ecl@ahuta.UUCP (ecl) (12/05/84)
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
greg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley) (12/15/84)
In opposition to Bill Frolik's posting, I'd like to defend the "critics" on the net. Certainly not every criticism that gets posted has something I consider of value to say. In fact, I'd say it's by far the minority that genuinely provide insight. Nevertheless, I would not want to see anyone being inhibited from posting his/her "critique". One can get into endless arguments as to what defines art vs. what is entertainment and whether the two coincide or are mutually exclusive. The point that I feel is not arguable is that a number of people take films seriously as an art form. A certain level of passion is an innate part of any real art-lover's makeup and this passion will show itself as much in a hatred of the bad as in a love of the good. Since nobody is requiring me to agree with anything I read, and no one is either forcing me to see or preventing me from seeing any movie discussed, I see no reason to discourage the expression of strong feelings, positive or negative. - Greg Paley
ecl@ahuta.UUCP (e.leeper) (12/17/84)
REFERENCES: <141@ahuta.UUCP>, <6500036@hp-pcd.UUCP> >I don't know about other people, but I tend to get tired of >reading overly critical Do you mean here critical in the sense "discussed in bad terms" or merely pertaining to film criticism, positive or negative? >and analytical movie reviews written by apparently >self-proclaimed movie "critics". I wrote the article you are complaining about, so I suppose you are referring to me, though I do not consider myself a critic. I would say that a bona fide critic should have much more background in the history of cinema and in film style. I consider myself a film fan who is informally writing about films for a company club science fiction notice. Since it is easy to do, we are also posting those reviews to the net. I guess as a result of the posting I also am writing for the people who read the net.movies net, if they are interested. When I do get people disagreeing with my reviews, they run pretty close to 50-50 that I am too positive or too negative. >Personally, when I go to see a movie I usually go for enjoyment, Enjoyment is certainly the bottom line. >not just to be able to say I saw it and proceed to fling around >an opinionated critique along with my own biased "rating" >system. I never go to a film to be able to say I saw it. I don't use it as a status symbol, I genuinely like film, bad and good. And I like to talk about film to decide for myself why I thought a film was good or why it was bad. I never claimed that rating a film was any more than a measure of how much I liked a film. I also like to quantify things. It is a shorthand for a lot of words, placing a film into a spectrum of films I liked more or less. If I rate of film a +2 that means something to me. I guess that it is better than LAST STARFIGHTER (a +1) but not as good as THE NATURAL (a +3) in my opinion. >Personally, I liked "Terminator". The person I saw >it with liked it. The last three people I talked to who >had seen it also liked it. Even the local newspaper's movie >"critic" had nothing bad to say about it. There, you said in print that you liked the film. Is it so much worse me to say I was sort of neutral and list some of the things I did and did not like? Then for those who want a nice succinct summary, I attach a number to my feelings about the film. I am not telling you what to think about the film any more than you are telling me. >I guess you have to take most of the reviews and rating >systems you see on the net with a grain of salt. Not at all, you have to stop misinterpretting what a rating is. I thought that TERMINATOR was better than SUPERMAN II (I thought that was a -1 film) but not as good as SUPERMAN I (a +1). You can take that with a grain of salt if you like, but that really and truly is my opinion. Why would I lie about how I felt about the films? >They best way to determine whether or not you'll like a >movie is to go see it, not just take someone else's >(opinionated) word for it that the movie is a "dog"; don't >believe everything you read. Ideally that is true. But by the same token, the best way to find out if a coffee maker is good is to buy it and find out for oneself. That doesn't mean that I am never again going to read Consumer Reports. Before I make a purchase, I like to know what other opinionated people who have dealt with this particular model have thought of it. I like to see how this group of people rated it. Consumer Reports doesn't use numbers, but they use a rating system with symbols that might as well be numerical. I generally find my opinions of a product vary somewhat from theirs, but not enough to negate their value. If I have one Saturday afternoon but two films that I have some interest in, I generally want to know what some opinionated person thought of the film. > >A few years back I saw "Monty Python Meets Beyond The >Fringe", I never saw it. I was curious to see it, but it got really bad reviews. >a film which *in my opinion* would, on a scale of 0 >to 10, need a periscope to see -100. Less than 20 minutes >into the movie about two-thirds of the audience had walked >out. I suppose here most people would call that movie a >dog; but then, there WERE a few people who sat through the >whole thing and seemed to like it. Don't equate sitting though a film with thinking the film is good. >If one of them had been a "critic" and proceeded to tell >everybody that it was a truly great film, would you believe them? I would believe that that was truly their opinion. You have just given a good argument why we need a lot of people around giving their opinions of films. We need a good mix of opinions. I promise to continue to do my part. How about you printing your opinions more often? (Evelyn C. Leeper for) Mark R. Leeper ...ihnp4!lznv!mrl
bill@hp-pcd.UUCP (bill) (12/18/84)
I don't know about other people, but I tend to get tired of reading overly critical and analytical movie reviews written by apparently self-proclaimed movie "critics". Personally, when I go to see a movie I usually go for enjoyment, not just to be able to say I saw it and proceed to fling around an opinionated critique along with my own biased "rating" system. Personally, I liked "Terminator". The person I saw it with liked it. The last three people I talked to who had seen it also liked it. Even the local newspaper's movie "critic" had nothing bad to say about it. I guess you have to take most of the reviews and rating systems you see on the net with a grain of salt. They best way to determine whether or not you'll like a movie is to go see it, not just take someone else's (opinionated) word for it that the movie is a "dog"; don't believe everything you read. A few years back I saw "Monty Python Meets Beyond The Fringe", a film which *in my opinion* would, on a scale of 0 to 10, need a periscope to see -100. Less than 20 minutes into the movie about two-thirds of the audience had walked out. I suppose here most people would call that movie a dog; but then, there WERE a few people who sat through the whole thing and seemed to like it. If one of them had been a "critic" and proceeded to tell everybody that it was a truly great film, would you believe them? To each his own. Bill Frolik hplabs!hp-pcd!bill
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (12/18/84)
In article <hp-pcd.6500036> bill@hp-pcd.UUCP (bill) writes: >I don't know about other people, but I tend to get tired of reading >overly critical and analytical movie reviews written by apparently >self-proclaimed movie "critics". Personally, when I go to see a >movie I usually go for enjoyment, not just to be able to say I saw >it and proceed to fling around an opinionated critique along with >my own biased "rating" system. >I guess you have to take most of the reviews and rating systems you see >on the net with a grain of salt. They best way to determine whether >or not you'll like a movie is to go see it, not just take someone >else's (opinionated) word for it that the movie is a "dog"; don't >believe everything you read. A film review is, and always has been, nothing more than one person's opinion. Hopefully the opinion expressed is somewhat thoughtful and informed. The reviews I have posted in mod.movies are hopefully something more than overly critical analyses by "apparently self-proclaimed movie 'critics.'" Each of them has indicated not only whether or not the reviewer liked the film, but why. Further, each of them has demonstrated some standard of comparison as to why the reviewed film is better (or worse) than other films of similar genre or from the same artists. The objective of posting a review is not to either laud or indict films (I often do not agree with the reviewers' opinions,) but to provide enough useful information so that people who do not have enough time and/or money to run out and see every available film can make some judgement as to whether a film is worthwhile. Of course you should take film reviews with a grain of salt! I'm astonished that you would think someone would do otherwise. In an ideal world, you should be familiar with the criteria a reviewer uses to judge films, know how those criteria differ from your own, and use that information to decide whether to see a film. You could waste an awful lot of money having to decide from first-hand experience whether a film is worthwhile or not. Further, you encourage rewarding producers and directors who do slipshod work by allowing them to make profits. Everyone has some standard of judgement as to whether they choose to see a film. Often it is whether their friends like it, whether they've read the book (if applicable) or whether they like the previous work of the actors, director etc. Note, however, that the process of selection is exactly the same as should be expected from using film reviews: You generally are in some sense familiar with the reviewers (friends, your own) tastes, are aware of how those tastes fit with your own (often tautological) and make your decision on that basis. Just saying that a film is good or bad, worth seeing or not worth seeing is really not enough. If I walk up to you on the street, point to a theatre showing a film you aren't familiar with and say "Go see it," you are more of a fool than I can imagine if you do. You don't know me, don't know what I like, and could scarcely be surprised if you didn't like the film. The purpose of the analytical review is to provide the necessary background material so you *can* make your own informed decision. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (12/18/84)
(apologies for the lack of capitals, etc. i am working under difficult
conditions.)
many people are uncertain whether or not they want to see a film, and would like
to know a little bit more about it than the typical "yeah, it's really neat!" or
"it stinks" response our friends are so wont to give. i personally solve this
problem by seeing almost everything that
comes out (well, the american ones, at least.) how are others to solve it? well, they might do worse than to consult
a couple of reviews. since net.movies
is about movies, it seems like a reasonable place to look for reviews. my own
policy is to take one opinion with a grain
of salt, but several similar opinions about a film usually have some substance
behind them. thus, consult more than one review. also, try to find a critic whose tastes largely coincide with yours.
the alternative is to wait for word of mouth that may never come on some more
obscure films, or to believe the advertising
(ho ho), or to take shots in the dark.
if you still prefer to avoid reviews, use your n key when one comes up.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiherrlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (12/20/84)
> I don't know about other people, but I tend to get tired of reading > overly critical and analytical movie reviews written by apparently > self-proclaimed movie "critics". ... > A few years back I saw "Monty Python Meets Beyond The Fringe", a film > which *in my opinion* would, on a scale of 0 to 10, need a periscope > to see -100. Less than 20 minutes into the movie about two-thirds > of the audience had walked out. I suppose here most people would > call that movie a dog; but then, there WERE a few people who sat > through the whole thing and seemed to like it. If one of them had > been a "critic" and proceeded to tell everybody that it was a truly > great film, would you believe them? To each his own. > Bill Frolik On the other hand, if one "self-proclaimed movie critic" called one of the most hysterical movies I had ever seen "a dog", I'd know better than to pay attention to his opinion. P.S. The scene in which Peter Cook explains why he became a coal miner instead of a judge is worth the price of admission. Seeing Cook and other ex-Fringers work with the Pythons is witnessing a great moment in comedic history. "AnyTHING goes in; anyTHING goes out; fish, bananas, old pajamas, mutton, beef, and trout..." -- "Those without forms must appear, however briefly, at the Bureau's Astral Offices on Nooker Street..." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr