I get a lot of interesting reactions to episodes of The Matineecast, but few have amused me as much as this tweet that was sent my way at suppertime on Tuesday:
While I’ve written before about how one shouldn’t be shy about handing a film a top score, something in Brian’s tone made me feel like there was something to discuss here. I felt on one hand that it would allow Brian a chance to vent about why he doesn’t score, and also thought it might be a way to explain more fully why PACIFIC RIM landed as well as it did for me.
So below for your reading enjoyment is our conversation, begun in somewhat long-winded fashion by my friend from the beltway…
Brian J. Roan:There’s no secret to the fact that letter and star ratings and I have never gotten along. When I began DearFilm it was pretty obvious to me that I could never use a rating system. I knew that it would reduce the audience, I knew that it would make easy conversation regarding the ranking of films more difficult.
But I did it anyway. I abstained from the rating system. However, I couldn’t escape it in the world at large.
When I write reviews for The Film Stage, I’m forced into a position of trying to understand a system of judgement better suited to binary yes/no ratios than actual quality. I wrote my review for PACIFIC RIM, and I thought that the movie as a whole deserved a C+, but my editor said that my review didn’t support that high of a grade, so I had to drop the score to a C-.
The thing is, I can never tell how I am supposed to grade. So you begin to work backward. CITIZEN KANE is obviously an A+, 5-star film. SHARKNADO is, by that measure, an F-, 0-star film. But SHARKNADO is more fun to watch than something like OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL, so what does that mean? You can’t put SHARKNADO too close to CITIZEN KANE, so make it a C. So now OZ is a D? Sure, that sounds right.
But that only works so far. Sometimes you love a movie in spite of its flaws. But it still isn’t Kane!
Thus we come to your four-star gift to PACIFIC RIM. I’ve seen a few movies that I would say are perfect this year – UPSTREAM COLOR, TO THE WONDER, LIKE SOMEONE IN LOVE – and to hear PACIFIC RIM given the same score that I would give those films, were I forced to score them, was like a shock of cold water. PACIFIC RIM has movie-breaking flaws, clunky dialogue, and even if one cedes their soul to their inner twelve-year-old, can it really be said to exist on the same plane? Are we just going off general enjoyment? Is the grade now based entirely on x-factor?
Ryan McNeil:That’s a lot to stew on. Let me back you up a moment: Was there ever a time where you assigned stars, and was there a film that knocked you off that routine…that is to say one where you came away and for better or for worse you didn’t know what to assign it?
BJR:I never assigned grades. Ever. Until the places I worked for demanded it of me.
RM: OK, well I think your question of my rating has more to do with your struggle with ratings than it does the PACIFIC RIM rating itself.
In 2011, I gave both CAFE DE FLORE and THE MUPPETS four stars. Does that make them equal films? I don’t think so, but then again I don’t think we could even begin to compare them.
So riddle me this: are all films of a certain class created equal? If something is a four-star piece of puppet-starring levity, does it hold a candle to a four star action, or a four-star heady drama?
BJR:Well that’s the real issue. I’m not watching FACE/OFF for the same reasons I am watching CERTIFIED COPY, but they are all graded on the same scale. So if we could do stars, popcorn buckets, fist pumps, heart-skips, etc. depending on genre that’d be ideal I think.
And honestly, just related to PACIFIC RIM you seemed measured enough in your response that I was still surprised it got full marks.
You gotta do more in there. You gotta win a title.
RM:That might come down to how I approach stars, which is to say that more often than not I’m leading with my heart instead of my head.
Here’s another “for-instance”…
Back in 2010, I gave full marks to THE FIGHTER, even though many people thought differently. In many ways it’s a typical film, filled with all the typical tropes. Thinking about it from a distance, it feels like a film I’ve seen before. However, it landed a four from me then and would probably keep it if I’m being honest now. My reasoning was that for everything about it that was flawed and/or predictable, it still roused in me that desired effect. By the end of that final film I was in the precise headspace a film like that wanted me to be in…and that’s not easy.
There’s something to be said for being able to “get there”.
BJR: I can understand that, but I think that creates a messy sliding scale. Under that criteria I’d have to give THE VOW four stars. Though to your point I think I would give Warrior four stars, but I’m kind of the target audience for that.
RM: Well there we go – if it creates a messy sliding scale, then your entire methodology of seeding a film somewhere between CITIZEN KANE and SHARKNADO is flawed. Maybe you’ve been coming at it the wrong way all these years.
WARRIOR is a great example because it follows much of the same narrative path that THE FIGHTER does. Yet somehow, I loved one and thought the other was slight. One thing I must admit is that I watched one on-demand and the other in a theatre, and that might have made the difference. But still – two films that aren’t reinventing the wheel, and yet two films that we respectively thought were top dogs.
BJR:Well now we have a whole new fight on our hands if you didn’t cry at the end of WARRIOR.
But the messy sliding scale is something I’d rather avoid by only judging a film in the context of what it tried and failed to do, rather than making it live within a single ecosystem of judgement with every other film.
RM:I think I have another idea what has you up in arms over PACIFIC RIM’s 4 stars:
My site is littered with 3.5 star reviews. Many of them even go on to become personal favorites upon rewatch (or multiple rewatch where many of them are concerned). What holds them back from being a 4 on first go, is the absence of a particular emotional lift. The films that have sparked four’s out of me were the ones to bring great laughs, move me to tears, spark great tension, or just make me want to pump my fist.
A four is something that touched me on an emotional level – and we both know that emotions have a habit of distracting from shortcomings. Am I wrong to rate with my heart instead of with my head?
BJR: Not wrong, per say, but you could temper it? I mean if a movie had flaws, no matter how much you respond to it emotionally, you still have a bit of a duty to weight the grade with them.
That’s my thought anyway.
RM:Well no.
I think it says something about judging a film based on what it sets out to do. Let’s say an inspiring film comes along. It’s technically proficient, reasonably well executed, and memorable for all the right reasons. However, for one reason or another, I don’t walk away from the film feeling inspired. Does it still merit a 4-star rating based on technique?
My take is that a film needs to be judged not just on proficiency, but on how well it achieves its goal.
Back to PACIFIC RIM, it seemed clear pretty early on that it wasn’t looking to reinvent the wheel. This was a pulp movie, plain and simple, wanting to entertain in the same way its predecessors did. I came away from it greatly entertained, so much so that while I can see the flaws and recognize them in conversation, they don’t take away from the film’s ability to achieve its ultimate goal.
…but none of that matters right now.
BJR:For me – when I’m forced into a position of grading – it’s always that last bit of umph or x-factor that adds the last half star or whathaveyou.
Hence why my negative critique of PACIFIC RIM would have had A+ instead of A- if not for the editor.
It just seems crazy that spunk or panache alone could bring a film with so many obvious deficiencies up to a full four stars. I wouldn’t give SHOOT ‘EM UP or BATTLE: LA four stars, and they seemed to make me feel like Pacific Rim made you feel.
RM: And again we disagree.
There are times when I dig something in spite of its flaws. In a way I think it’s like falling for someone who you know comes with baggage. Or to use a historic analogy, it’s like the Mona Lisa. There are several actual mistakes within DiVinci’s painting, but it never stopped anyone from calling it a masterpiece. Even all these years later while all the flaws are known, people still wait in line for hours to get a glimpse.
A flawed product can earn top marks; it just depends on whether you’re caught wondering why the horizon lines up, or too busy wondering what she’s smiling about.
BJR: If I can ask, what drew you to implementing a rating system?
RM:I started scoring when I started writing six years ago, and it was mostly just meant as a sorting system for myself. I’ve given enthusiastic 2.5’s and reluctant 3’s. I actually tried an experiment a year and a half ago and moved the score out of the headline…wondering how many people would read the articles without the score to tip them off.
The funny thing is that as much as I’m defending a score, it’s actually the part of reviewing I believe is the least important.
BJR: I fear we will be at an impasse on this. A film like those I’ve mentioned are flawless in their execution, but they don’t aspire to enough to warrant a full grade. But that seems unfair. What would I change in SHOOT ‘EM UP or BATTLE: LA? Nothing. WARRIOR? Nothing.
But they don’t reach for wider and greater truths or experiences like TREE OF LIFE or SHAME. So they can’t be top scoring. Crossing the line doesn’t win you the race. A perfect icing job doesn’t make up for an errant shard of glass in the cake.
Movies are an ethereal mix of art of entertainment that depends upon personal experience and creative genius. Diluting them into a judgement system like stars seems to trivialize that, especially if common popcorn pabulum can stand alongside legitimately challenging works of art in the only system of judgement people seem to care to look at most times. But that’s just me, and we all know I have a tendency to over think the holy hell out of simple things. (Ask me how Frosty the Snowman is an allegory for Christ)
RM:Nicely said – any final thoughts?
BJR: PACIFIC RIM – 2.75 stars.
RM:Dick.
14 Replies to “Something to Talk About: Ryan and Brian Discuss Rating Films”
I’m with Ryan on PacRim, I actually gave it 4.5 stars as I enjoyed it immensely, which is quite a huge surprise to me! It’s not a ‘scientific’ rating, I rate films kind of based on gut instinct, so not exactly an super accurate measure of the craftsmanship if you will, of the film itself. But the thing is to me, I grade films on the level of entertainment too (how much it moved/engaged me as I watched it), not just the level of proficiency that goes into it (which in the case of Pac RIm I think it’s quite high), so even if there are flaws (which a lot of “GREAT” movies aren’t exempt from), so long as the good still far outweighs the bad, I’m gonna give it a high rating. That’s my two cents anyway. Great discussion guys!
You mention “gut instinct”, and I should thank you for that because it was something that we didn’t even get into.
Seldom is the occasion that I crank out a review with a score mere hours after I see the film. If I can help it, I sit on it for at least a day or so. I try to let my emotions dull a bit and allow my brain a moment or two at the mic.
So oddly enough, when I’m really excited or wowed by a film, that feeling remains even after I’ve calmed down and rationalized things!
This was a very interesting read. Thanks for the suggestion, Ryan.
I just think that ratings are very personal. I actually don’t give ratings in most of my reviews, but then again, the fact that I am actually reviewing a film means it created enough passion in me to jolt me out of my lethargy and write something about it.
Having said that, when I do rate films, I am also driven more by my heart than my head. Even if a film is flawed, I would give it a 10 (this grade business is still all Greek to me) if I really, really loved it. And Pacific Rim would be a great example for that. Or most of the Harry Potter movies (only Goblet of Fire got a 9.5). It’s like I cannot fathom another rating for them. Giving them anything less would be lying to myself.
And as I said on the Matineecast, even if I don’t like a movie, I usually find things to give it points on. And I’ll be the first one to admit it, I have crazy criteria for liking movies the way I do. I can’t give a film with hot men in it, as horrible as it may be, a zero. I give films in which a Sean Bean character doesn’t die half a point just for that. I realise this is why I have no future as a movie reviewer.
I LOVE ALL MOVIES!
That’s all I have to say.
I’m not sure if you’ve noticed/remembered, but there *have* been moments where I haven’t rated a film. Two come to mind.
Most recently, I refrained from rating MAN OF STEEL. I knew that for better or for worse, that there was no way I was going to be able to rate that film without bias thanks to my love for the character of Superman and everything in his mythology. If I disliked it, I’d be disliking it in comparison: If I loved it, I’d be loving it because I was predisposed to.
The other time I didn’t rate a film? Well, you, Nik, might find it interesting.
I knew about Man of Steel but ZOMG DH1! That’s actually my second favourite Harry Potter movie 😛 It did things with the material I never thought was possible.
My plan has long been to revisit it and watch it as a Part One – Part Two marathon. Of course, that isn’t going to help prove or disprove my theory all that much. There were things about it I dearly loved, but it still feels to me like the series biggest failing: the inability to adapt for the screen.
Because they were made as the books were still being written, they had no way of knowing what would be important, and what could be left in the pages of the book.
(Please don’t hate me)
Everybody has their own system and reason for giving ratings. Like Ryan, my ratings are more for personal sorting than anything else. I typically rate on a scale of 10 and I came up with a definition for each rating.
As such my 4-star rating (which means I liked a film) wouldn’t necessarily mean the same as someone else’s.
I always maintain that everyone has the right to their own opinion and, while discussion is always welcome, you shouldn’t really question other people’s ratings of films.
Ever since I quit Epinions.com more than three years ago and decided to write film reviews on my blog. I never really liked to divulge the idea of a rating though I do post a 1-5 scale for the LAMB but that’s it. Once I see a film and reflect it later, my own personal rating would change sometimes as it does get a bit confusing. I decided to let the review say what it needs to be said rather than just emphasize on a star rating. I cite Roger Ebert as an example on the fallacies of ratings. He gave The Man Who Fell to Earth 2 1/2 stars when it came out. When it got re-released last year, he gave it 3 stars though he still feels that ratings are sort of irrelevant.
You raise a very good point with citing Ebert. Thankfully Brian and I didn’t even get into how one’s opinion of a film can change over time. In the time I’ve been keeping this site, I can think of more than a few films I gave 3.5 that I would now round up – and likewise a few 4’s that I’ve cooled on and might now round down.
This is a discussion that will always rage between movie fans. What I think sets reviewers apart is the emotional or intellectual connections they make to a given movie. This is a big reason why I always enjoyed Ebert’s work, because you got a palpable sense of his enthusiasm (or disgust) with a particular film. This is also one of the things I especially love about The Matinee, Ryan; you’re not afraid to lead with your heart.
The real issue is that every aspect of film is subjective, even the technical ones to a degree. What is perfect? My perfect is different than anyone else’s perfect… and no one is wrong. And at the end of the day, a few minor technical “flaws,” should never become the talking points about a movie that’s a whole lot of fun. I haven’t seen Pacific Rim yet, but I’m willing to bet that it falls into that category.
I tried to rate all movies on the same scale for a while on my site, everything from Hollywood blockbuster to Z-Grade schlock, but I ultimately found that it actually does a disservice to the fun B-Movies. It became hard to give films I genuinely enjoyed ratings like 2 stars, simply based on some arbitrary level of quality filmmaking. So now I have both a regular rating and a B-Movie rating for those movies and this works much better to illustrate my feelings.
Truth: I feel like my tendency to “lead with my heart” makes me less credible. Thanks for the boost in that respect.
Interesting discussion. It’s been refreshing since I started my site not to do ratings and have to constantly think about what movies will get. I’ll put ratings on Letterboxd, but those are definitely flawed. I seem to put in a lot of 3.5 and 4 out of 5 star ratings, but all films are not equal.
I think complaining that a certain movie isn’t worthy of a rating is a fool’s errand. It’s all about how a film strikes you, and sometimes external factors like your expectations and even how your day went can affect how you rate a film. I find ratings interesting and am curious to see what people think, but there’s no way to create any massive rankings of top to bottom in terms of greatness. Regardless, it leads to fun discussions!
Re: Fool’s Errand
What caught Brian’s ear wasn’t so much the rating but that the rating seemed to contradict my admission of flaws. Thing is, I actually take that as a compliment.
I was talking with a local friend named Monika about something similar last night, and she too mentioned that she found it interesting that I could disagree, but not get all worked up with fanboydom of why something struck a chord with me.
I take a certain pride in that – being able to love something, but love it rationally.
I think the rational part is the key. The Internet is great for giving so many of us a chance to communicate, but it can be easy to get too invested in this type of argument if you’re not careful. Part of the fun is the debate, even if we don’t agree. I had a lot of fun with Pacific Rim, but I recognized that some parts were predictable and some dialogue was flat. Still, there’s a lot to like too.
Ryan McNeil
I’m with Ryan on PacRim, I actually gave it 4.5 stars as I enjoyed it immensely, which is quite a huge surprise to me! It’s not a ‘scientific’ rating, I rate films kind of based on gut instinct, so not exactly an super accurate measure of the craftsmanship if you will, of the film itself. But the thing is to me, I grade films on the level of entertainment too (how much it moved/engaged me as I watched it), not just the level of proficiency that goes into it (which in the case of Pac RIm I think it’s quite high), so even if there are flaws (which a lot of “GREAT” movies aren’t exempt from), so long as the good still far outweighs the bad, I’m gonna give it a high rating. That’s my two cents anyway. Great discussion guys!
You mention “gut instinct”, and I should thank you for that because it was something that we didn’t even get into.
Seldom is the occasion that I crank out a review with a score mere hours after I see the film. If I can help it, I sit on it for at least a day or so. I try to let my emotions dull a bit and allow my brain a moment or two at the mic.
So oddly enough, when I’m really excited or wowed by a film, that feeling remains even after I’ve calmed down and rationalized things!
This was a very interesting read. Thanks for the suggestion, Ryan.
I just think that ratings are very personal. I actually don’t give ratings in most of my reviews, but then again, the fact that I am actually reviewing a film means it created enough passion in me to jolt me out of my lethargy and write something about it.
Having said that, when I do rate films, I am also driven more by my heart than my head. Even if a film is flawed, I would give it a 10 (this grade business is still all Greek to me) if I really, really loved it. And Pacific Rim would be a great example for that. Or most of the Harry Potter movies (only Goblet of Fire got a 9.5). It’s like I cannot fathom another rating for them. Giving them anything less would be lying to myself.
And as I said on the Matineecast, even if I don’t like a movie, I usually find things to give it points on. And I’ll be the first one to admit it, I have crazy criteria for liking movies the way I do. I can’t give a film with hot men in it, as horrible as it may be, a zero. I give films in which a Sean Bean character doesn’t die half a point just for that. I realise this is why I have no future as a movie reviewer.
I LOVE ALL MOVIES!
That’s all I have to say.
I’m not sure if you’ve noticed/remembered, but there *have* been moments where I haven’t rated a film. Two come to mind.
Most recently, I refrained from rating MAN OF STEEL. I knew that for better or for worse, that there was no way I was going to be able to rate that film without bias thanks to my love for the character of Superman and everything in his mythology. If I disliked it, I’d be disliking it in comparison: If I loved it, I’d be loving it because I was predisposed to.
The other time I didn’t rate a film? Well, you, Nik, might find it interesting.
I knew about Man of Steel but ZOMG DH1! That’s actually my second favourite Harry Potter movie 😛 It did things with the material I never thought was possible.
My plan has long been to revisit it and watch it as a Part One – Part Two marathon. Of course, that isn’t going to help prove or disprove my theory all that much. There were things about it I dearly loved, but it still feels to me like the series biggest failing: the inability to adapt for the screen.
Because they were made as the books were still being written, they had no way of knowing what would be important, and what could be left in the pages of the book.
(Please don’t hate me)
Everybody has their own system and reason for giving ratings. Like Ryan, my ratings are more for personal sorting than anything else. I typically rate on a scale of 10 and I came up with a definition for each rating.
As such my 4-star rating (which means I liked a film) wouldn’t necessarily mean the same as someone else’s.
I always maintain that everyone has the right to their own opinion and, while discussion is always welcome, you shouldn’t really question other people’s ratings of films.
Ever since I quit Epinions.com more than three years ago and decided to write film reviews on my blog. I never really liked to divulge the idea of a rating though I do post a 1-5 scale for the LAMB but that’s it. Once I see a film and reflect it later, my own personal rating would change sometimes as it does get a bit confusing. I decided to let the review say what it needs to be said rather than just emphasize on a star rating. I cite Roger Ebert as an example on the fallacies of ratings. He gave The Man Who Fell to Earth 2 1/2 stars when it came out. When it got re-released last year, he gave it 3 stars though he still feels that ratings are sort of irrelevant.
You raise a very good point with citing Ebert. Thankfully Brian and I didn’t even get into how one’s opinion of a film can change over time. In the time I’ve been keeping this site, I can think of more than a few films I gave 3.5 that I would now round up – and likewise a few 4’s that I’ve cooled on and might now round down.
This is a discussion that will always rage between movie fans. What I think sets reviewers apart is the emotional or intellectual connections they make to a given movie. This is a big reason why I always enjoyed Ebert’s work, because you got a palpable sense of his enthusiasm (or disgust) with a particular film. This is also one of the things I especially love about The Matinee, Ryan; you’re not afraid to lead with your heart.
The real issue is that every aspect of film is subjective, even the technical ones to a degree. What is perfect? My perfect is different than anyone else’s perfect… and no one is wrong. And at the end of the day, a few minor technical “flaws,” should never become the talking points about a movie that’s a whole lot of fun. I haven’t seen Pacific Rim yet, but I’m willing to bet that it falls into that category.
I tried to rate all movies on the same scale for a while on my site, everything from Hollywood blockbuster to Z-Grade schlock, but I ultimately found that it actually does a disservice to the fun B-Movies. It became hard to give films I genuinely enjoyed ratings like 2 stars, simply based on some arbitrary level of quality filmmaking. So now I have both a regular rating and a B-Movie rating for those movies and this works much better to illustrate my feelings.
Truth: I feel like my tendency to “lead with my heart” makes me less credible. Thanks for the boost in that respect.
Interesting discussion. It’s been refreshing since I started my site not to do ratings and have to constantly think about what movies will get. I’ll put ratings on Letterboxd, but those are definitely flawed. I seem to put in a lot of 3.5 and 4 out of 5 star ratings, but all films are not equal.
I think complaining that a certain movie isn’t worthy of a rating is a fool’s errand. It’s all about how a film strikes you, and sometimes external factors like your expectations and even how your day went can affect how you rate a film. I find ratings interesting and am curious to see what people think, but there’s no way to create any massive rankings of top to bottom in terms of greatness. Regardless, it leads to fun discussions!
Re: Fool’s Errand
What caught Brian’s ear wasn’t so much the rating but that the rating seemed to contradict my admission of flaws. Thing is, I actually take that as a compliment.
I was talking with a local friend named Monika about something similar last night, and she too mentioned that she found it interesting that I could disagree, but not get all worked up with fanboydom of why something struck a chord with me.
I take a certain pride in that – being able to love something, but love it rationally.
I think the rational part is the key. The Internet is great for giving so many of us a chance to communicate, but it can be easy to get too invested in this type of argument if you’re not careful. Part of the fun is the debate, even if we don’t agree. I had a lot of fun with Pacific Rim, but I recognized that some parts were predictable and some dialogue was flat. Still, there’s a lot to like too.