Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. It's really not great. There is a good film in here somewhere, but they didn't find it. Watching it back to back with the first it just seems a bit cheap and tacky. Like it goes for being gross and horrific (admittedly Spielberg's stated aim at the time) rather than having and subtlety or mystery to it. And oh, Kate Capshaw screaming all the time... Urgh. It's a pity as the finale with the mine cart chase and the rope bridge fight are brilliant. It just happens that they're preceded by an hour and a half of bilge.
What film did you watch last night?
- Thread starter Richeh
- Start date
Agreed. So much was wrong. There's was no chemistry between the characters - Ford looked like he didn't want to be there - and no flow to the film. It was like Spielberg had a checklist of things that should be in an Indy film and randomly shoehorned them in. A charmless mess.
I know ratings are subjective, but after seeing a few 8s being handed out to a film that I thought was TERRIBLE, I wonder if perhaps people need to remember:
A movie you rate 8/10 realistically should mean that you enjoyed it more than 80% of all the other films you have ever seen.
That said, by the same logic it would mean you can only have one 10/10 film as it should be the best you have ever seen, but it's a given than you can have a number of films at the top, being better than pretty much any other film you have seen apart from their direct peers.
A movie you rate 8/10 realistically should mean that you enjoyed it more than 80% of all the other films you have ever seen.
That said, by the same logic it would mean you can only have one 10/10 film as it should be the best you have ever seen, but it's a given than you can have a number of films at the top, being better than pretty much any other film you have seen apart from their direct peers.
Why? As you said ratings are subjective. You seem to have a problem with people giving an 8 rating to a film you didn't like and are blaming how people rate films for that.
Maybe the way you want to rate films is right, but, personally I think a movie should be judged on it's own merits/faults. And that's how I rate a movie, based purely on my reaction after watching it. I don't compare it to other movies, or let other people's views change my own. How that movie has entertained me is the only criteria that I consider important.
28 Days Later - 5-6/10
Don't see what all the fuss is about. Bad acting, and damn that woman was annoying.
I seem to dislike films set in Britain with British actors. They're just never as good as their US equivalents. Films set elsewhere also help me get away from the dullness of living here, so this is a no no for me.
Don't see what all the fuss is about. Bad acting, and damn that woman was annoying.
I seem to dislike films set in Britain with British actors. They're just never as good as their US equivalents. Films set elsewhere also help me get away from the dullness of living here, so this is a no no for me.
28 Days Later - 5-6/10
Don't see what all the fuss is about. Bad acting, and damn that woman was annoying.
I seem to dislike films set in Britain with British actors. They're just never as good as their US equivalents. Films set elsewhere also help me get away from the dullness of living here, so this is a no no for me.
The first half is better than the second, though Jim's rampage at the end is worth waiting for. Very visceral.
I sort of get what you're saying, but rating things in that way would require me to watch a lot of rubbish! It would also mean that your 8/10 would not be comparable with my 8/10 unless we've seen exactly the same set of films.
What? What logic does that follow? Who told you that's how you rate things?
It makes no sense. (How would you rate the first film you ever watched?)
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,341
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
I seem to dislike films set in Britain with British actors. They're just never as good as their US equivalents. Films set elsewhere also help me get away from the dullness of living here, so this is a no no for me.
This is a really bad thing to say for the UK film industry
but yea I dont need to see London, possibly its ok if its James Bond on the Thames I have seen that only done once with the telegraph years ago, where they only awarded one top rating ever (that I saw) and it was out of 5 stars so quite ridiculous to only have 4 available. The 5 star was Ghandi (1982) and on imdb its 8.1 I guess because its an old film about old stuff
I agree it should be that way, 10/10 is not just one film though. Its the best in that category, so best ever comedy or action etc. So it could be a dozen films
Whatever just so long as people dont say 10/10 then a month later they hate it
I think we all know the type of film you mean, that plays great now or decades from now and its not likely we see 1 or 2 of those this year if anyJaws (1975)
10/10
That was probably the best part I felt.
This is a really bad thing to say for the UK film industry
Yeah it's a strange one. I'm the same with UK TV shows as well, just can't seem to get into any of the serious ones simply because they're set over here.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 8,607
The Assassin
Technically, it was superb. However, I didn't really connect with it.
8/10
Technically, it was superb. However, I didn't really connect with it.
8/10
Most people have watched hundreds of films before they start rating them, rating needs some sort of point of reference.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,759
- Location
- Welling, London
The Finest Hours. I'm a sucker for these type of films. The perfect storm is one of my all time Faves. I found this one very good. Fantastic visuals and gripping throughout. Also a true story. They were some brave guys on that little boat. Definite 8/10 for me.
10 Cloverfield Lane... Now what I expected at all and one that kept me guessing throughout. Every 5 minutes the wife and I came out with some version of "OK, I now think this is happening ..." We were well off the mark every time. It's movie that makes you ponder afterwards. Anm only 4 actors that ever appears on screen.
8.5/10
8.5/10
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 76,070
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Zootopia
Original, charming, good characters, funny, I like the theme (chase your dreams and don't judge a book by its cover) and great graphic.
It's almost at Pixar level of quality.
9/10
Original, charming, good characters, funny, I like the theme (chase your dreams and don't judge a book by its cover) and great graphic.
It's almost at Pixar level of quality.
9/10
Funny Games.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119167/
A surprisingly good & well thought out / written film. In particular, the lass in this film did a great job at conveying the shock and terror of their predicament (8/10).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119167/
A surprisingly good & well thought out / written film. In particular, the lass in this film did a great job at conveying the shock and terror of their predicament (8/10).
Most people have watched hundreds of films before they start rating them, rating needs some sort of point of reference.
Yes, that's fine. The point is that method is NOT the method to use.
As you watch films you start rating them to how good you think they are. You can then use other films as anchor poiints ('I rated film X a 7 and it was better than that, so I'll say this was an 8') But I have no idea why an 8 out of 10 should be better than 80% of the films you watch.