Movie Tab II

Tools    





Hello Salem, my name's Winifred. What's yours
personally i would rather see a detailed review of a film than someone who just writes 5/5 or something. It's boring and doesn't tell me why they think what they do
__________________



So, MovieMan, the last five flicks you've watched are worth
? That's OK. Everybody has their own way of rating. I think I give about 10 of the 30,000+ different flicks I've seen
, but as many will tell you around here, I'm weird. I just think when somebody shows up, instead of trying to define what their ratings mean, why not just list an example of each rating? For example:

: Jaws, Elmer Gantry, Midnight Cowboy (OK, Pyro?... I know you see this stuff... )
: The Incredibles, The Godfather, War and Peace (1967)
: The Innocents, The Dark Knight, The Searchers
: In Bruges, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, To Have and Have Not
: Sunshine (2006), I'm Not There, This is England
: Burn After Reading, Synechdoche, New York, The Night of the Living Dead (1968)
: Blue Velvet, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Mean Streets
: The Blair Witch Project, Plan 9 From Outer Space, Magical Mystery Tour
: Fellini Satyricon, Boom, Vampiros Lesbos
: Robot Monster, The Alligator People, Zabriskie Point
: Gerry, The Creeping Terror, Dog Star Man

I'm not saying that you have to do my thing or change your ratings, but it'll help us around here if we can see the variety.
Heh, yeah i see it. I respect you're objective ratings but Blue Velvet only
!?

(I'm guessing your top 10 ARE your
flicks)
__________________




Registered User
This argument could be used to forever advocate a greater and greater range. Why stop at 9 or 10? How about 1-100…
How? The whole point of the argument was to show the futility of increasing the range.

There's nothing about the number 5 that makes it easier to assign fixed criteria to than, say, the number 6; particularly when half-point intervals are allowed. On our scale, 2.5 is the center, rather than 3.
If you ask 20 people at random here at the forum to tell you what the center value of the rating system. With out giving them time to think over the problem, how many of these do you think will say 2.5 instead of 3? I would bet that most will answer 3.

This means that people get less range for the films they like and more range for the films they don’t like. Being that most people like to be more exact when they rate a movie they do like than when they rate a movie they don’t like, the current system gives them the opposite of what they want.

The problem with a 6-scale system, or any even number system, is that they don’t have a an existing center value.

The relevance of the runner-up system is the misrepresentation it creates. Most people, custom to a normal rating system of first, second, third, etc., will think more of the second place holder if he/she is referred to as the first runner up. This is because they will see the second place holder as the winner of a second competition. Transferred to the MoFo rating system, this will mean that the perception of the rating 1, isn’t that it’s a very bad movie, but the best of the worst. This means that the perception of just that rating may be better than the perception of a higher rating.

Since zero represent absence of value. It can just as easily be interpreted as the absence of ratability as the absence of redeeming quality. In other words, zero is a very confusing variable as well as number. There must be a reason MoFo is the only site I know which uses zero as a variable.

The main purpose of the rating system is to function as a quick summarized indicator of a movies quality. For the system to achieve this, it is necessary for all parties involved to easily understand how the system works. This is as I have pointed out above clearly not the case for this system.
__________________
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

twofifty.org



Registered User
personally i would rather see a detailed review of a film than someone who just writes 5/5 or something. It's boring and doesn't tell me why they think what they do
True, but I would say that large number of ratings collectively tell me more about the moves “viewability" is than one single review does.



How? The whole point of the argument was to show the futility of increasing the range.
Then perhaps you should define what you mean by "tightly meshed," because, to me, it would seem to apply to smaller ranges.

If you ask 20 people at random here at the forum to tell you what the center value of the rating system. With out giving them time to think over the problem, how many of these do you think will say 2.5 instead of 3? I would bet that most will answer 3.

This means that people get less range for the films they like and more range for the films they don’t like. Being that most people like to be more exact when they rate a movie they do like than when they rate a movie they don’t like, the current system gives them the opposite of what they want.
I don't grant the premise that people prefer to be more exact with positive ratings than negative ones, and I can't imagine how you would come to such a conclusion. It sounds like you're simply taking the way you think of ratings and assuming everyone else feels the same way.

Even if such a thing were both true and demonstrable, what you're saying doesn't follow. You're merely describing a situation where a person uses a different range than the one we tend to use here. That doesn't give them less range at all. The entire idea is backwards; more possible ratings gives you a larger range, so suggesting that using 0-5 instead of 1-5 decreases the user's range doesn't make a lick of sense. It may cause a slight misunderstanding, however, though only if they fail to learn about the disrepancy.

The problem with a 6-scale system, or any even number system, is that they don’t have a an existing center value.

Yes, we do: by using half-point intervals, as I mentioned in my last post:
"...particularly when half-point intervals are allowed. On our scale, 2.5 is the center, rather than 3."
The relevance of the runner-up system is the misrepresentation it creates. Most people, custom to a normal rating system of first, second, third, etc., will think more of the second place holder if he/she is referred to as the first runner up. This is because they will see the second place holder as the winner of a second competition.
Again, I don't grant your premise. It's certainly not how I think of the phrase "runner-up," and I'd be surprised if this can be even remotely demonstrated. It's completely subjective. And all this is still assuming that the phrase "runner-up" would enter a given person's mind when seeing a certain rating, which hasn't been established at all.

Transferred to the MoFo rating system, this will mean that the perception of the rating 1, isn’t that it’s a very bad movie, but the best of the worst. This means that the perception of just that rating may be better than the perception of a higher rating.
Once again, you're taking completely subjective interpretations and assuming everyone thinks the same way. On what basis do you claim that the perception of the rating 1 means "best of the worst"? This kind of thing varies from person to person, yet you continue to reference your own interpretation of what each rating means as if it were fact, or near-universal. It simply isn't.

Since zero represent absence of value. It can just as easily be interpreted as the absence of ratability as the absence of redeeming quality. In other words, zero is a very confusing variable as well as number.
This is a problem that, again, applies to all ratings.

Let's use an example: no one in their right mind would suggest that people shouldn't be able to give films a 5 out of 5, but the same confusion exists there: is a perfect score for flawless films? Or is the rating based on a curve, meaning it is imperfect, but as close to perfect as any other film?

In other words, you're trying to condemn a rating system for problems that exist with all rating systems.

And, I'd point out again that this is why it's best to write an actual review. The moment you count on a lone number to encapsulate what you think of a film, you're opening the door to all these problems, on any rating scale.

There must be a reason MoFo is the only site I know which uses zero as a variable.
I doubt this is actually true, unless you frequent a relatively small number of sites. But without going around and digging up sites, I'd point out that Roger Ebert has given out no star and half-star ratings many times. He even compiled his reviews of 1-star-or-less films into a book I happen to own called I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie. I'm sure he's not the only critic who has done this, either. And he also routinely points out that the existence of any rating system is inevitably a poor substitute for reading and writing actual reviews.

The main purpose of the rating system is to function as a quick summarized indicator of a movies quality. For the system to achieve this, it is necessary for all parties involved to easily understand how the system works. This is as I have pointed out above clearly not the case for this system.
True. But I say, hopefully for the last time, that the reasons you give apply to the rating systems you prefer, as well. Simply assuming that most people take a given rating to mean what you do doesn't change this fact.



Registered User
"Then perhaps you should define what you mean by "tightly meshed," because, to me, it would seem to apply to smaller ranges."

I was referring to smaller intervals, or in other words grater ranges.

"I don't grant the premise that people prefer to be more exact with positive ratings than negative ones, and I can't imagine how you would come to such a conclusion."

You only have to look at the distribution of a vote history (IMDb) to see that people are way more probable to use the higher range, from 6 and up, than they are the lower range, from 5 and down. You will also find that people are much more probable to not use a variable which is placed in the lower range than one in the higher range. If you consult a textbook in statistics, it will also tell you just the same.

"Even if such a thing were both true and demonstrable, what you're saying doesn't follow. You're merely describing a situation where a person uses a different range than the one we tend to use here. That doesn't give them less range at all. The entire idea is backwards; more possible ratings gives you a larger range, so suggesting that using 0-5 instead of 1-5 decreases the user's range doesn't make a lick of sense."

It doesn’t give a finite reduction in higher level range, but it do give a relative (to the lower level range) reduction I higher level range. The rating system most people unknowingly prefer is one that has a perceived center value below the real center value (e.g. 1-5.5 where 5.5 is the golden popcorn). This gives them more intervals in the higher range than the lower range, without being confusing (if you don’t look at it to closely).

"It may cause a slight misunderstanding, however, though only if they fail to learn about the disrepancy."

The main problem I wanted to point out with this system was that it is not intuitive. And here you admit it yourself that one needs to learn it, or with other words counter intuitive. 1-5 or 1-9 systems don’t share this problem. People know the center value and they can’t be misunderstood.

"Yes, we do: by using half-point intervals, as I mentioned in my last post:"

But that makes it an 11-scale system, and last time I checked 11 was an odd number.

"Let's use an example: no one in their right mind would suggest that people shouldn't be able to give films a 5 out of 5, but the same confusion exists there: is a perfect score for flawless films? Or is the rating based on a curve, meaning it is imperfect, but as close to perfect as any other film?"

Why does that matter? In both cases it is an argument for seeing the movie.



You're a Genius all the time
I'll just say that when I'm using the popcorn boxes, I'd equate a
rating with a very average movie. Probably like a "C" in the letter grading system. So a
is either a decent movie I was very disappointed with, a completely-average-in-every-way-type flick or something different that I kind of like but can't justify giving a higher grade to.



Hello Salem, my name's Winifred. What's yours


I doubt this is actually true, unless you frequent a relatively small number of sites. But without going around and digging up sites, I'd point out that Roger Ebert has given out no star and half-star ratings many times. He even compiled his reviews of 1-star-or-less films into a book I happen to own called I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie. I'm sure he's not the only critic who has done this, either. And he also routinely points out that the existence of any rating system is inevitably a poor substitute for reading and writing actual reviews.

Agreement - Ebert is right, personally I really dont get anything from people's ratings other than great, alright and didnt like it. But people like films for very different reasons so it's not helpful at all. And peoples ratings do not in any way effect how/if i see a movie. If someone says 'this film had some serious plot holes and poor charcter development' im more informed.


Originally Posted by Otth
True, but I would say that large number of ratings collectively tell me more about the moves “viewability" is than one single review does.
Are you going round movie forums collating data?



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by Otth
The main problem I wanted to point out with this system was that it is not intuitive.
Originally Posted by Swedish Chef
I'll just say that when I'm using the popcorn boxes, I'd equate a
rating with a very average movie...
I think i've always intuitively seen
as the 'average' median as well (in a statistical sense - with suitable subjective criteria attached to that in pretty much the same vein to Swedish's). I don't find the system particularly unintuitive on that level.

(Perhaps it took a while to get used to and i don't now remember, but i don't find it a problem to traverse between it and IMDb's 1-10 scale, for example. [perhaps in part because a lot of their ratings seem so ludicrously top-heavy in the first place - has anyone checked whether this top-weighting bias you mention is most prevalent amongst PR people? ])

I think i'll also now join the good Chef in stepping away from the rest of the debate
__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here



A system of cells interlinked
But that makes it an 11-scale system, and last time I checked 11 was an odd number.
Jesus Pickled Christ on a Cracker!

Using odd numbers is the more balanced system. You do see that, right?

An odd number of steps gives you a more even system if one of the steps is counted as the center. You state you like a 5 step system because it is intuitive and balanced... that's also an odd number, no?

A five step system has a center point at 3, with two other possible positions on either side of that number. Our 11 step system has a center point at 2.5 with 5 positions on either side of the center point.

Starting with an even number of steps, then assigning a center point to one of them, you are left with an odd number of steps to balance out both sides, which, last time I checked, doesn't work.

What is this, anti-science week or something?

Also, the forum side of IMDB is absolutely abysmal, so not emulating them is always a good idea, in my book. Good site for info, terrible for forums.

Meanwhile, this is SO a dead horse at this point. Let's move on, people!
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



Hello Salem, my name's Winifred. What's yours
agreement to drag this thread back to topic i was watching some of my birthday presents today:

Juno - I've watched this movie a few times and I think the more you watch it the less you notice the comedy and the dramatic scenes really start to stand out, it's actually a drama based film. Still a little disappointed with the lack of screentime for Michael Cera's character - Juno is supposedly so into him but we hardly know who this guy is. Still a good movie but it's definately one that's meaning changes each time i watch it.

Golden Compass - There are some big plotholes in this movie but the CGI is so impressive (Iorek Birnysons fur rivals Sully's from Monsters Inc) and the story is so imaginitive you dont care about plotholes so big you could fall into them. Dakota Blue Richards performance is a little uneven but she still makes an impressive mark, my fave is Nicole Kidman as the cruel to be kind sort of Mrs Coulter with a cool disposition with a hidden caring side.



You ready? You look ready.
Hey, wait a second, is this the Movie Tab thread or have I wandered into some other thread?

Kingdom of Heaven- I watched the good cut, the director's cut, again recently. Love it.
__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza





All that jazz - Bob Fosse

Hmm, hmm. A rather difficult watch, not because it's hard to follow (which some descriptions led me to believe), especially if you know it's semi-autobiographical, but because it obviously deals with a difficult subject...maybe that's why I'd rate it just slightly lower than Cabaret which was in terms of mood the exact opposite. I also like the music (and singing) in Cabaret better. But they're both probably the pinnacle of musical films for me. I have to be honest though and say that I wasn't terribly impressed by Roy Scheider's performance (despite the glowing reviews he got for that), especially because the film features what is obviously (or at least to me) a much greater talent, the Boys in the band star Cliff Gorman.

It features some of the most (if not the most) breathtaking dancing scenes on film, particularly sizzligly hot studio sequence which also features same sex couples. Bravo Mr. Fosse. Only a true choreographer could make and film something like that. The latter numbers filmed in the giant studio were also quite extraordinary, but overall, I felt maybe they were too few and too far apart.

Overall though, it's just a magnificent, honest and daring film.




You only have to look at the distribution of a vote history (IMDb) to see that people are way more probable to use the higher range, from 6 and up, than they are the lower range, from 5 and down. You will also find that people are much more probable to not use a variable which is placed in the lower range than one in the higher range. If you consult a textbook in statistics, it will also tell you just the same.
This reasoning is littered with problems. First and foremost: people rating higher more often is not the same thing as rating more exactly, which was your initial claim.

Also, the ratings you're talking about are ONLY ratings, whereas the ratings here are not prompted, and usually accompanied by reasoning of some sort. And for another, IMDB is an entirely different website, and not necessarily indicative of moviegoers as a whole. Not that these last two points are even necessary.

It doesn’t give a finite reduction in higher level range, but it do give a relative (to the lower level range) reduction I higher level range. The rating system most people unknowingly prefer is one that has a perceived center value below the real center value (e.g. 1-5.5 where 5.5 is the golden popcorn). This gives them more intervals in the higher range than the lower range, without being confusing (if you don’t look at it to closely).
This is sheer nonsense. There are more rating options, period. It doesn't make for a reduction in anything, relatively or not, unless you assume that everybody has a fixed middle number in their head which never changes, regardless of the range of choices they're presented with.

Of course, you've left yourself a nice little escape hatch by claiming people "unknowingly" prefer an off-kilter range of choices, but that strikes me as very convenient. Either you can substantiate all these claims, or not. Simply asserting them is a waste of time.


The main problem I wanted to point out with this system was that it is not intuitive. And here you admit it yourself that one needs to learn it, or with other words counter intuitive. 1-5 or 1-9 systems don’t share this problem. People know the center value and they can’t be misunderstood.
I didn't admit that it was counter-intuitive at all, I simply noted that if you don't know what the system is, there may be a misunderstanding.

To the contary, I think our system is actually very intuitive, for one simple reason: you can see the blank popcorn icons in each rating. Voila:



The 2.5 image is half-full, and half-empty, and correspondingly, it represents the dead-center option in our range. Any other rating, like
, is off-balance.

But that makes it an 11-scale system, and last time I checked 11 was an odd number.
It is, which means it has a center. Which means your comment about even number systems does not apply here. Which was the point I was making two posts ago.

Why does that matter? In both cases it is an argument for seeing the movie.
You're kidding, right? You've been going on about how important it is that ratings be exact and reflect a person's summation as accurately as possible, and now you're flippantly declaring that it doesn't matter what a 5.0 rating means, because either way it's an endorsement? Either precise ratings matter, or not. You can't alternate between the two stances when it suits a specific argument.

At this point I have to conclude that you're just arguing to argue, because the things you're saying are starting to collide with each other. Unless you have something more substantive to say, or some compelling new evidence to present, I think I'm quite finished.

If you don't care for the rating system, then don't use it. And consider writing an actual review at some point (I don't believe you've written any to this point), because no matter what system you use, your ratings will never actually tell us what you thought about a given film.



Jeez, get a room you guys




The Sentinel (Michael Winner 1976)

I've wanted to see this for a while being a fan of 60's and 70's satanic horror films like Rosemary's Baby, The Omen, and The Exorcist. I'm not religious in the slightest, but for some reason those are the only three films (with the exception of Don't Look Now) that really frighten me. I wasn't expecting too much from The Sentinel, for one it was directed by Michael Winner, and two, well it's just not supposed to be very good. But hey, thats never stopped me before, I like sleazy trash, and this film is both sleazy and very very trashy.

Essentially it's a big studio knockoff of Rosemary's Baby, throw in a bit of Lucio Fulci's The Beyond aka Seven Doors of Death (which probably stole from this) and you're on the right track. Cristina Raines plays a young model who wanting some space from her lawyer boyfriend (Chris Sarandon) moves into a decidedly creepy New York brownstone apartment. Before you know it all manner of weird things start happening, a lesbian neighbour masturbates in front of her, she feels really ill, oh and I almost forgot, cuts off her undead dad's nose with a kitchen knife. Yup you guessed it, her apartment building houses the gateway to hell and she's been chosen by the church (represented here by John Carradine) to be its guardian. Throw in Eli Wallach as a police detective with the biggest kipper tie I've ever seen, and his partner played by Christopher Walken who has two lines in the entire movie, not to mention Jeff Goldblum, Ava Gardner, Beverly D'Angelo, Burgess Meredith, Jerry Orbach etc etc and you've got The Sentinel.

Even though I knew it wasn't going to be great, this left me a little disappointed, it's just pretty dull despite the nudity and gore (of which it has a lot less that its reputation led me to believe). I didn't care about Raines's character at all, and the scares were non existent apart from one knockout scene involving said dad half way through. The Sentinel is just too uneventful and derivative, with too many name actors phoning it in to transcend mediocrity. It's not a bad movie par se, Winner does give us a great finale, in which he uses real freaks interspersed with Dick Smith makeups to represent the residents of hell. Overall though this is a time filler at best, it pretty much does what it says on the tin, but only just.



Is this the Car Clamp Club? I give this argument a
.

Now then, on with the show!

Lethal Weapon (Richard Donner-1987)


I know Die Hard is a certain members personal favorite and all but for my money this is the better 80's action film. Maybe I'm just to far in Mel's bag, but dammit, I just really love all of these flicks. If you have any interest at all in watching a movie where Gary Busey still has his skin then check this one out. He's almost unrecognizable these days. To bad really, I kind of like the guy.

Lethal Weapon 2 (Richard Donner-1989)


The first time I saw this I laughed at Joe Pesci. I still do. "They F*** you at the drive through!" For some reason I don't like this one as much as the rest of them but its certainly worth watching.

Lethal Weapon 3 (Richard Donner-1992)


I really love this flick. Mel's scene with Rene when comparing scars and texture is obviously a ripoff from JAWS, but it is a good one. Those two were terrific together in this flick.

"Ten Dollars for a F****** Aspirin!"

Hopefully I'll get to the fourth one tonight sometime. Then maybe later I'll get to all the Die Hard movies too. Its Christmas ya know?
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



A Lethal Weapon *and* Die Hard marathon back-to-back, Powdered? Sounds good to me!
__________________
"The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven."
John Milton, Paradise Lost

My Movie Review Thread | My Top 100



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
All that jazz - Bob Fosse
Obviously, I love Fosse, and although it has some great dance numbers, I just found All That Jazz muddled, self-congratulatory and intentionally-offputting. (I mean, do we really need to be dragged into a real open heart surgery?) However, I think Scheider is the best part of the movie. I would rate the Fosse-directed films this way:

Cabaret -

Lenny -

Star 80 -

Sweet Charity -

All That Jazz -


Remember though, that's just me. Hey, adi, have you seen Fosse dance in films? His part in Kiss Me Kate is electrifying. I don't know why this video is squished, but Fosse is the guy originally sitting in the front on the right side facing you (the shortest, most-soft-sung guy, since that IS his voice). He shows off his stuff with Ann Miller at the 2:40 mark for a full minute.



Oh, one other thing, adi, have you seen Singin' in the Rain?

The Sentinel (Michael Winner 1976)

I've wanted to see this for a while being a fan of 60's and 70's satanic horror films like Rosemary's Baby, The Omen, and The Exorcist. I'm not religious in the slightest, but for some reason those are the only three films (with the exception of Don't Look Know) that really frighten me. and you've got The Sentinel.
I saw The Sentinel at the drive-in the opening weekend, and it was mildly-involving, but I agree with your rating and I think it was pure schlock compared to the three titanic films you mention. Just wondering though, have you seen The Innocents, my fave horror film?

The Innocents -

Rosemary's Baby -

The Exorcist -

An American Werewolf in London -

The Omen -


Lethal Weapon 2 (Richard Donner-1989)


The first time I saw this I laughed at Joe Pesci. I still do. "They F*** you at the drive through!" For some reason I don't like this one as much as the rest of them but its certainly worth watching.
Lethal Weapon 2 has always been my fave of the series. I don't know if it's just because it's so funny, or maybe it's the surfboard.

Lethal Weapon -

Lethal Weapon 2 -

Lethal Weapon 3 -

Lethal Weapon 4 -


Yep, I'm too easy to please...

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



Hey, adi, have you seen Fosse dance in films? His part in Kiss Me Kate is electrifying. I don't know why this video is squished, but Fosse is the guy originally sitting in the front on the right side facing you (the shortest, most-soft-sung guy, since that IS his voice). He shows off his stuff with Ann Miller at the 2:40 mark for a full minute.

...
Oh, one other thing, adi, have you seen Singin' in the Rain?
Thanks for the clip, his number did seem a bit more special than the others'. I've seen Singing in the rain, but many moons ago so I should probably revisit it soon. Although as you know, my preference lies in post Bonnie and Clyde films...





Lethal Weapon 2 has always been my fave of the series. I don't know if it's just because it's so funny, or maybe it's the surfboard.
Weyy, we agree on something