Star rating systems

[svsg]

ronnierocketago said:

The vague definitions I have for my stars:

* = BOMB - Total failure in everyway. Nothing redeeming about it what so ever. (STRIPTEASE)

*1/2= A failure, but some merit in the size of bread crumbs. Really sub-par (PLUTO NASH)

** = Mediocre/Flat....Perhaps a good idea not utilized at all. (THE SHADOW)

**1/2 = Watchable/Average....if its on TV, I could watch it, but without serious involvement. (RUSH HOUR)

*** = Solid decent picture. (V FOR VENDETTA)

***1/2 = Really good genre exercise. (SIGNS)

**** = Damn great, the best that a purely genre movie can be. (SILENCE OF THE LAMBS)

****1/2 = A great movie that barely escapes genre and just great cinema in general (CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD)

***** = Masterpiece = A film that is beyond genre, perfect in everyway in its execution, the best of the best, they define a genre. (DIE HARD)

Two questions:

• When a movie escapes/defines genre, how is "perfect execution" measured?
  
• Has any movie influenced you the way a real life person/incident/experience would?
  

[ronnierocketago]

svsg said:

ronnierocketago said:

The vague definitions I have for my stars:

* = BOMB - Total failure in everyway. Nothing redeeming about it what so ever. (STRIPTEASE)

*1/2= A failure, but some merit in the size of bread crumbs. Really sub-par (PLUTO NASH)

** = Mediocre/Flat....Perhaps a good idea not utilized at all. (THE SHADOW)

**1/2 = Watchable/Average....if its on TV, I could watch it, but without serious involvement. (RUSH HOUR)

*** = Solid decent picture. (V FOR VENDETTA)

***1/2 = Really good genre exercise. (SIGNS)

**** = Damn great, the best that a purely genre movie can be. (SILENCE OF THE LAMBS)

****1/2 = A great movie that barely escapes genre and just great cinema in general (CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD)

***** = Masterpiece = A film that is beyond genre, perfect in everyway in its execution, the best of the best, they define a genre. (DIE HARD)

Two questions:

• When a movie escapes/defines genre, how is "perfect execution" measured?
  
• Has any movie influenced you the way a real life person/incident/experience would?
  

Again, my definitions are very vague, but if I have to answer...

(1) A possible explanation is when a movie breaks certain genre rules, and is subjectively perfect in every way without glaring flaws, or any at all. The sort that break the rules and then MAKES rules.

I know, makes no sense, but they're vague for a reason.

(2) A few. SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, THE RIGHT STUFF, some Frakenheimer pictures, PULP FICTION, etc.

[ronnierocketago]

kino said:

ronnierocketago said:

(2) A few. SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, THE RIGHT STUFF, some Frakenheimer pictures, PULP FICTION, etc.

Do you like Frankenheimer's Seconds? I love the fuck out of that movie.

Oh yeah.

I think its because of him and a few of his gems I saw back in high school......RONIN, MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, SEVEN DAYS IN MAY, THE TRAIN, SECONDS, 52 PICK UP, his FRENCH CONNECTION sequel.....

That I got into movies, and screwed myself out of sex for a good while. But it was worth it.

[ronnierocketago]

kino said:

The Train is criminally overlooked as is Frankenheimer. Action-thrilller of the highest order. All great those that you mentioned.

What's amazing about THE TRAIN is that Frakenheimer came in to save that project, from an arty drama with action bits to an out-right action ticket...and pulling a good movie out of his ass.

He couldn't do the same with the mess that was THE ISLAND OF DR. MONROE, but that was a lose-lose situation.

[svsg]

ronnierocketago said:

(2) A few. SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, THE RIGHT STUFF, some Frakenheimer pictures, PULP FICTION, etc.

The reason I asked is, can these personally influential movies fit anywhere in the star system? For example can any one of these movies get a two star, as theoretically, influence need not imply great cinematic qualities, right?

[ronnierocketago]

svsg said:

ronnierocketago said:

(2) A few. SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, THE RIGHT STUFF, some Frakenheimer pictures, PULP FICTION, etc.

The reason I asked is, can these personally influential movies fit anywhere in the star system? For example can any one of these movies get a two star, as theoretically, influence need not imply great cinematic qualities, right?

Oh definately.

I mean, Michael Bay shoots AWFUL films, but they've influenced me...on how the action genre should NOT be used.

[RNL]

I'm going to use something like this in the director threads and in the monthly viewing summaries.

Behold:

_***** Surpassingly Great/Must-See/Etc.
_***** Excellent/Etc.
_***** Good/+Failings/Etc.
_***** Decent/Solid/Mixed Bag/Etc.
_***** Poor/+Merits/Etc.
_***** Awful/Etc.

Like, y'know... whatever.

I'm also going to stop surreptitiously editing my posts, and rather do svsg-steezy updates.

[Capo]

Kewl.

Be kind to Jean-Luc.

[Capo]

I think "darkgrey" gives a nicer contrast than "grey". Just a thought.

[RNL]

Troof.

[RNL]

This is harder than I thought it'd be. I have to rethink every film in those threads. It's amazing how little thought initially went into most of my evaluations.

[Kino]

= Masterpiece
= Must-see
= Worthwhile
= Has a redeeming quality/redeeming qualities

Then 1/4 stars, 1/2 stars, 3/4 stars, .9, etc. in between. There's no set criteria to these like the whole stars yet. I'll say that between 2 and 3 stars is a rating of different degrees of "good."

My ratings have nothing to do with how perfect a film is. For instance, there are masterpieces that have things I don't like about them; same for a must-see. Maybe I'll devise something to denote perfect films with a 4 or 3-star rating like typing the word "perfect" in parentheses next to the rating.

This is a rather new system so I'll have to go back and look at my ratings to see if some were posted before this system.

[svsg]

Thanks.