"For years I had a law that I would give the zero star rating only to films I believed were immoral in one way or another. Any other movie, however wretched, would get at least a half-star. In making this selection I find that I have not always adhered to that rule. While everyone would agree that Jaws the Revenge or Little Indian, Big City are very bad movies, for example, few would find them evil - unless it is evil to waste two hours in the lives of unsuspecting ticket buyers, which it may well be. Other films are in the zero-star category as a sort of default; any star rating at all seems irrelevant to John Waters' Pink Flamingos, which exists outside critical terms, like the weather." (Roger Ebert, I Hated, Hated, HATED This Movie, 2000)
Most people divide movies into two groups, either "good" or "bad," "thumbs up" over "thumbs down," and "worth seeing in the theater" versus "waiting for the DVD." I understand that most American audiences hang an entire movie on the story without any consideration for craftsmanship or creators' previous work. I can only imagine how complicated my own "ROYGB Five Star Rating Movie Review System" is for casual moviegoers. Many reviewers use five letter grades, but more often than not, only two of those letters get used. I have a friend that gives almost everything some variation of "B," plus or minus. As casual critics deepen their moviegoing experience, may they also widen their critical acclaim or derision.
Take my "25 Marvel Movies So Far" post for example, which I've gone back and re-ordered. I caught up with the Blade trilogy, which I hadn't seen at the time I wrote that post. Most titles just moved up or down within their grade, but the Blade sequels are now divided between different grades and some of the X-Men movies dropped a grade or two. What I realized about "bad" movies is this: there's a huge difference between "could've been made better" and "shouldn't have been made at all." Which do you think is worse? I've got new criteria for letter grades and how they translate to my numbers of stars (which you can read for yourself to the right).
"A" movies - the bar by which all others are judged; worth revisiting
(the whole Spider-Man series)
"B" movies - above average; appreciated even by casual fans; more good than bad
(the '80s Punisher)
"C" movies - average; entertaining in spite of itself; good and bad equally
(Daredevil)
"D" movies - below average; for diehard fans only; more bad than good
(the '80s Captain America)
"F" movies - entirely missing the point, not just of the characters, but of what is tasteful
(all the Fantastic Four movies)
Last weekend my brother gave Terminator: Salvation a single star rating. I sense unfairness whenever someone jumps hastily yet inexplicably to one out of five stars possible. Granted, summer blockbusters have a history but even at their worst there's some entertainment value. There's just too much money involved not to be. True, "too many hands in the pot spoil the broth," or however that saying goes, but boardroom committees tend to pull things toward an average center of mediocrity rather than down to utter failure. I recommend using Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (which is low budget and moronic yet entertaining for those same reasons), as a bar when judging "bad" movies. Ask yourself if people generally agree that a movie is "bad," or do you just have a personal problem with it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"Ask yourself if people generally agree that a movie is "bad," or do you just have a personal problem with it?"
- closing words of the Communist Movie Review Manifesto.
Just kidding, sort of. I'll admit, I don't have as fancy a system as you do for judging movies. I review from my gut, but it consistently looks something like this (with examples!):
5 Stars: A timeless classic (literally meaning it should be just as good 20 years from now --- if not better), bereft of any major flaws or shortcomings (sounds, acting, casting, visuals, artistic design,score, plot, etc.). e.g. Big Lebowski, Moulin Rouge, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Schindler's List, Silence of the Lambs, Annie Hall.
4 Stars: A truly riveting film. Often thought provoking, lasting with you well after the credits roll. No major flaws whatsoever, but lacks the essence of perfection needed to achieve 5-star wonderment. e.g. Wall-E, First Blood, High Fidelity, Dark Knight, Departed, Life Aquatic.
3 Stars: Worth my time! Given enough time, I would be willing to watch this film again. Despite being an excellent movie, there are visible flaws in whatever aspect of the design. Interview With the Vampire, Die Hard, Empire Records, The Notebook, The Terminator, Taxi Driver, Kingpin.
2 1/2 Stars: As good as it was bad. Not a waste of time or money, but would never be worth watching again. Lackluster, shallow, yet somehow entertaining. e.g. Top Gun, The Cell, Hot Fuzz, Burn After Reading, 8 Mile, Chronicles of Narnia: Lion Witch and Wardrobe.
2 Stars: Almost neutral! But nevertheless bad. This movie was not worth my time or yours. Certainly not worth seeing again. e.g. Indiana Jones: Kingdom of Crystal Skull, Garden State, Lucky Number Slevin, Star Trek: Episode II, Spider Man 3.
1 Star: Only a moment or two was entertaining. Everything else was unoriginal, unbelievable, irredeemable, un-...e.g. Punisher: War Zone, Pirates of the Carribean: At World's End, Tomb Raider: Lara Croft, Corpse Bride, Made of Honor.
0 Stars: This is a coveted rating. This means your film was horrible, and yet not entertaining in any way. I have never seen a 0 star movie. Ghost Rider is as close as I've seen a movie come.
Post a Comment