Movies you like more than your rating.

Tools    





I got it. There are movies that I don't think are among the greats, that I like for some obscure personal reason. Perhaps the plot line is appealing or I've been to the location, or I like the actors, or I like the music or whatever...something that doesn't fit the canon of erudite reviewing criteria.

I like it because I had a crush on the female lead.

I was in that exact spot when I took a trip to ___.

I like vampire movies.

Etc. I'll be back with some.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
Great thread idea! I was just thinking about this.. I've been recommending movies, and although I started out with favorites, I always felt "Sult" was better than an 8/10.






I like the idea. Unfortunately the only answer that comes to mind is the opposite. It's one where my rating makes it seem as if I like it more than I do: I gave Cloverfield
, not because I love it, but because when I was talking about it with my brother after he said "would you change anything about it?" And I realized the answer was "no." So whatever my complaints, they were about its meta decisions, about which type of film to be, but given what it wanted to be it did that perfectly. (Not really perfectly, but close enough that I can't quibble much.)

Anyway, that's the inverse of your question but hopefully it's worthwhile anyway. I think it's an interesting way to look at films, if only because it posits a distinction between admiration and straight enjoyment, and with it, a distinction between viewer and critic even within the same person.



The rating I give a movie is how much I like it. I'm not sure how to rate differently.

This is why reviews along with ratings are, in my opinion, essential. I just bluntly say "I love stories about an underdog and I've always liked Sam Rockwell, which undoubtedly upped my enjoyment of the film". I'll also say things like "Movies centered on car chases aren't my favorite thing, but if you like them, you right really enjoy this one."

I get the argument about movies achieving their goals. And I give movies I don't like credit for their strong elements (performances, technical merit, soundtrack, visual effects). But if a movie didn't move me, I'm not going to give it a high rating just because it accomplished what it set out to do.



The rating I give a movie is how much I like it. I'm not sure how to rate differently.

This is why reviews along with ratings are, in my opinion, essential. I just bluntly say "I love stories about an underdog and I've always liked Sam Rockwell, which undoubtedly upped my enjoyment of the film". I'll also say things like "Movies centered on car chases aren't my favorite thing, but if you like them, you right really enjoy this one."

I get the argument about movies achieving their goals. And I give movies I don't like credit for their strong elements (performances, technical merit, soundtrack, visual effects). But if a movie didn't move me, I'm not going to give it a high rating just because it accomplished what it set out to do.
Yeah, I operate the same way. If I watch a classic film and I don't think it's a great film, I'm not going to rate it as such. I'll give it the rating which I think it deserves. Of course, if I watch it again later on, I may like it more though.



Great thread idea! I was just thinking about this.. I've been recommending movies, and although I started out with favorites, I always felt "Sult" was better than an 8/10.



I love that film. It's so underseen.



Yeah, I operate the same way. If I watch a classic film and I don't think it's a great film, I'm not going to rate it as such. I'll give it the rating which I think it deserves. Of course, if I watch it again later on, I may like it more though.
That's true for me too, I think that's probably true for most all of us.



That's true for me too, I think that's probably true for most all of us.
For a while, my response to some films was "I was kind of left cold, but I know this film gets a reputation as a great film, so I'll give it a 9/10". Eventually though, I stopped doing that as, all too often, I felt I was lying to myself and not being critical enough. I tend to enjoy most films with mostly positive reviews (both in terms of critical and audience), but if I watch a film which doesn't do much for me, I'm not going to give it a free pass just because of its reputation.



The rating I give a movie is how much I like it. I'm not sure how to rate differently.
Me neither, but how we parse "like" is obviously the sticking point. That word has a personal and emotional connotation distinct from a word like "admire," even though admiration is obviously a totally reasonable basis from which to rate something highly, too.

Every discussion I've had with people about this (and I've had more than a few!) ends up going around in circles for a few rounds while people swap words like "enjoy" and "like" and "admire" in ways that circumvent the underlying question.

This is why reviews along with ratings are, in my opinion, essential. I just bluntly say "I love stories about an underdog and I've always liked Sam Rockwell, which undoubtedly upped my enjoyment of the film". I'll also say things like "Movies centered on car chases aren't my favorite thing, but if you like them, you right really enjoy this one."
Yeah, good call, that at least gives the rating context so people can make up their own mind about the significance. It's complicated by the fact that ratings can be skimmed, however, and are often aggregated.

I get the argument about movies achieving their goals. And I give movies I don't like credit for their strong elements (performances, technical merit, soundtrack, visual effects). But if a movie didn't move me, I'm not going to give it a high rating just because it accomplished what it set out to do.
I think a lot of it comes down to what you think ratings and reviews are for. Are they meant to express who you are, as a person, or are they meant to be a signal to others? Whatever the answer, I'll say that I think it makes a bit more sense for ratings to be a "you" (you meaning whoever, not you specifically) thing and reviews an "other people" thing, for obvious reasons.

I think the tricky part is that it's trivially easy to come up with extreme examples where either philosophy looks ridiculous: giving a a romcom zero stars because you're coming out of a bad breakup is pretty dumb, and so is handing out five stars to some dull avante garde monstrosity just because the director said they wanted their film to be "difficult to watch" or something.



if I watch a film which doesn't do much for me, I'm not going to give it a free pass just because of its reputation.
Without singling you out at all, I think that very last sentiment--the conflation of critical admiration with "reputation"--comes up a lot in these discussions and does not really represent the best version of the argument.

When I say critical admiration, I mean each person's own understanding of the art form, not a consensus of what other people are saying about it. I don't really "like" Schindler's List, but it is a technical and artistic achievement. I give it high marks because I can recognize those achievements as distinct from my own immediate reaction to it. That's the distinction I'm talking about, and not "well it won Best Picture so it gets an extra star from me" or what have you.

I'm usually the guy on the "criticism as distinct from personal affinity" side of the argument and I'm always a little surprised by how often people seem to think I'm saying we should give higher ratings to things just because other people like them, which is not the case at all. I'm saying our own taste and appreciation for art is made up of more than just our own immediate and/or idiosyncratic reaction to something. Our ability to step outside those reactions, outside of ourselves, is what makes big-c Criticism possible, and meaningful, I think.



I tend to enjoy most films with mostly positive reviews (both in terms of critical and audience), but if I watch a film which doesn't do much for me, I'm not going to give it a free pass just because of its reputation.
Without singling you out at all, I think that very last sentiment--the conflation of critical admiration with "reputation"--comes up a lot in these discussions and does not really represent the best version of the argument.

When I say critical admiration, I mean each person's own understanding of the art form, not a consensus of what other people are saying about it.
I think that far too many films (and books) are given high ratings by people who are afraid to go against popular consensus, and who go into films thinking they "should" like them.

To go one step further, the problem with any kind of numerical rating is that every individual has their own undefinable algorithm for how they assign ratings. What percent of your rating is given on technical merit? What percentage is your person response/enjoyment? It's hard to say for myself, much less someone else.

It's why any aggregate of ratings (even something with hundreds of thousands of votes like the IMDb) needs to be taken with a grain of salt. You're sort of trusting that the people who tend to rate on the lower end (like people who say "This was pretty good!" and then give 4/10?!) and people who rate on the higher end (like people who say "This was pretty good!" and then give a 10/10?!) balance each other out.

I get what you mean when you say that ratings are for yourself and reviews are for other people. I think that where that ends is saying that maybe "real" criticism should come absent a rating. There's an interesting study about the impact of giving grades to students versus feedback. What did the study find? If you give only a grade, kids look at the grade. If you give only feedback, kids read the feedback. If you give a grade and feedback, kids look at the grade and do not read the feedback.

I do still end where I started: this thing of giving movies numeric scores divorced from our actual experience/enjoyment of them seems pointless to me (and enjoyment can include a detached admiration for technique). I happily give movies a 10/10 that have an average rating of like 5.8/10. If a film has flaws but the overall vibe means I don't care about them, do I really need to take my score down?

Something about "I love this movie it is my favorite ever! 7/10" makes me legit kind of sad.



I think that far too many films (and books) are given high ratings by people who are afraid to go against popular consensus, and who go into films thinking they "should" like them.
I agree with this, but let's keep going: is it possible THIS sentiment (which is obviously not good) is leading to people overcompensating the other way? For example, because some people inflate their ratings because of a popular consensus, do I get more pushback on my version of the argument, even though it's not that? Are we all just mood signalling all the time? Maybe!

To go one step further, the problem with any kind of numerical rating is that every individual has their own undefinable algorithm for how they assign ratings. What percent of your rating is given on technical merit? What percentage is your person response/enjoyment? It's hard to say for myself, much less someone else.
Definitely.

It's why any aggregate of ratings (even something with hundreds of thousands of votes like the IMDb) needs to be taken with a grain of salt. You're sort of trusting that the people who tend to rate on the lower end (like people who say "This was pretty good!" and then give 4/10?!) and people who rate on the higher end (like people who say "This was pretty good!" and then give a 10/10?!) balance each other out.
Yes, exactly right. Same idea as democracy, really. I will almost definitely find the rationale of any specific voter (for public office or rating a film) to be dubious, but there's something to be gleaned from all of them together. It at least swamps the romcom hypothetical I mentioned.

I get what you mean when you say that ratings are for yourself and reviews are for other people. I think that where that ends is saying that maybe "real" criticism should come absent a rating. There's an interesting study about the impact of giving grades to students versus feedback. What did the study find? If you give only a grade, kids look at the grade. If you give only feedback, kids read the feedback. If you give a grade and feedback, kids look at the grade and do not read the feedback.
Yeah, Goodhart's Law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."

Anyway, I only agitate about this stuff until I think people are at least rejecting the best version of the counterargument. From that point, different strokes.



Here's a better example. The Pagemaster is NOT a great movie at all, but it's a childhood treasure I still watch sometimes.



I agree with this, but let's keep going: is it possible THIS sentiment (which is obviously not good) is leading to people overcompensating the other way? For example, because some people inflate their ratings because of a popular consensus, do I get more pushback on my version of the argument, even though it's not that? Are we all just mood signalling all the time? Maybe!
I don't think so. I don't feel as if I often see people giving low ratings to commonly admired films.

As for mood signaling, I don't think that any relationship to art can be static. On rewatches of movies my ratings often go up or down. Things I loved as a teenager now seem far less interesting or complete. Movies that wouldn't have resonated with me in the same way as a younger person now take on a lot more meaning (ie I am glad in a way that I was in my 30s before seeing Jeanne Dielman).

I enjoy reading essays about film from people who are very well versed in cinematic history and techniques because it can illuminate aspects of the film I might not have noticed. But I also think that it's very possible that even the most academic of critics would have a different view on certain movies as they aged or had different experiences. For example, losing a parent, having a child, even living in a different city.

I am very annoyed by people who claim that their film reviews/ratings are objective. Like, get outta here. It's certainly possible to make objective observations about a piece of art, but there's no such thing as an objective measure of enjoyment.



I don't think so. I don't feel as if I often see people giving low ratings to commonly admired films.
I've given low ratings to beloved and respected films. Most notably was 12 Angry Men, a highly rated film that will most likely place towards the top of The Movie Forums Top 100 of All-Time Refresh countdown. I rated 12 Angry Men 2.5/5 (we use the 5 scale here at MoFo).

As for mood signaling, I don't think that any relationship to art can be static. On rewatches of movies my ratings often go up or down.
On the first watch of 12 Angry Men I loved it, but after another viewing my opinion switched 180 to the negative. On my first watch of Home Alone, I disliked it, but on my last rewatch I now consider it a modern comedy classic and liken it to a Charlie Chaplin film.
I am very annoyed by people who claim that their film reviews/ratings are objective. Like, get outta here. It's certainly possible to make objective observations about a piece of art, but there's no such thing as an objective measure of enjoyment.
I consider some (but not all and not most) of my movie opinions objective. If a film is flawed then's it flawed.



I don't think so. I don't feel as if I often see people giving low ratings to commonly admired films.
Should we expect to? I assume commonly admired films are admired for a reason, so I wouldn't expect to see them given low ratings "often." It might even be an oxymoron, since if you saw this often they would cease to be commonly admired in the first place. It's a red flag if it never happens, perhaps, but by definition it won't happen with regularity.

Anyway, the question was rhetorical, because I figure it can't really be answered. It reminds me of the arguments people have about whether something is "overrated" or not, which takes all the imprecision of measuring our own opinions and then introduces not just other people's, but our own sense of those other people's in aggregate, which is just way too many variables and explains why those discussions/threads are usually unproductive.

As for mood signaling, I don't think that any relationship to art can be static. On rewatches of movies my ratings often go up or down. Things I loved as a teenager now seem far less interesting or complete. Movies that wouldn't have resonated with me in the same way as a younger person now take on a lot more meaning (ie I am glad in a way that I was in my 30s before seeing Jeanne Dielman).
My bad, by "mood signaling" I mean Tyler Cowen's description of "mood affiliation" and not whatever mood the person happens to be in when they watch something. Though since you mention it, that's another reason to be wary of highly personalized ratings: they change dramatically based on the watcher, but not the film, which means they're not really rating the film. They're simply measuring correspondence between the film and that person's life experiences and capacity for empathy at that particular time.

I enjoy reading essays about film from people who are very well versed in cinematic history and techniques because it can illuminate aspects of the film I might not have noticed. But I also think that it's very possible that even the most academic of critics would have a different view on certain movies as they aged or had different experiences. For example, losing a parent, having a child, even living in a different city.
Agreed, but I think that's exactly why serious criticism is important: it's like professional empathy. It's about recognizing the inherent power of something I haven't personally experienced. That's the "films as empathy machines" thing. I think serious criticism simply takes that idea and tries to extend it. Obviously we all sort of get this idea already, in that we know we can feel sad or happy for a character going through something we haven't, but I don't see any reason we can't (or shouldn't) sometimes extend it to something that seems potentially powerful even if it happens not to land as much for us, personally, at that moment.

Preemptively, I'll say there's obviously some finesse here, because something can fail to land both because we can't empathize with it, or because it's just not executed very well. But I think criticism means at least asking that question, rather than (I'm not saying this is your position) just counting our goosebumps.

I am very annoyed by people who claim that their film reviews/ratings are objective. Like, get outta here. It's certainly possible to make objective observations about a piece of art, but there's no such thing as an objective measure of enjoyment.
I agree, but I also think "art is subjective" is often used to cover thoughtless, kneejerk opinions. I find both ideas really grating in practice, to be honest, probably because they're both used to short-circuit discussion or debate about the thing.

Technically I can't prove to you that a seven year old who thinks Minions is the greatest movie ever made is wrong, but we can all still recognize that as an absurdity. Maybe taste can't be objective, but there are objective markers that seem to correlate with it, like breadth of viewing. It's objectively true that the potential meaning of praise (absent any value judgment about the person), at its high point, must mean more the more someone has seen. A person's favorite film is a meaningless concept when they have seen just one film, and only slightly more meaningful when they've seen two, and so on.



I consider some (but not all and not most) of my movie opinions objective. If a film is flawed then's it flawed.
But isn't a flaw your opinion? In other words, we can probably all agree that Al Pacino's performance in Heat is turned up to 11. I personally found it to be a flaw (because it totally pushed me out of the "reality" of the film and made me roll my eyes), but other people consider it an asset to the film. I'm not pretending that it made the film less enjoyable for me, and they aren't pretending they liked it. So is it a flaw?

Should we expect to? I assume commonly admired films are admired for a reason, so I wouldn't expect to see them given low ratings "often."
I think I misinterpreted what you said as meaning "Are we seeing people rate films lower just to counter-act the common consensus?". Maybe that's not what you meant?

Technically I can't prove to you that a seven year old who thinks Minions is the greatest movie ever made is wrong, but we can all still recognize that as an absurdity. Maybe taste can't be objective, but there are objective markers that seem to correlate with it, like breadth of viewing. It's objectively true that the potential meaning of praise (absent any value judgment about the person), at its high point, must mean more the more someone has seen. A person's favorite film is a meaningless concept when they have seen just one film, and only slightly more meaningful when they've seen two, and so on.
Yeah, but the Minions movie IS the best movie ever made to that child. I take your point about the value we put in opinions increasing as they have more expertise and breadth of viewing. This just loops back to the distinction between ratings and reviews. If I don't know why someone is giving something a 3/5, that rating can mean very little to me. Maybe the only exception is when you look at enough of someone's ratings to see if your ratings generally align with theirs.