Posts
The ultimate question.
I remember spending hours, contemplating how on earth one could come up with a fair 'star distribution' system for rating movies. Obsession, definitely. But there are countless drawbacks, such as subjectivity of tastes and mutability of judgements, that make it nearly impossible for anyone to be fair - 'fair' as in 'objective and definitive'. The distinctions should be meaningful and clear; the difference between, say, four stars and three stars out of ten should not be arbitrary. One must be positive that any two movies with the same rating should really belong to the same group, that the stars should be an indicator of movie qualities rather than the critic's whimsical sentimentality.
Impossible? To some extent, yes. I cannot claim that my ratings are completely independent from my own tastes (after all, whose are?) and attributing a definitive character to my opinions would be a deception. The least I can do is be honest. From time to time, second or third viewings of certain movies tend to have different impacts than the first, therefore occasional updates are always necessary.
On the positive side, what I can do to have my own 'semi-fair' rating system is to define clearly what each rating would mean. Results? Here's what I've been able to come up with:
10/10 - Excellent - A flawless masterpiece that hasn't been and won't be aged with years.
9/10 - Very Good - A magnificent achievement in filmmaking. Just a little step shy of being perfect - maybe because of a little but visible flaw (such as an unsatisfactory ending or a cheesy dialogue) or simply the lack of the kind excitement and impression that a masterpiece tends to evoke in us.
8/10 - Very Good - Remarkably successful, probably one of the most important movies in cinema history, but not untouchable. One or more of the cinematic aspects (screenplay, acting, visual style, conversations, story, editing etc.) might be suffering from an intolerable flaw or maybe the overall composition is indeed 'very good' but nothing more than that.
7/10 - Good - A successful and solid movie - it's definitely made with a mature consciousness. Among the movies I would call 'good', this one belongs to the upper half portion. It might be an old movie, classic of its time but nowadays a little outdated; or it might be a new movie that is greatly praised during its high-time but lacks the quality that would make its appreciation permanent after the hype is gone.
6/10 - Good - A good movie, watchable and satisfying, but the overall ordinariness and/or significant flaws raise certain suspicions. There are 'things' about this movie that makes me think twice before recommending it highly to people. Still enjoyable and/or effective to some extent.
5/10 - Mediocre - Not good but not bad either - something in between. Despite the likable aspects of the movie, there are certain catastrophic defects that are unforgivable. Maybe the fans of this specific genre are the only people who can really appreciate this movie. Others might stay away.
4/10 - Bad - Overall, an unsatisfactory flick. It might have some appealing sequences that I thought were wasted in this flop. All the movies that are poor in quality but have a focused aim (cliche action movies that are still fun, predictable comedies that make you laugh etc.) belong in this category. Movies that make one say: "This one actually could be a good one if only..."
3/10 - Bad - Quite unsuccessful and mostly a waste of time. Here and there it might've caught a glimpse of my attention but that's as far as it could get. Doesn't require a detailed critique on itself, either in the good way or the bad way.
2/10 - Very Bad - Terrible. Aside from a few scenes or shots, or the crumbles of a few decent ideas, completely unnecessary. Better if it doesn't exist at all.
1/10 - Very Bad - Complete trash. Utterly worthless. A total catastrophe.
Now, is it really necessary to categorize movies like this in order to write reviews? Is a ten-star spectrum too much, too little or just right for this kind of categorization? Both are legitimate questions with the same answer: No. A movie review might as well be a statement of opinions without a rating (like many newspaper articles), a simple division between "I liked it" and "It's not for me" (as in Rotten Tomatoes), an evaluation over four stars (like Roger Ebert prefers) or a hundred (like Metacritic) or even an in-depth study of the movie in which a rating would look amateurish. All would do. This is only my choice and not necessarily the best.
P.S: The rankings described above doesn't stand far from others though; like, say, 'fresh-rotten' type of classification. I'm guessing from 7 and up would be my 'fresh'. Although I can't imagine dealing with a scale of 100 points - the vision of myself trying to write 100 distinct definitions haunts me.
I remember spending hours, contemplating how on earth one could come up with a fair 'star distribution' system for rating movies. Obsession, definitely. But there are countless drawbacks, such as subjectivity of tastes and mutability of judgements, that make it nearly impossible for anyone to be fair - 'fair' as in 'objective and definitive'. The distinctions should be meaningful and clear; the difference between, say, four stars and three stars out of ten should not be arbitrary. One must be positive that any two movies with the same rating should really belong to the same group, that the stars should be an indicator of movie qualities rather than the critic's whimsical sentimentality.Impossible? To some extent, yes. I cannot claim that my ratings are completely independent from my own tastes (after all, whose are?) and attributing a definitive character to my opinions would be a deception. The least I can do is be honest. From time to time, second or third viewings of certain movies tend to have different impacts than the first, therefore occasional updates are always necessary.
On the positive side, what I can do to have my own 'semi-fair' rating system is to define clearly what each rating would mean. Results? Here's what I've been able to come up with:
10/10 - Excellent - A flawless masterpiece that hasn't been and won't be aged with years.
9/10 - Very Good - A magnificent achievement in filmmaking. Just a little step shy of being perfect - maybe because of a little but visible flaw (such as an unsatisfactory ending or a cheesy dialogue) or simply the lack of the kind excitement and impression that a masterpiece tends to evoke in us.
8/10 - Very Good - Remarkably successful, probably one of the most important movies in cinema history, but not untouchable. One or more of the cinematic aspects (screenplay, acting, visual style, conversations, story, editing etc.) might be suffering from an intolerable flaw or maybe the overall composition is indeed 'very good' but nothing more than that.
7/10 - Good - A successful and solid movie - it's definitely made with a mature consciousness. Among the movies I would call 'good', this one belongs to the upper half portion. It might be an old movie, classic of its time but nowadays a little outdated; or it might be a new movie that is greatly praised during its high-time but lacks the quality that would make its appreciation permanent after the hype is gone.
6/10 - Good - A good movie, watchable and satisfying, but the overall ordinariness and/or significant flaws raise certain suspicions. There are 'things' about this movie that makes me think twice before recommending it highly to people. Still enjoyable and/or effective to some extent.
5/10 - Mediocre - Not good but not bad either - something in between. Despite the likable aspects of the movie, there are certain catastrophic defects that are unforgivable. Maybe the fans of this specific genre are the only people who can really appreciate this movie. Others might stay away.
4/10 - Bad - Overall, an unsatisfactory flick. It might have some appealing sequences that I thought were wasted in this flop. All the movies that are poor in quality but have a focused aim (cliche action movies that are still fun, predictable comedies that make you laugh etc.) belong in this category. Movies that make one say: "This one actually could be a good one if only..."
3/10 - Bad - Quite unsuccessful and mostly a waste of time. Here and there it might've caught a glimpse of my attention but that's as far as it could get. Doesn't require a detailed critique on itself, either in the good way or the bad way.
2/10 - Very Bad - Terrible. Aside from a few scenes or shots, or the crumbles of a few decent ideas, completely unnecessary. Better if it doesn't exist at all.
1/10 - Very Bad - Complete trash. Utterly worthless. A total catastrophe.
Now, is it really necessary to categorize movies like this in order to write reviews? Is a ten-star spectrum too much, too little or just right for this kind of categorization? Both are legitimate questions with the same answer: No. A movie review might as well be a statement of opinions without a rating (like many newspaper articles), a simple division between "I liked it" and "It's not for me" (as in Rotten Tomatoes), an evaluation over four stars (like Roger Ebert prefers) or a hundred (like Metacritic) or even an in-depth study of the movie in which a rating would look amateurish. All would do. This is only my choice and not necessarily the best.
P.S: The rankings described above doesn't stand far from others though; like, say, 'fresh-rotten' type of classification. I'm guessing from 7 and up would be my 'fresh'. Although I can't imagine dealing with a scale of 100 points - the vision of myself trying to write 100 distinct definitions haunts me.
2 comments:
And the fact that the possibility of you writing 100 distinct definitions is non-zero, and I can make it happen by pushing the right buttons amuses me to no end.
Scary.
Post a Comment