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

[gasteropod]

Have you only watched it on VHS on a small TV or something? lol. Maybe then the effects look OK...

[gasteropod]

Oh yeah, just remembered the girl just standing there watching her mum's face being burnt off by acid, no emotion, no screaming or trying to help or get help lol, oh dear.

[gasteropod]

The House with Laughing Windows: 3.5/5

[saltysam]

i'm with Hung.i like The Beyond hope the forthcoming Blu-Ray does it justice.David Warbreck and Katriona McColl make a great team

[luckystars]

I liked the Beyond for it's eery dreamlike feel. Stylistic ultra-violence and otherworldliness. But! It's a bitch of a film to sit through and I honestly wouldn't ever want to again. Or maybe once more in 10 years time when I can barely remember it


This if you know it, is one of the best shots I have ever seen in a film!




I hard film to rate - I know it was of quality but I wan't sold on it and didn't particularly enjoy it, nor would I recommend it to anyone!!

Reluctantly a 4/5

[gasteropod]

I hard film to rate - I know it was of quality but I wan't sold on it and didn't particularly enjoy it, nor would I recommend it to anyone!!

Reluctantly a 4/5

A 4 out of 5 is a solid recommendation lol, your whole post is one big contradiction

[luckystars]

No it ain't.

Just because don't like a film doesn't mean it's bad.

Think about it

[Yi-Long]

I agree. Cyclo is a perfect example. It's an extremely well-made gorgeous movie, and easily deserves a 4 out of 5 star rating for the story, acting, cinematography etc...

... however, it's not a 'fun' movie to watch. You don't really care for any of the characters, and many people will not 'enjoy' it or watch it all the way through.

And although I think it's a very good movie, it's not a movie that I will return to often. Maybe once every 5 years orso. If that.

[saltysam]

i rate films on whether i like them or not,not because they are well made.for example 2001 & Blade Runner are well made but both bored me to tears so they'd both get low marks from me

[luckystars]

i rate films on whether i like them or not,not because they are well made.for example 2001 & Blade Runner are well made but both bored me to tears so they'd both get low marks from me

Wow ok. I'll remember that when reading your reviews.



Meaning I'll ignore them

[saltysam]

Meaning I'll ignore them

Two words and one letter-Ong Bak 3.that is all i need to know

[HungFist]

i rate films on whether i like them or not,not because they are well made.for example 2001 & Blade Runner are well made but both bored me to tears so they'd both get low marks from me

Words of wisdom.

A technically good movie isn't worth shit if it isn't practically good. Why does it exist if it has no practical application? Tech side is a supporting / enhancing element, not the main course. You can't eat salt alone either, even if it was of highest quality and artistically placed on the plate.

Furthermore, with the tech grading we end up quessing ratings for movies. As far as "techical quality" or "importance" go, no one in the world has enough knowledge to fairly rate all movies they see. We just end up taking quesses and asking friends / consulting sources...

"It's a masterpiece because... because... beca... Ebert sad it was!!!"

[luckystars]

i rate films on whether i like them or not,not because they are well made.for example 2001 & Blade Runner are well made but both bored me to tears so they'd both get low marks from me

Words of wisdom.

A technically good movie isn't worth shit if it isn't practically good. Why does it exist if it has no practical application? Tech side is a supporting / enhancing element, not the main course. You can't eat salt alone either, even if it was of highest quality and artistically placed on the plate.

Furthermore, with the tech grading we end up quessing ratings for movies. As far as "techical quality" or "importance" go, no one in the world has enough knowledge to fairly rate all movies they see. We just end up taking quesses and asking friends / consulting sources...

"It's a masterpiece because... because... beca... Ebert sad it was!!!"

Totally disagree. What is a critic for if you can only enjoy the things he likes...by being him?




Example 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' rated 1/10


Reason I don't like dramas.


Taste and appreciation are 2 different things. I didn't say I thought The Beyond was bad, just I didn't enjoy it. I know what makes a good film though. It's not so hard for me to say 'yes this is good' just 'not for me'.

[Yi-Long]

You can still very much appreciate a movie without 'enjoying' it. If that makes sense. (It doesn't, but I'm sticking with it anyway...)

[luckystars]

And what of 'serious' films that aren't fun/funny?

Example 'Bullet in the Head' 1/10

Too serious!! I felt other emotions!! No fun!


I honestly think to objectively assess a film you have to think - am I just liking this because of 1 thing - a favourite Actor/Director, genre, setting, period, story, dialogue, country, technical content, visual aesthetic, sound design etc etc etc. Or a 'whole' that can be the sum of the parts, or greater/lesser. To 'feel' the film is not taste.

[grim_tales]

I agree with Yi and Luckystars on this one TBH. For example I can appreciate a film is very well made etc, but may not be something I'd watch over and over, or might not be for me.

[saltysam]

I agree with Yi and Luckystars on this one TBH. For example I can appreciate a film is very well made etc, but may not be something I'd watch over and over, or might not be for me.

so you'd award films you don't like 4/5?? yeah,that makes sense.

[luckystars]

Which of these films is the best:

Airplane

Soul Plane

Airforce One

The Aviator

?


Answer : All of them! 10/10


I like films with Planes in!

[Yi-Long]

I agree with Yi and Luckystars on this one TBH. For example I can appreciate a film is very well made etc, but may not be something I'd watch over and over, or might not be for me.

so you'd award films you don't like 4/5?? yeah,that makes sense.

I 'like' Cyclo in that it's a very good movie. However, it's certainly not 'fun' to watch. It's not a light subject, it's very dark, you hardly care anything about the characters, etc. But I do think it's a very good movie. You just have to really be in the right mood for it when you sit down and watch it, to appreciate it.

[grim_tales]

I agree with Yi and Luckystars on this one TBH. For example I can appreciate a film is very well made etc, but may not be something I'd watch over and over, or might not be for me.

so you'd award films you don't like 4/5?? yeah,that makes sense.

No I might award it 3/5 or something - example - 2001, I can appreciate it was very well made with some great sequences, but I'm not sure I "got it" so wouldnt give it 5/5 just because.

[HungFist]

Totally disagree. What is a critic for if you can only enjoy the things he likes...by being him?

Example 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' rated 1/10

Reason I don't like dramas.

What do ratings have to do with good reviews? Nothing. The just happen to be on the same page.

A review analyzes the film. Rating is just an additional summary of the personal opinion slapped at the end.

Seriously kids, don't tell me you still value ratings critics give films??? That you let 1/5 or 5/5 rating affect on your viewing decisions??

[luckystars]

Totally disagree. What is a critic for if you can only enjoy the things he likes...by being him?

Example 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' rated 1/10

Reason I don't like dramas.

What do ratings have to do with good reviews? Nothing. The just happen to be on the same page.

A review analyzes the film. Rating is just an additional summary of the personal opinion slapped at the end.

Seriously kids, don't tell me you still value ratings critics give films??? That you let 1/5 or 5/5 rating affect on your viewing decisions??

No. That's not what I'm saying at all. Or what were talking about.

[bradavon]

I've never understood why people get so irate by critics. They're just one person's opinion, read and take note or don't. It's that simple. The critic certainly is never saying their word is gospel.

[Shingster]

Film criticism is always going to be a primarily subjective thing, but the good critics (or indeed any critic with any intelligence) also maintain a certain level of objectivity when reviewing a film too, so you never get the kind of ratings in Luckystars' facetious posts about films with planes in them; however in rating The Beyond it is very clear that Luckystar has taken objectivity to a ridiculous extreme!

Also another fan of The Beyond here, yes like most Italian directors of the 70s Lucio Fulci didn't pay enough attention to the performances and often his imagination exceeded his limited budget, but there is still some great low-fi special effects work in The Beyond (yes the spider scene looks crap, but there's no way to convincingly film tarantulas biting someone's face off without CGI is there?) and it is very atmospheric, thanks in no small part to Salvati's cinematography, and Frizzi's score is genuinely one of the best horror scores of all time (imo of course).

[luckystars]

Thanks for the deserved notoriety Shing!


I agree with your summarisation of The Beyond. I also noted atmosphere and craft in my micro 'review'. Yet it's bizarre for me have given this cult film (that's obviously got a following etc. etc.) a 4/5 just because I admired/appreciated it more than personally liking it that much? Should I have slammed it instead of pointing out the good bits too?