RETURN
OF THE JEDI today, what I would probably say would involve how cloyingly sweet
the ending was and how irritating the introduction of Ewoks was. How it
degrades the series. So saying all that about it I must really hate the film,
right? Wrong! I would give it a +3. If I like it that much, why say such
negative things about it? Well, what should I say? That it has great special
effects and exciting sequences. Did you have any doubt it would? I say about
a film what I noticed that someone else might not or might not have thought
about. Sometimes what I say might leave a different impression than my overall
impression of the film. The rating is unambiguous. In the case of TERMINATOR,
there is a lot that is really pretty bad. Still there are some ideas, not all
good, but not all bad. Also there is an interesting sequence near the end that
I did not want to describe for fear of giving away plot. When the tone of a
review and the rating disagree, believe the rating. It is often there because
for some reason I did not make the tone of the review exactly fit my feelings
toward the film. There is a lot that should have been tightened up in
TERMINATOR's script. But overall it came up to being just ok.
(Evelyn C. Leeper for)
Mark R. Leeper
...ihnp4!lznv!mrl