Bullets 'n' Babes

thelostdragon wrote:"Confucius" was a huge waste of time for me. And I'm saying this as a CYF fan.

I think the phrase 'turkey' is what I'd use..

Not bad or terrible, but just didn't hit any mark.

luckystars wrote:I think the phrase 'turkey' is what I'd use.. Not bad or terrible, but just didn't hit any mark.

WTF?

Since when did turkey mean not-that-great?

A turkey is terrible.

But then you give 3.5/5 to films that are 'crap'.

I think a film that fails to make it's mark despite having all the elements of a good film is a turkey.

Markgway wrote:

luckystars wrote:But then you give 3.5/5 to films that are 'crap'.

Wow caught up in net bullying huh Mark?



Go on, name a few..

I would associate a "turkey" to be an abysmal film. If a film seemingly has all the right ingredients to be a fulfilling experience, but only serves as no more than an appetizer, than that would be mediocre - looks good but provides no nourishment whatsoever. More like just having a caesar salad, as opposed to a roast dinner (turkey optional).

brooce-leroy wrote:I would associate a "turkey" to be an abysmal film. If a film seemingly has all the right ingredients to be a fulfilling experience, but only serves as no more than an appetizer, than that would be mediocre - looks good but provides no nourishment whatsoever. More like just having a caesar salad, as opposed to a roast dinner (turkey optional).

Exactly.

Marks flaming me for saying I can't call a film I gave a 5.5/10 equivalent of a 2.75/5 a turkey!

You're right. Sounds a strong score Mark

Well, obviously 5/10 is a pretty decent film, something not bad at all, 5.5 even more so. I'd consider buying a 5.5/10 film if it had enough interesting point to compensate for its weakesses (in other words, mixed bag 5.5, rather than steady 5.5).

Sam, back me up!

Wow and if you get a 55% exam result I suppose you're happy

luckystars wrote:Wow and if you get a 55% exam result I suppose you're happy

No, because I'm fucking good and filmmakers are bloody idiots.

But if you want you use that ridiculous example, in test correct answers do exist and can be learned in advance. In cinema there's no book telling you the correct answers. Basics aside, it's all about making a mixture of dozens of elements work together, unless you apply the same rules to film rating as test ratings, that is, award even the most useless and pretentious piece of crap with high rating if it's technically correct.

But I know there is a notable difference in our film rating scales.

Hung
1/10 = Terrible
2/10 = Bad
3/10 = Weak
4/10 = Decent
5/10 = Mediocre
6/10 = Good
7/10 = Very good
8/10 = Excellent
9/10 = Near masterpiece
10/10 = Masterpiece

Luckystars
1/10 = Terrible
2/10 = Terrible
3/10 = Terrible
4/10 = Terrible
5/10 = Terrible
6/10 = Terrible
7/10 = Almost good
8/10 = Good
9/10 = More good
10/10 = Good good good

Woa easy there cowboy!

HungFist wrote: 1/10 = Terrible
2/10 = Bad
3/10 = Weak
4/10 = Decent
5/10 = Mediocre
6/10 = Good
7/10 = Very good
8/10 = Excellent
9/10 = Near masterpiece
10/10 = Masterpiece

Good list ^^^

So lets agree it was a 'mediocre+' film.

For all it's plus points (good acting, aesthetics..all that). It still didn't achieve what a biopic of Confucius staring one of Asia legends could have.

So mediocre+ is fair, and for all the elements its a turkey..

No hate!

HungFist wrote:4/10 = Decent
5/10 = Mediocre

That seems the wrong way around to me.

gasteropod wrote:

HungFist wrote:4/10 = Decent
5/10 = Mediocre

That seems the wrong way around to me.

Depends on how you see it. Some people would even say medicre movies are something they avoid like plague (and then we have some people who call mediocre+ a turkey ("turkey, a complete failure, dismal flop") ). As I see it, most movies out there are bad. A mediocre movie (quality wise, not industry standard) is a solid viewing, and hence above decent (that would be passable, but not really time well spent).

I wouldn't recommend a 4/10 movie, but in right circumstances I would recommend a 5/10 movie with some precausion. The Whispering of the Gods is an example of a movie that I can't give more than 5/10, but I'd still recommend to anyone just for being one of the most powerful films of the decade and having some amazing moments to compensate for some bad ones.

For the record I don't generally consider a film less than 7.5/10 a keeper. But even then I'd have to really like it!

luckystars wrote:For the record I don't generally consider a film less than 7.5/10 a keeper. But even then I'd have to really like it!

well, for me it depends on a lot of things. Some 5/10 films have priceless bits that make them keepers, some 8/10 films don't have enough replay value to be keepers. Plus, I rarely buy films that I can get from rental store or see on TV.

Agree with all of that.

I'm not saying every film at 7.5 > I buy.

Too many films in the world!!!!

luckystars wrote:I think a film that fails to make it's mark despite having all the elements of a good film is a turkey.

So you're redefining terms of criticism? When I say a film is a masterpiece to me that means average. I don't care how anyone else uses the word. As long as I know what I mean.

Wow caught up in net bullying huh Mark?

I haven't even started yet.

Go on, name a few..

Christ. I can't remember. But we did have this debate a while ago.

brooce-leroy wrote:I would associate a "turkey" to be an abysmal film. If a film seemingly has all the right ingredients to be a fulfilling experience, but only serves as no more than an appetizer, than that would be mediocre - looks good but provides no nourishment whatsoever.

Yes. I don't why Luckystars agreed with you seeing as you were disagreeing with him!

HungFist wrote:[Luckystars
1/10 = Terrible
2/10 = Terrible
3/10 = Terrible
4/10 = Terrible
5/10 = Terrible
6/10 = Terrible
7/10 = Almost good
8/10 = Good
9/10 = More good
10/10 = Good good good

Damn Mark, don't get so pedantic on what you believe turkey means...it's all subjective.

Confucius is a turkey like The Black Dahlia or Alexander was. Did those films have any qualities? Of course they did. Were they still turkeys? Yes.

Not every bad film has to be rated 1/2 out of ****

luckystars wrote:Damn Mark, don't get so pedantic on what you believe turkey means...it's all subjective.

It's not subjective. That's my point!

Not every bad film has to be rated 1/2 out of ****

No, some can be rated * or even *.5

I think you may have misunderstood me luckystars, for me, a film that has next to no redeeming qualities, it is a turkey.

If there are some good qualities to be found but overall you would regard it poor considering the talent behind it, then i would class that as average.

Well people here are saying 5.5/10 is still ok so I can accept that.

I just don't have time to watch enough movies as it is, so I expect more!

Let's just put this argument to bed:

Decent = Passable
Mediocre = Neither good nor bad, but it's usually used to suggest bad rather than good.
Turkey = A flop

That's what each word means, obviously Hung has a good excuse for mixing Decent and Medocre up considering he's not English, but that aside the term "Turkey" when applied to films is not a subjective term it is a specific one. Anyone is free to use it in the context to mean "mediocre", but they are misusing the term.

ehm...

Shingster wrote: Decent = Passable

HungFist wrote:decent (that would be passable.

But if you're saying passable is better than mediocre, then we're gonna have to disagree regardless of language. Not that I'm talking about any dictionary definitions though.

'Mediocre' is used negatively, whereas 'decent' is used positively.

gasteropod wrote:'Mediocre' is used negatively, whereas 'decent' is used positively.

yeah, but that's just people being dumb

It's OK, Gas. You're right on this occasion.