Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Archive » net.sf-lovers » How I Rate Films
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
How I Rate Films [message #91862] Wed, 26 June 2013 01:04
ecl is currently offline  ecl
Messages: 97
Registered: June 2013
Karma: 0
Member
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
  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: Re: Buckaroo Banzai times three
Next Topic: Dune review in Newsweek "On Campus" edition
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Fri Mar 29 05:44:49 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.13695 seconds