What's the highest rating you would give true cinema?

[RubiconDecision]

It's difficult to rate a film higher than 8.5. In my opinion, imdb has just about been ruined with inflated scores plus shills, plus trolls severely criticizing and underscoring to possibly get even(say by a disgruntled production worker).

Then, films lose their relevance in time which lowers the score.

Then, who we are when young and scoring a film, can dramatically change the score a decade or two later.

Even with favorite films, I tend to lower the score to a realistic one.

Name a film you'd rate the highest score and why.

[Your Lame Sister]

Film rating, like any type of art critique, is an attempt to put logic into a place that is inherently illogical (Or, at least, inherently un-objective). It can be useful for some purposes, but it is ridiculous to try and treat it as anything but subjective and baseless. So, the increasing absurdity of film ratings shouldn't really bug you, IMO. It is only natural.

That said, I can't really think of a film I'd rate 10/10. Every film has flaws. Which is why I prefer to describe films with words, instead of numbers. Less room for confusion.

Also, it's always important to remember that, unlike what the internet would have us believe, art is not divided into "totally awesome" and "completely lame". It's best not to over-praise or over-slam anything.

[RubiconDecision]

I can think of hundreds of films I'd classify as cinema (out of thousands of lesser films and drek), but few would merit a 9.0. I can't think of a single 10.

[Påsan]

I can think of hundreds of films I'd classify as cinema (out of thousands of lesser films and drek), but few would merit a 9.0. I can't think of a single 10.

I don't think cinema is really a word or classification the way you use it.

Scores are arbitrary and depends on whatever the reviewer is looking for in a movie. Therefore they mean nothing apart from a general gauge of enjoyment for a movie, preferably in bulk to get an average. I read a review about Return of the Kings which was negative on rotten tomatoes and the reason given was that it was not enough like Harry Potter.

[RubiconDecision]

When I use the word "cinema", I'm referring to this:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cinema

Full Definition of cinema

• 1 a : motion picture —usually used attributively b : a motion-picture theater
• 2 a : movies; especially : the film industry b : the art or technique of making motion pictures

Think a juried art show versus random populist votes.
It's The Godfather versus Guardians of the Galaxy.

[Your Lame Sister]

So... Guardians of the Galaxy isn't cinema? If I understood you? Because I would disagree with that statement.

[Halie Satanus]

I tend to go with how a film made me feel from the start to the end. Something like 'Apocalypse Now' (often cited as the 'best' film ever made) was engrossing, exciting and mind blowing, it missed a bit in emotion (my not being American maybe it loses something), but I'd still rate is as a 9.

Though I agree with YLS, numbers are an arbitrary means of giving an overall quality marker. Those numbers are meaningless if the people viewing your score have no idea of the type of movie you like. Or why you gave that score.

Any way, the film I'd give closest to a 10 would be 'Little Big Man.' Why, because I think it was the first movie that portrayed Native Americans in any way close to the reality and went further into tribal life and individual members of a tribe than any film had before. It has action, humour and emotion in equal measure, a great story great acting and great cinematography.

Old Lodge Skins: Let's go back to the teepee and eat, my son. My new snake wife cooks dog very well.

Jack Crabb (Little Big Man): All right, Grandfather.

Old Lodge Skins: She also has a very soft skin. The only trouble with snake women is they copulate with horses, which makes them strange to me. She say's she doesn't. That's why I call her "Doesn't Like Horses". But, of course, she's lying.

[Inhuman One]

Numbers are silly to assign to movies since its a matter of opinion. I am fine with a rating of 1 up to 5 stars for tv guides and such though to give a rough idea what to expect. With five stars representing a must see movie and 1 star a complete flop.

It's also kind of hard to say that a movie is the best one ever since no one has ever seen every single movie in existance. So I don't think people should be tossing around that statement too loosely. I am fine with personal top ten lists, but as soon as lists like that are no longer a personal opinion it loses all value.

Personly I tend to judge movies in different ways too, I don't judge them all the same. I expect a comedy to be funny, I don't expect huge special effects from a low budget movie, I don't expect modern sensibilities and tech from an old silent movie, etc.
And I must say that I can enjoy a wide range of movies though I tend to favor older ones since they tend to be less predicteable. It's important to watch a movie on its own terms and don't expect a movie to be something it does not advertise itself to be.

And sometimes I really get blown away by these old movies. People have a certain image of classic cinema, but few people still bother to actually watch the movies. When I heard that Metropolis was the first movie to show a robot, I expected some goofy outdated robot walk and behaviour from the actress. But instead her performance seems more similar to modern depictions of androids or robots who try to mimic human emotions and are just a little off the mark.

I also feel that while people can still make movies about the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, etc. It is no substitute to watching a movie that was actually made in that period since no one needs to act like they lived in that era. It's kind of a time capsule.

[RubiconDecision]

Little Big Man was very forward thinking, but probably would be heavily criticized, perhaps unfairly by Native Americans. It deserves at least an eight due to Chief Dan George, who was in several Hollywood films including Clint Eastwood westerns.


1970
It was one of the first films to show Native Americans with completely developed characters versus practically one dimensional enemies. It also required extensive hours of makeup with appliances to transform Hoffman into a venerable elderly man.

[Påsan]

When I use the word "cinema", I'm referring to this:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cinema

Think a juried art show versus random populist votes.
It's The Godfather versus Guardians of the Galaxy.

Ok according to that definition they are both cinema.


anyway Guardians was the most enjoyable movie I saw on the silver screen in 2014. I try not to be a hipster so I can admit to such things.

I go to movies in cinema to be entertained, and If I achieve that goal the movie will earn good marks in my books. A movie can be well directed and feature excellent actors and still bore me to bits.

So basically maybe there should be two scores:

Guardians of the Galaxy:

Was it a good movie? 7.0

Was it fun watching? 9.5

[Gaidin]

More productive to ask for a top ten. And even then the list gets filled in by me arbitrarily every time and often even without numbers because the order is random on purpose.

[RubiconDecision]

Art is subjective, but the opinion of teenagers is seldom accurate about the worth of Art. They lack enough life experiences due to their youth to evaluate a film or even comprehend it. For some, they never mature, and really just want escape and catharsis.

Which is why lists like BFI are vital versus imdb.
http://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time

Look I like mindless drek like Big Trouble in Little China, and studios make a killing on horror torture porn that no one rates higher than 5.0, and thus can make art films like Tree of Life or The Secret Life of Words.

[Gaidin]

Art is subjective,
....
but the opinion of teenagers is seldom accurate about the worth of Art. Which is why lists like BFI are vital versus imdb.
http://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time

Good lord there's some boring stuff in there. We've really improved in the last 30 years.

[Påsan]

Which is why lists like BFI are vital versus imdb.
http://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time

Jesus there's like three movies from post 1980. Site obviously have a vintage fetish.


Old is not always better.

[John Doe]

I remember when my dad bought a vhs in the 80s, and going through all the classics as a teen was an eye opener. I doubt the younger generation realised how the movie on the BFI list were influencial/cutting edge at the time. Stuff get lost when movies aren't watched in chronological order. Most Hitchcock movie aren't even average by today's standarts.

[RubiconDecision]

Here's a thought that might help: you'd never want an employee evaluation nor give one without scales for many individual categories. Why? The score would be very arbitrary without considering all of those aspects toward a whole and versus other employees.

Likewise, a good film critic is looking at many aspects that the standard film viewer isn't aware of. This is a reason to take film studies, watch films with others, and read books on technique, history, genres, and so forth.

A trained musician can discuss the effectiveness and style a soundtrack evokes.

A martial artist watching an action film, or a historian, or a physician or a scientist...all of them have specialized knowledge that enables them to have greater insight than someone ignorant of these considerations.

Some are gifted writers, and are more apt to communicate what moved them, inspired them, can more correctly analyze the symbolism, or compare and contrast when a film is an homage to famous or obscure films, or relate how the film compares to literature.

There's an art to making a popular commercially successful film, but these are soon forgotten, and become a blur over many decades. It's remarkable to say something uniquely, succinctly, poignantly, and to deliver a fresh magical experience.

Here's a low budget supernatural horror film with some very familiar faces. It's better to see Whisper (2007) without knowing anything.

But some refuse to see a film without a trailer.

Watch it, not just as a passive viewer, but starting and stopping, making notes, and see if that results in a better interpretation. Some prefer to enjoy the film first, then rewatch it, to write up the score assessment.
...
Also watch Somersault (2004), a low budget Australian film featuring some famous actors.

[Gaidin]

Here's a thought that might help: you'd never want an employee evaluation nor give one without scales for many individual categories. Why? The score would be very arbitrary without considering all of those aspects toward a whole and versus other employees.

Likewise, a good film critic is looking at many aspects that the standard film viewer isn't aware of. This is a reason to take film studies, watch films with others, and read books on technique, history, genres, and so forth.

A trained musician can discuss the effectiveness and style a soundtrack evokes.

A martial artist watching an action film, or a historian, or a physician or a scientist...all of them have specialized knowledge that enables them to have greater insight than someone ignorant of these considerations.

Some are gifted writers, and are more apt to communicate what moved them, inspired them, can more correctly analyze the symbolism, or compare and contrast when a film is an homage to famous or obscure films, or relate how the film compares to literature.

You make some good points. That don't ring true with "Here's a top fifty that just rattles off fifty movies and says go have fun". Yawn. Those fifty movies are about 95% boring and they don't explain anything about why I should've watched them. I mean, I have watched about half of them and I literally found every one of them boring. I understand why they might have had a shot at that list. But when you just shoot out 50 movies and go "meh whatever" and three posts later try to explain that critics are considering all these BS categories, you're not really going to do much to make any argument except that you're lazy.

[athanaric]

The highest score I'd give is a 9.9, I think. There are a few movies I can think of that'd deserve that rating.

Here's a thought that might help: you'd never want an employee evaluation nor give one without scales for many individual categories. Why? The score would be very arbitrary without considering all of those aspects toward a whole and versus other employees.

Likewise, a good film critic is looking at many aspects that the standard film viewer isn't aware of. This is a reason to take film studies, watch films with others, and read books on technique, history, genres, and so forth.

A trained musician can discuss the effectiveness and style a soundtrack evokes.

A martial artist watching an action film, or a historian, or a physician or a scientist...all of them have specialized knowledge that enables them to have greater insight than someone ignorant of these considerations.

Some are gifted writers, and are more apt to communicate what moved them, inspired them, can more correctly analyze the symbolism, or compare and contrast when a film is an homage to famous or obscure films, or relate how the film compares to literature.

There's an art to making a popular commercially successful film, but these are soon forgotten, and become a blur over many decades. It's remarkable to say something uniquely, succinctly, poignantly, and to deliver a fresh magical experience.

All good points, and yet I think that even an untrained person can recognize a universally good movie when he/she sees it, and that is a goal movie makers should aspire to, and ultimately, the best movies are those that aren't only high quality regarding script, camera work, direction, attention to historical detail etc., but also entertaining.
I mean I've seen several movies that are objectively good or have very few flaws, and yet I don't want to see them ever again, because they are either boring, sappy, disgusting (Se7en), emotionally manipulative (hello Spielberg), self-indulgent (2001: An Odyssey...), depressing to watch (hello Tarkovski) etc., or some combination of the above. I'd rather watch Star Wars IV-VI or Guardians of the Galaxy seven times than any of those.

Also I think you're being a bit unfair towards GotG. While it's hugely overrated at the moment (especially the boring soundtrack) it's not a bad movie and certainly entertaining and watchable. I mean, it's not worse than the classical Star Wars movies. Or many other movies that are considered "classics".

[Your Lame Sister]

Here's a thought that might help: you'd never want an employee evaluation nor give one without scales for many individual categories. Why? The score would be very arbitrary without considering all of those aspects toward a whole and versus other employees.

Likewise, a good film critic is looking at many aspects that the standard film viewer isn't aware of. This is a reason to take film studies, watch films with others, and read books on technique, history, genres, and so forth.

A trained musician can discuss the effectiveness and style a soundtrack evokes.

A martial artist watching an action film, or a historian, or a physician or a scientist...all of them have specialized knowledge that enables them to have greater insight than someone ignorant of these considerations.

Some are gifted writers, and are more apt to communicate what moved them, inspired them, can more correctly analyze the symbolism, or compare and contrast when a film is an homage to famous or obscure films, or relate how the film compares to literature.

There's an art to making a popular commercially successful film, but these are soon forgotten, and become a blur over many decades. It's remarkable to say something uniquely, succinctly, poignantly, and to deliver a fresh magical experience.

Yes, people who have studied an art have more to say about it than people who didn't. That is why art critics should be students or practitionares of the arts they criticize. They can help "normal" people find aspects of an art they weren't aware of before. They can be useful in many ways.

What these studied critics can't do, however, is to provide some objective scale by which to judge and rate art.

Say, for example, that an art critic creates a list of best paintings ever, based on, say, their adherence to aristotelian laws of aesthetics. that list may be very interesting to read, and it may be very enlightening to less studied minds, but it still can't be seen as an objective, scientific fact. If a child came and said that the best painting on that list is boring and meaningless, that child would not be wrong (And the child's opinion would not make the critic's opinion wrong, either). Because art isn't objective. There's a logic to it, but that logic is different in every person, and it also changes over time within every person. When I was a kid, I really enjoyed the "Austin Powers" films, but today, I find them to be really bad. Does that mean that my 9-year-old self was wrong? No. It just means that I judged films by a somewhat different criteria back than. Likewise, a lot of people say that "Citizen Kane" is the best film ever made, but I find it to be "just" a great film. Are those people wrong? No. Am I wrong? No. We just judge that movie by somewhat different criteria.

[Inhuman One]

I do think that a movie should be out for quite a while, maybe 6 years or such before putting it on any greatest movies lists. Since then you will be able to see what its staying power is, how it may have influenced other movies, etc. You get to see the bigger picture. You also get to see more of what the movie meant for those involved their careers.

Movies like Titanic, Lord of the Rings, Gladiator and other big blockbusters of around that time are now far enough in the past to really judge them without being blinded by hype, trends, agressive marketing and all that. Personally, I must say that I would look differently at Titanic now, seeing how Leonadro Di Caprio proved himself as a great actor in later years while back then he was easily dismissed as just being a pretty boy who all teen girls had a crush on.