The MoFo Movie Club Discussion: Citizen Kane

There is absolutely zero reason to treat movie rating grades as if they were school rating grades. The two have no connection to one another.

And even if you want to compare them, you wouldn't do it with percentages. A C is "average" not because it's 70%, but because it's in the middle of the five letters: A and B above it, D and F below. It's in the center of the scale. And the center of Mark's scale isn't 7, it's 5.

If you were to say a persons looks' was 5/10 nobody but you would know you were saying their looks was average.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

There are just five movies from 1941 with a rating of 5. I don't think these obscurities would qualify for most people as average.

http://www.imdb.com/search/title?cou...rating=5.0,5.0

Mark is one of the most frequent posters on here, constantly uses the Movie Tab, and happily explains any of his ratings. As a frequent Movie Tab user I would say I now have a very good understanding of his system.

When I first joined I thought Mark was harsh, but that's because I was using a more relaxed, easier to gain higher ratings system, that I still do to a degree where achieving 5* ratings is easily possible if I think the film is great, and I hadn't realised how Mark used his system. I'd much rather see Mark give a film a and talk about how he liked it, than see someone give it a 5 as they have every other film.

Everyone rates films in their own, personal way, there's no right or wrong system and you can't convert between them. I don't really understand why people, often quite frequent posters still struggle to understand Mark's rating system, do they not see all the posts he makes in the Movie Tab and many other threads? I've seen him explain his ratings and his system numerous times, and he's always happy to explain his ratings/thoughts on a film. Labelling a rating of 7.5 bad seems a bit disrespectful towards Mark, at least for me.

__________________

Everyone has his own rating system. That's not even the issue here. If Mark wants to rate an average movie a 5/10 and I want to rate an average movie 7/10, then that's perfectly fine.

It's about the fact that older films don't deserve to be seen as less 'absolute' accomplishments than movies of the present. I don't see why they have to be rated in a more stringent way, just because they are older.

I still believe that if we compare Citizen Kane with (for example) The Dark Knight, the former can still be seen as the best movie "objectively". I don't see why not. It's not because they now have all this CGI stuff and all these equipments to make excessive action scenes that we have better movies. Cinema is much more than just technology (in my opinion).

It's like some of you guys compare cinema to car racing or something. Film is not about setting a new record, but about creating a feeling. Some older films are never quite surpassed in that respect, (in my humble opinion).

All I know is he gave the absolute worst Billy Wilder movie, the truly awful Buddy Buddy, three popcorn bags. Does that translate into 7.5 or better?

I don't really know you to well, but you're not coming across well here. It's all well and good disagreeing with people's ratings, but no need to mock or belittle them is there?

And anyway, so what if he likes one film that you don't, everyone has films they like that you don't or the other way round, it doesn't mean they are any less or more qualified than yourself to judge a film. And I believe roughly translates to 6/10 with Mark which is seen as a 'good film' and something others will probably give about 3.5/4- popcorn, his 7.5 rating of Citizen Kane I believe translates to + which is a very strong rating, something you'd realise if you paid attention/respect to his posts, or bothered to engage/ask him about what he thinks of a film, which I have only seen him as happy to do. Arguing over one decent rating he gave to a film you dislike is pathetic anyway, I'll reiterate my first paragraph where I say there is no need to personally attack and belittle someone just because you don't have the same rating system or tastes as them.

You evaluate Citizen Kane for what it is and you evaluate The Dark Knight for what it is. You can't compare them. Citizen Kane, a character study, you going to fault it because it doesn't have huge action scenes like The Dark Knight?

That's because telling people how attractive they are is fraught with all sorts of social complication. It's not remotely comparable.

This is pretty simple: if the scale is 1-10, 5 is average. It's average because it's in the middle. You know, like something is when it's average. That's all there is to it.

If people in general don't always follow this, that means their ratings don't make a lot of sense, logically. So you should go harass them, instead of giving Mark flack for actually having a sensible rating system that uses the entire scale. Which, incidentally, he's explained at length, which you'd know if you'd cared to learn about it rather than offer a completely uninformed critique.

Buddy Buddy is the movie that ended Billy Wilder's film career. He lived a long time after it. He wanted to make another one, but that one's reputation kept him from getting studio backing to make one. Using your logic, that means Mark thinks Buddy Buddy is only slightly inferior to Citizen Kane, which despite its flaws, is one the most historically important and technically innovative movies ever made.

If you are going to use a skewed, idiosyncratic rating system, then it is best to explain it every time you use it.

I never attacked him until he used the word I never use myself, troll, and even then i just threw the word back at him. I challenged his bizarre notion 7.5 is considered by the average person a good rating for a movie like Citizen Kane.

That wasn't the point I was making. They can perfectly be compared by the way, in terms of feeling, but that's another discussion.

I'm saying it should be perfectly possible for an older film (or even a cheaper film, if you want; it doesn't have to be about time, it can also be about money), made with less technological options to be seen as better than a newer or more expensive film that does have the acces to all those equipments.

Therefore older films shouldn't be rated as lower than more recent features, just because the images are of worse quality, for example. For me, it's all about the art and bringing emotions to the audience. I don't see why older films wouldn't be able to do this as strongly as newer ones.

This is the last post I'm writing about this subject, because I'm starting to repeat myself now. I think I made a very clear point.

if 5 was average getting half the answers on a test should get you an average grade of C. It is absurd.

I wasn't challenging your point, but was assuming the 7.5 rater was downgrading CK because it lacked things he expects to see in a contemporary action movie. It really is the only area where an older movie might be inferior. It can't be for the writing or acting.

Well, my top 5 favorite live action movies are from 1949, 1952, 1953, 1968 and 1979, most are not far from Citizen Kane's date.

Statistically speaking, the film industry peaked in activity in the 1950's. In Japan, USA and Europe, more films were made and more tickets were sold in the 1950's than today and in every subsequent decade, so the density of great films made per year peaked in the 1950's.

Around 1955-1960, most households in US, Europe and Japan got TVs and so the revenues of the film industry began to decline, the studios began to lose money and green-light fewer films, soon the number of films produced began to decline and the degree of artistic freedom allowed also began to decline. Great movies still got made after the 1950's but I guess their density per year declined.

I also think it makes sense to rate newer films higher on average because they reflect more closely contemporary culture. Since we are the product of our contemporary cultural environment we tend to like more things that fit better into our modern culture, thus modern films tend to generate a more positive reaction, all things being equal.

No it shouldn't. It's a function of how the average student does. It has literally no relationship whatsoever to movie rating scales. You might as well compare it to someone's free throw percentage.

I think you're confused about the distinction between rating and performance. The percentage of answers correct is performance. The C is the rating--and it's smack dab in the middle of the available letters. That's the equivalent of the 5.

The same principle applies otherwise why are five rated movies on the imdb consistently bad movies, not average ones.

Is this your idea of an average movie?

White Chicks (2004)

109 min - Crime | Comedy - 23 June 2004 (USA)
5.0
Your rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -/10 X

Ratings: 5.0/10 from 59,745 users Metascore: 41/100
Reviews: 232 user | 96 critic | 31 from Metacritic.com



Two disgraced FBI agents go way undercover in an effort to protect hotel heiresses the Wilson Sisters from a kidnapping plot.

The mere fact that you're asking that question suggests considerable confusion about the topic. For one, not everyone rates on a curve; they may rate objectively. For another, not everyone rates consistently. And that's the real issue. If someone's scale is ostensibly 1-10, then an average rating would be 5. The fact that most people don't really bother to apply their scale consistently is beside the point.

The Matrix > Citizen Kane (IMHO )

I also rate Before Sunrise and its great sequel Before Sunset higher. I can relate to the characters more.

And a lot of IMDB's ratings are so ridiculous, they are hardly anything to go off of.

Also, Cobpyth, I don't automatically give older movies lower ratings, in fact 7.5 is a good rating in my book. But, again this is all hypothetical, if I was alive in 1941 it may have been the best movie I had ever seen, but then I would also have been exposed to different things and thought differently and been an entirely different person, so on second thought maybe I shouldn't suppose. However, I can't think of any movie I have seen even this day before 1941 that I would rate higher.

__________________
UNCRITICALLY ACCLAIMED (A UNIQUE COLLECTION OF FILMS)
MY MOVIE RANKINGS

Apparently you haven't seen anything from Murnau, Lang and/or Dreyer.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.