Rate the last film you watched...

[Strontium]

6 minutes ago, Carradona said:

How does 2/4 = 4/10? It should obviously be 5/10.

 

Because it's not a straight mathematical translation. 2.5 is the "midpoint" on this scale, awarded to passable films. You only used to get a thumbs up from Siskel and Ebert if you got at least 3 out of 4.

[Elite]

It's a shit formula.

[Strontium]

Yes, that's obviously why it's been routinely used by the best film critics in the world.

[Scott_M]

53 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Because it's not a straight mathematical translation. 2.5 is the "midpoint" on this scale, awarded to passable films. You only used to get a thumbs up from Siskel and Ebert if you got at least 3 out of 4.

2.5 / 4 = 0.625.

 

To me, a passable film is 6 to 6.5/10. 

[SasaS]

As if our ratings mean much, not knowing what we normally like and how generous we normally feel.

[Pete]

Joker.

Don't get what all the fuss was about.  Give me Cesar and his whited out moustache any day of the week.

[Elite]

1 hour ago, Strontium said:

Yes, that's obviously why it's been routinely used by the best film critics in the world.

Best film critics in the world?

 

Hardly a fucking talent is it. 

[Elite]

1 hour ago, SasaS said:

As if our ratings mean much, not knowing what we normally like and how generous we normally feel.

Stronts thinks he's aligned with 'the best film critics that have ever lived'. 

[Strontium]

19 minutes ago, Elite said:

Best film critics in the world?

 

Hardly a fucking talent is it. 

 

Jesus Christ.

[VladimirIlyich]

2 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Jesus Christ.

The very first film critic? 

[Sut]

29 minutes ago, Elite said:

Best film critics in the world?

 

Hardly a fucking talent is it. 

Some of the best film critics are amazingly talented writers. Pauline Kael's stuff from the fifties and sixties is really good, and her articles in the seventies championing the New Hollywood directors are ace. Proper snarky when she didn't like stuff as well. Anne Billson is one of my favourite critics. She's a witty reviewer who really knows her stuff but isn't elitist (pardon the pun on your name, mate). 

[SasaS]

Which reminds me, I saw last two Woody Allen's film recently, Rifkin's Festival (2/4), about a film critic and his publicist wife at the San Sebastian festival and his French film Coup de Chance (7/10).

 

Neither is something you should feel we are denied some great art do to Allen's semi-cancellation, but still better than  people give him credit for and still above average. Rifkin's Festival feels like something put together at the festival because his usual DoP had a crew there for two weeks. Coup de Chance is pretty decent crime drama reminiscent of Chabrol. If you normally watch Allen's films, you won't feel you wasted time you could have put to better use, if you don't, not losing much by skipping two more.

[Elite]

35 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Jesus Christ.

Stick to bumming dogs, lad.

[Elite]

23 minutes ago, Sut said:

Some of the best film critics are amazingly talented writers. Pauline Kael's stuff from the fifties and sixties is really good, and her articles in the seventies championing the New Hollywood directors are ace. Proper snarky when she didn't like stuff as well. Anne Billson is one of my favourite critics. She's a witty reviewer who really knows her stuff but isn't elitist (pardon the pun on your name, mate). 

Good writers, fair enough.

 

You either like a film or you don't, it's that simple for me. It's not a talent, it's a personal judgement the actually rating part.

[Carradona]

2 hours ago, Strontium said:

 

Because it's not a straight mathematical translation. 2.5 is the "midpoint" on this scale, awarded to passable films. You only used to get a thumbs up from Siskel and Ebert if you got at least 3 out of 4.

If 2.5 out of 4 is the midpoint, then it's a moronic scale used by and for imbeciles.

[Strontium]

12 minutes ago, Elite said:

It's not a talent

 

People who lack talent always say that.

 

11 minutes ago, Carradona said:

If 2.5 out of 4 is the midpoint, then it's a moronic scale used by and for imbeciles.

 

Yes, imbeciles who understand what logarithms are.

[Elite]

38 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

People who lack talent always say that.

 

 

Yes, imbeciles who understand what logarithms are.

You're the type of prick to stare at a tin of peas in an art gallery and find it's 'Deeper meaning' as you always think you're the most intelligent person in the room.  This whole scoring out of four stuff is so that you can explain it's algorithm and feel clever. 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

The problem with any integer based system is people only tend to end up using a portion of it, weighting towards the upper end. So, for instance, in a ten point scale the midpoint becomes somewhere around 6.5 - 7 rather than 5, thus it's effectively closer to a five point system.

 

One argument in favour of this narrowing is that the process necessary to make any film incorporates so many figures that it'd be hard to actually score 0, as at least lighting, locations etc. may be perfunctory. Thus, 0-4 would require a technical as well as an artistic deficiency.

 

The only reason I don't like the four point scale is because you can't read it accurately on a poster or in a trailer next to the five star system.

[Bjornebye]

He just wants to be different to be awkward. As usual. 3/10 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

2 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

The problem with any integer based system is people only tend to end up using a portion of it, weighting towards the upper end. So, for instance, in a ten point scale the midpoint becomes somewhere around 6.5 - 7 rather than 5, thus it's effectively closer to a five point system.

 

One argument in favour of this narrowing is that the process necessary to make any film incorporates so many figures that it'd be hard to actually score 0, as at least lighting, locations etc. may be perfunctory. Thus, 0-4 would require a technical as well as an artistic deficiency.

 

The only reason I don't like the four point scale is because you can't read it accurately on a poster or in a trailer next to the five star system.

 

Christ that was a boring reply.

[Strontium]

20 minutes ago, Elite said:

You're the type of prick to stare at a tin of peas in an art gallery and find it's 'Deeper meaning' as you always think you're the most intelligent person in the room.  This whole scoring out of four stuff is so that you can explain it's algorithm and feel clever. 

 

Utter bollocks. People who know they are clever don't need external validation, especially not from those who don't even appreciate what they're doing in the first place. I score out of four because I always have done, because the film critics I admire did. I've absolutely no desire to be different, and nothing would give me greater pleasure than if the rest of you followed my example and started doing reviews right.

[Bjornebye]

8 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Utter bollocks. People who know they are clever don't need external validation, especially not from those who don't even appreciate what they're doing in the first place. I score out of four because I always have done, because the film critics I admire did. I've absolutely no desire to be different, and nothing would give me greater pleasure than if the rest of you followed my example and started doing reviews right.

1/4 

[Sut]

19 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

The problem with any integer based system is people only tend to end up using a portion of it, weighting towards the upper end. So, for instance, in a ten point scale the midpoint becomes somewhere around 6.5 - 7 rather than 5, thus it's effectively closer to a five point system.

 

One argument in favour of this narrowing is that the process necessary to make any film incorporates so many figures that it'd be hard to actually score 0, as at least lighting, locations etc. may be perfunctory. Thus, 0-4 would require a technical as well as an artistic deficiency.

 

The only reason I don't like the four point scale is because you can't read it accurately on a poster or in a trailer next to the five star system.

 

This poster is a really good subversion of the five star rating system. (Look at The Guardian's rating)

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Elite said:

Good writers, fair enough.

 

You either like a film or you don't, it's that simple for me. It's not a talent, it's a personal judgement the actually rating part.

The writing part is a talent; everything else is just being spawny enough to have a job where you get paid to watch enough films that you can say "that scene references a Polish horror film from 1963".

 

Mark Kermode was spot-on about the relevance of film critics when he pointed out that Sex in the City 2 made an absolute fortune.

 

[Elite]

57 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Utter bollocks. People who know they are clever don't need external validation, especially not from those who don't even appreciate what they're doing in the first place. I score out of four because I always have done, because the film critics I admire did. I've absolutely no desire to be different, and nothing would give me greater pleasure than if the rest of you followed my example and started doing reviews right.

That right there. Narcissism.