Crap I include both, my reviews must really suck

Yes I give movies a percentage score AND a letter grade, not only that but I *gasp rate on entertainment/merit . I know but it is stupid and inane to rate on how I feel about a film’s entertainment value, it is sooooo subjective, well so is a four star system – it is all subjective to what we think is important.
I have watched a lot of movies, more than the average American. I have taken classes in production and appreciation. I know that some movies are better constructed than others, I mean even I won’t argue a Man on Fire over a Birth of a Nation but I rate how I do because not everyone is like me. (or Don V/Capo/Ronnie or any number of other board members) When I was watching Million Dollar Baby with my family and there were those excellent shots of the gym in darkness, I commented on how beautiful the shots were with the harsh shafts of light and they just looked and me like “shut up”.
I’m not saying that well constructed films can’t be entertaining but still yet Thirty Two Short Films About Glenn Gould is not for everyone. Just like some people refuse to “read” a movie (I’m talking literally Capo, I know you “read” film but I’m talking subtitles here) some people just want to see something. I rate how I do because when a friend or friend of a friend asks “Hey what is good in the theater or DVD” I give them an answer I think is suitable to them, sure I’ll still try to throw out a well constructed film but I also give them the latest Ice Cube film because that is what they want to see.
Don V, Capo, and Ronnie rate on historical merit and that is fine with me, I read their reviews and thoughts and I actually like them, I like to read a hardcore somewhat pretentious opinion because I like to watch films for their construction too. But to me the guy down the street doesn’t care about tracking shots or canted angles, he wants to know if there are tits in it or if the fight scenes are that Wire-fu stuff. I’m a critic for that guy.

I don't review movies just for historical merit. What historical merit does Collateral have? It just came out and it's still a great movie.

Anyway, the reason I dislike a 70%-ish scale is that it's too much for me at least. If I use a scale like that I feel reduced to turning cinema into a math equation. When I first began rating with a /10 scale, I rated some movies 6.9/10 and I realized how stupid it was for me, so I just did 7/10 and 7.5/10, then I soon went to **** scales. As for ABC, I have no problem with it, but Yahoo's is horrible.

B+ = Memorable
A- = Almost Perfect
A = Outstanding

What the hell? Kind of a big leap. And A+ is "Oscar worthy" which to me is a bad rating description. If anything I'd switch A and A+'s descriptions. However, Yahoo is good in organizing a Top 100 list, among other things.

A word or two on my personal rating system. I rate films from zero to four stars. I don't use half stars, because to me it makes things unnecessarily complicated, and, as Don V stated about the percentage system, makes filmwatching oddly mathematical.

My system is as follows (with examples, I've tried to choose one from each decade when possible)...

Four stars marks a film of outstanding and lasting quality, a milestone in cinema history, remarkable for such aspects as direction, writing, acting, cinematography or some other aspect of filmmaking technique.
Examples: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1919), Battleship Potemkin (1925), Duck Soup (1933), Double Indemnity (1944), Vertigo (1958), Weekend (1968), Taxi Driver (1976), A Short Film About Killing (1988), American Beauty (1999), Gladiator (2000).

Three stars indicates a film of excellent quality, but cannot be given four stars due to a lack of cinematic importance, or the film is simply too much of an acquired taste to be classed as a wide-appealing masterpiece; or, on the other hand, a film worth seeing only for historical reasons. It can also be interpreted that three stars indicate three strong, unrelated reasons for admiring a film.
Examples: Easy Street (1917), Bringing Up Baby (1938), Laura (1944), All That Heaven Allows (1955), Goldfinger (1964), Medium Cool (1969), Eraserhead (1976), Full Metal Jacket (1987), The Shawshank Redemption (1994), Batman Begins (2005).

Two stars is a generally entertaining or engrossing film of high production values; perhaps an underrated small feature or an overrated classic, or even a provocative film deemed too gratuitously controversial or limited in its audience appeal.
Examples: The Floorwalker (1916), Un Chien Andalou (1928), Chickens Come Home (1932), It's a Wonderful Life (1946), Limelight (1952), Lolita (1962), New York, New York (1977), Paris, Texas (1984), Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999), Snatch (2000).

A one star film marks either a watchable second feature or a disappointing film which should have been better, if it was to be made in the first place.
Examples: Midnight Patol (1933), Deux Hommes dans Manhattan (1958), Peeping Tom (1960), Live and Let Die (1973), Made in Britain (1982), Fight Club (1999), Mystic River (2003).

No stars indicate a totally routine production or worse: they may be watchable, but no merit is to be found in doing so, and are at least equally missable.
Examples: Police (1916), Midnight (1934), Pollyanna (1960), Soldier Blue (1970), Annie (1982), Armaggedon (1998), The Butterfly Effect (2004).

Why do I rate films? Well, a friend of mine, who's been watching films for many years, rates them by colour, for personal preference, in his film log: red for his favourites, green for watchable, average films, and blue for stinkers. A very simplistic system, but one which brings personal preference into it more than anything.

I only rate films as a means of recommending them to other people. As long as they know what I mean by the stars, and not what they assume them to mean, it's an effective system. But in all honesty, I prefer the actual review of the film more than any amount of stars. That's why, in the reviews I write and post, you don't find any star ratings in them. Just like Time Out and Sight & Sound's reviews, which are the best you can read in terms of critical analysis. If I wrote a review on every single film I've ever seen, I'd do away with stars. But until then, this is the only way of keeping personal track of what films to watch and not to watch.

Thanks for reading,
Mick

"No I haven't read it. No offense but your reviews are a little long"

Wow, for a man that posts alot(especially that giganticly-long YANKEES thread)....this is so rich.

Yeah but my posts aren't half a thread page. They're usually just a line and not long to read

x3000 over 1-2 weeks... :p

Now another question, what do you consider the films of Uwe Boll? What do you call a film that is neither art nor escapism ? Well I guess you could consider it art if you consider the torture an art. Or you could consider it escapism if you consider it actually gives you a sence of escaping something when you walk away from it...

x3000 over 1-2 weeks... [/b][/quote] That's your own choice if you choose to read them all

x3000 over 1-2 weeks... [/b][/quote] That's your own choice if you choose to read them all [/b][/quote]It wouldn't be as much a problem as long as you'd try to put more quality into some of them.

Bah, the worst in the game section is the music thread. no one pays attention to what others listen to. They just post there over and over to promote their favorites. :p

Well it just proves my point, how much quality can you put in the games thread? I didn't know quality was such a big part of Mike's life

I'm not talking about that. I don't have a problem with games, but the music thread is kind of pointless. It's on every forum I've been at minus the MB, and no one does anything other then posting songs that they probably weren't even listening to.

I would consider Boll's films to be CRAP.

It should be a big part of your life too... Or do you just like shit?

Some sh*t is ok, but not all sh*t. But again I asked for suggesstions on how to make the BB Word Game posts more "quality" like? In the Name That Actor thread or the Screenshot Thread, all you're doing is guessing the name of the movie/actor and posting a new one. Again, how much quality can you put in it?

Good quality or bad quality?

Anyway, this thread is serving little purpose now, other than to debate something which wasn't in the original art vs. escapism subject.

Mick

I agree Capo, we're getting off the subject. I think basically it just depends on the person watching the movie and we're all not going to convince each other otherwise