What general film/series have you just seen.. marks out of 5

[gasteropod]

The Changeling (1980) - 3.5/5

A good haunted house film, that actually has a plot. Interestingly neither this nor the unrelated Clint Eastwood film of the same name portray the changeling myth that I read about in a book once, which was actually creepier.

[gasteropod]

The Legend of Hell House (1973) - 3/5

It's a shame that this film became so messy as it went on, as it has good atmosphere and sound and is one of the better haunted house films. I recommend it for fans of the genre, but it just falls short of 'good'.

[Markgway]

Why? Because it's bollocks . The rest of the world is happy with using 5 out of 5 (or 10 out of 10) but somehow that's beneath you. Doesn't it say something when not everyone immediately gets it? A rating is supposed to be immediately obvious, otherwise it's failed.

Two points:

1. I didn't invent the **** ratings system. I don't know who did, but I first picked it up from this esteemed critic here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_H._Scheuer. It was subsequently popularised by Leonard Maltin. If it's good enough for two of America's best regarded critics it should be good enough for you.

2. If you're too dumb to understand the system I've employed then clearly I'm not writing these reviews/comments for you! I've never had a complaint from an intelligent person.

[bradavon]

I didn't say I didn't get it. I said it wasn't immediately obvious, that's quite different. I also said it was a bollocks system. Only managing to find 2 other people who also use it, just proves the point more that it's not immediately obvious and at (least once) needs to be explained, again making it fail.

Of course you have. I'm hardly the first person to say it's a nonsense rating system. I didn't even bring it up first this time, you noticed that right? It's a continuation of a point already raised a few posts up and will no doubt be raised again.

The real reason is not because 4 is intrinsically better than 5 but because it gives you a feeling of superiority to use a different system. You're the most stubborn member on the forum, a universal feeling I imagine.

Getting angry because you're not explaining yourself properly says more about the reviewer than reader. You may as well say fuck it and don't bother with spelling, grammar etc... if you're not going to make your reviews clear (taken to it's logical extreme).

You're writing them for whomever wishes to read them presumably. To limit a review to only a certain demographic seems pretty dumb.

[gasteropod]

The Amityville Horror (1979) - 1/5

I wasn't expecting much, perhaps a bit of trashy fun, instead I got a never-ending borefest. Why it's 2 hours long is anyone's guess considering nothing of note even happens - there are some flies, a girl with a ridiculous mouthpiece gets locked in a cupboard, and a boy gets his hands trapped under a window - o0o0o0o terrifying, I think I may lose sleep over this - oh wait, actually it nearly put me into a coma. Honestly I don't even think it's better than the remake, they're both shite.

[gasteropod]

2. If you're too dumb to understand the system I've employed then clearly I'm not writing these reviews/comments for you! I've never had a complaint from an intelligent person.

I'd personally appreciate it if you wrote your scores like: 3/4, 4/4, etc. because my eyes just gloss over those tiny asterisks, they mean nothing to me.

[Markgway]

I don't like the marks of out of 5 or 10 systems but no one is going to change for me and I don't feel the need to bitch about them all the time.

I did explain clearly my system ages ago (and if anyone is in doubt will do so again) but it's the same few people who keep going on about it. If you understand as you say leave it alone. You don't like it? Fine. I get the message. And I'd rather be stubborn than stupid.

[saltysam]

i'm going to start using the EW system

[HungFist]

Vuosaari (Naked Harbor) (Finland, 2012) – 3.5/5
trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rssewuLs3dQ

Is there a trailer without Robbie Williams?

No.

brad rarely gets anyone's rating system

You mean by that, no one gets yours because your 5 out of 5 works differently from everyone else's . Where 2 out of 5 for instance could actually mean good but to everyone else it doesn't.

I think everyone except you gets my rating system perfectly well. The only difference between mine and that of some others is that I'm more strict. I give 1/5 easier, so 2/5 already means the film had something good about it, 3/5 means it's quite good, 4/5 is very good, and 5/5 is something fucking amazing. Very simple.

[bradavon]

I'd personally appreciate it if you wrote your scores like: 3/4, 4/4, etc. because my eyes just gloss over those tiny asterisks, they mean nothing to me.

Agreed (which means it'll never happen ). I hope we can all at least agree a score is supposed to be a quick indicator and that would make them much easier to read.

I give 1/5 easier, so 2/5 already means the film had something good about it, 3/5 means it's quite good, 4/5 is very good, and 5/5 is something fucking amazing. Very simple.

Correction. I get it but it's illogical to me. Your 3/4/5 out of 5 is standard. I'd guess most people give 1 or 2 out of 5 to dross but 2 is slightly better dross. Neither have anything especially appealing.

What I really mean though, is you've reviewed films favourably then given them only 2 out of 5. 2 out of 5 for me anyway would be largely negative. Anyway.

[HungFist]

The logic in my scale is that it doesn't really make sense to separate crap from shit... the scale is limited, so let's just dump all bad movies in the 1/5 category, then we'll have the rest of the ratings left to rank "good films".

Admittedly, I use the 1/5 rating far less these days now that I don't watch Nikkatsu pink films anymore

[luckystars]

Such as?
So I can assess what your definition of crap is. Obviously I can't tell from your rating system.

I meant you've said they're 'crap' and given them 3/5.

Depends on the type of film.

For a comedy or action film for example...3/5 is fine, enjoyable.

However with a serious drama or thriller, 3/5 can be underwhelming.


Simple.

[Markgway]

Mask of Satan (1960-Italy) **½

Atmospheric gothic horror from Mario Bava.

Great photography and a wide eyed Barbara Steele, but the story is a bit by-the-numbers.

[bradavon]

For a comedy or action film for example...3/5 is fine, enjoyable.
However with a serious drama or thriller, 3/5 can be underwhelming.

I wouldn't say fine but otherwise I agree with that.

[gasteropod]

The Entity (1982) - 3/5

It goes over the top, but it's decent.

[Markgway]

The Guard (2011-Ireland-UK) **

Offbeat, very Irish crime comedy with a lead character it's impossible to like or care much about and more stereotypes than a Father Ted episode. Hard to believe this was made by Irish filmmakers since they as a race/culture come off so badly (in my opinion). I did snigger a bunch of times and it's quite watchable mostly but there were script elements I didn't appreciate (the pro drugs statments, Brendan Gleeson helping the IRA) and the plotting was a bit weak.

House of the Devil (2008-USA) **

Babysitter-in-peril horror with a bloody twist. Technically well-made (and well acted) despite low budget origins and deliberate attempt to replicate early 80s retro slasher appeal... but done in by too much silliness and scenes that don't make sense. Supernatural elements are bogus as the true story claims and for me spoil any positive vibes the filmmakers have generated

[gasteropod]

The Woman in Black (2012) - 3/5

Nicely done, but offers nothing new and there isn't that much to it.

[Markgway]

OK. Finally finished the entire ELM ST box set.

All films are BD/1080p widescreen (and contain their original audio tracks)
The two TV shows are DVD/PAL/4:3/576i (piss poor quality thanks to them having been shot on videotape).
Extras are OK, but hardly definitive (pity New Line couldn't licence that exhaustive Never Sleep Again doc).

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984-USA) ***
A Nightmare on Elm Street, Part 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985-USA) **½
A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987-USA) ***
A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988-USA) **½
A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child (1989-USA) **
Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991-USA) *½
Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994-USA) ***
Freddy's Nightmares: It's a Miserable Life (1988-USA-TV) *
Freddy's Nightmares: Killer Instinct (1988-USA-TV) *½

Parts 1-3 are mono, Parts 4-7 stereo.

Any questions... just ask.

[Markgway]

The Flesh and Blood Show (1972-UK) **

Standard stalk and slash fare from cult director Pete Walker borders on the amateurish. Not especially bloody, but more nudity than usual.

[gasteropod]

1408 (2007) - 2/5

Silly and tedious, although I quite liked the beginning with Samuel L Jackson.

[gasteropod]

The Jacket (2005) - 3/5

Taking elements of La Jetée and Jacob's Ladder, it actually ended up being an all right film.

[saltysam]

OK. Finally finished the entire ELM ST box set.

All films are BD/1080p widescreen (and contain their original audio tracks)
The two TV shows are DVD/PAL/4:3/576i (piss poor quality thanks to them having been shot on videotape).
Extras are OK, but hardly definitive (pity New Line couldn't licence that exhaustive Never Sleep Again doc).

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984-USA) ***
A Nightmare on Elm Street, Part 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985-USA) **½
A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987-USA) ***
A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988-USA) **½
A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child (1989-USA) **
Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991-USA) *½
Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994-USA) ***
Freddy's Nightmares: It's a Miserable Life (1988-USA-TV) *
Freddy's Nightmares: Killer Instinct (1988-USA-TV) *½

Parts 1-3 are mono, Parts 4-7 stereo.

Any questions... just ask.

Got this set for xmas,not watched yet. Never Sleep Again has just come out on german BD btw.

[Markgway]

Cat Run (2011-USA) **½

A balls out wallow in splatterific violence and sleazy nudity that's surprisingly entertaining as long as you don't take it seriously for a nano second...

Sadly the lovely Paz Vega stays clothed; Janet McTeer is great as a very English assassin.

[Keung]

The Protector (US Cut) - ★

Sluggish mess.

[gasteropod]

Pandorum (2009) - 2/5

Nice sets reminiscent of Dead Space, but it's not very engaging and the action has the fast editing that I hate.

Reeker (2005) - 2.5/5

Slasher with a mysterious killer that makes you want to watch till the end just to find out what the hell it is.