How do you rate movies?

Hey everyone. I thought this might make for an interesting discussion.

I rate every movie I watch on IMDb. I do this mostly because I want a record of what I've seen so I can refer back later, and also to see what my thoughts and feelings on it were immediately after it finished. Usually I don't have to put much thought into it as a number pops into my mind pretty fast that I usually feel comfortable sticking with, at least until a repeat viewing. I did get to thinking though about whether I ought to approach films on a more cerebral level, rather than the emotional one I'm used to.

I've always advocated for films being more of an emotional experience than an intellectual one, but I wanted to hear your thoughts on the topic. When reviewing or rating a movie, do you prefer to dissect the quality of the cinematography, sound, acting, etc. or so you like to simply let your gut take care of it? Which do you think is the better method, if any? Does it depend on the particular film, genre, director? Which type of review typically gives the better indication of how much you'll enjoy any given film? Give me your take - brain, or gut?

I rate them as both an emotional and a cinematic experience. I don't see how one can trump the other since they work hand-in-hand to create whatever effect the viewer receives. I do not expect my ratings to change that much anymore unless I fell asleep during the film or was too busy doing something else to pay enough attention. However, I do watch movies over and over, whether it's for fun or love. I think the best movies are those where you can both find fun and a deep personal love. That explains why people "see/feel" films differently since we all are individuals coming from different pasts/presents/futures and are sometimes watching films for different reasons. That's OK to me, even if sometines you believe I missed the boat on some type of film, since I believe film is magic and brings people together moreso that it splits them apart.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I like this excerpt from a previous response. My top film choices tend to be the ones that leave a lasting impression on me. Such a film might trigger a breakthrough in the way I perceive the world. And this is shaped by the emotional and cinematic experience Mark speaks of. Rating films can be either an emotional or intellectual experience. It all depends on how the viewer processes it, and the benefits that he or she wants to take from the film.

Good topic

Emotional experience, followed by how technically or aesthetically accomplished the movie is. I dont use gut feel to judge my movies.

I write them down in a book in different colors after I see them. I don't try to disect them and I usually don't like to read reviews beforehand. It's pretty simple and depends how I feel afterwards. Usually , if I don't want the movie to end while I'm watching it: it's great.
I'm on my third book and the current total of movies I've seen so far
is 9,233.

Usually I just think they'll be **** and not bother watching them.

When it comes to movie viewing I don't feel like we have to pick; the intellect tells you that a film is powerful if it stirs your emotions. The intellect is always interpreting the circumstances that stir those emotions. The common dichotomy between intellect and emotion doesn't necessarily exist when your intellect acknowledges and accounts for the fact that your emotions are supposed to matter in this context.

The only time I think we'd really face this choice is with a movie that has no real narrative structure and arouses feelings of beauty with largely random images, or something. In which case I'd probably say it's interesting as art but bad as a movie/story.

I will say this, though: as impossible as the question is, I think it's pretty clear that anyone who just watches with their "gut" and don't like to analyze film are missing out on a lot of detail and richness, and anyone who treats films only like a technical discipline is missing out, too. However, I feel like way more people fall into the former category than the latter.

I usually just go by whether I enjoyed it or not.

__________________
"A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer" ~ Comedian Mitch Hedberg (1968-2005)

After assessing my initial emotional/psychological response, I tend to judge a movie based on what it's trying to accomplish.

For example: "300" was a bloody, fast-paced, visually-striking action movie based upon historical events. That's what it was. It didn't fail miserably in any of these area. So, for what it was, I think that "300" was a fantastic movie.

I don't know if this makes sense, I'm kind of rushing through this. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I judge movies first by my initial reaction, but there's always the follow-up thought: For what it was and what it was trying to accomplish, was this movie any good?

__________________

The thing about rating movies based on a "for what it was" concept is that when one watches lousy movies and one asks oneself if they were intended to be lousy movies and the answer comes back, "Yes", then one might overrate a crap movie ("give it a break"). The same thing goes for incomprehensible, esoteric movies.

That's very true. I realise that this is my go-to 'crappy movie' example, but Transformers wants to be a dumb action movie, and does dumb action well, sure. But that doesn't mean I'd even come close to rating it highly. That sort of rating method definitely needs to be used in conjunction with the others. It's hard to explain, really.

And I think this explains why some movies are so hard to make your mind up about. It took me a long time to be happy with a number for 2001 because it forced me to think more about its technicalities and historical context than most films do. That's not to say it's bad as a movie/story, of course, it's just hugely atypical in that sense. A similar thing goes I think for seeing older films in a modern environment, they force you to adjust how you judge their quality (i.e. how well they have held up, their impact at the time of original release, etc.).

Really it depends on who you're rating it for. If it's for yourself, then it's whether you liked it or not and, if you did, how much. If you're rating for an audience, then you have to take them into account and rate it for them. If you're trying to be 'objective' or give something a 'fair' rating, then you have to come up with a (set of) criteria on which to rate it. When you get to this point, you're just diddling about, really. Fun and/or interesting, maybe, but you're making the list far too important.

That's the thing, honey. I've been rating movies for over 38 years now, so even if I didn't want to rate them, it would happen through osmosis or some similar thing. It's true that my criteria for rating them has changed down through the years, and I'm more a "middle-of-the-road"-type rater than I was when I was younger. However, the ratings still use basically the same scale (1-10, divided by halves with the adjectives "low" and "high" available for all, basically making for 57 ratings). I've adapted my scale to our 0-5 scale here and to letter grades, but my first thought is that I'm using my scale based on my old job with the Hollywood Film Archive. I'll also be the first to tell you that I probably have too many ratings and it's impossible to justify them to everybody's taste in films (now more than ever), but as I said earlier, I'm a slave to the ratings.

I liked how Yoda put it.

I definitely don't claim to be very objective, but I think I'm a decent reviewer. I guess I typically use a sliding scale to try to be fair; like if I'm watching a historical drama, which I often don't then I'll try to look for its relative merits within its subgenre.

All movies want to affect us in some way, but there is no single "right" way to go about doing that. Thankfully so, because that would be utterly dull and would rip the subjective heart out of the experience.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

Well, if my initial response is negative, the "for what it was" concept doesn't do a damn thing. But for some movies, ones where I'm on the fence or undecided in terms of how I feel about it, the "for what it was" concept works pretty well. I dunno. Having trouble putting it into comprehensive words.

My percentage rating is an emotional thing, but I still put an element of fairness and intellect into my percentage ratings.
Just liking the film emotionally isn't enough to just slap 100% on it, nor is saying "Well I didn't like it so that'll be 0% then."

For me I use both emotion and intellect.
I try to be fair when reviewing a movie. I look at everything in every film I write a review for.
If I haven't written a review for any particular movie, it means I haven't spent a long enough time for me to emotionally and intellectually give a rounded review on it.

If I do like the movie, I'll say so and why.
If I don't, again, I'll say I don't, but will give an explaination on why I don't.

For example: My favourite movie is Young Guns, yet if you read my reviews (link in sig banner), I do find faults and downgrade the percentage.
Robocop isn't my favourite, not by a long shot, yet it's the only movie I've slapped with 100% as I do genuinely think the movie is an extremely well made piece of cinema.

__________________

You hit it on the nail. Seeing things for what they are. What always amazes me is when people make assumptions and have expectations, for instance expecting boxers to be great speakers or super role models. They are boxers, that's what they do and that's who they are. Why do some people have the tendency to add or embelish or even expect change?

Usually because they've been sol... I mean, told to.

Acting. screenplay, plot, pacing, and editing

but one can save the whole movie if the others are somewhat lacking

Thanks for that. Although, "seeing things for what they are" takes a backseat to emotional response ALWAYS.