|
 |
|
Ratings Explained
  
1) Acting Performance: This is farely self-explanatory. How well did the cast do? Was Will Ferrell funny? Did Heath Ledger pull me in and make me believe his character? How seducing was Barbara Stanwyck really? Some actors have almost no talent or motivation while other performances are engrained in our memories for all time.
2) Appeal of Cast: This is my most controversial and admittedly vague category. It was created in order to give more weight to the overall acting category and to help me with certain elements associated with the actor/actress that are not necessarily tied to their performance. I mean, come on guys, do you really care about Kate Beckinsale's acting talent in Underworld as much as her plain smokin' hot looks? Even though this category is heavily influenced by physical attractiveness and sex appeal, it is also equally influenced by the overall legendary fame of the members of the cast. I'm more likely to rent a movie for the simple reason that Al Pacino or Katherine Hepburn is in it than I would be if it were someone I've never heard of, regardless of their performance in the movie. It's also more probable that I'll remember that performance long after viewing. Consider this category as a cumulative reward for an actor or actress's body (no pun intended) of work.
3) Quality of Written Dialogue: Contrary to the story, this has more to do with the back-and-forth banter of the characters. Does it bore me to tears, or is it chock full of great one-liners? Is the dialect believable for the setting and era? Does it provoke deep thought or just go for the cheap shock value of immature curse words?
4) Original or Memorable Story: Is the plot unique in any way? Is it believable and yet interesting at the same time? Or instead of being deep and thoughtful, it's bland and everyday? Any plot twists or shocking endings?
5) Soundtrack and Score: Simply put, how good is the background music of the film? Is the score good enough to stand on its own (like The Godfather or Last Of The Mohicans)? Are the chosen songs perfect for the era and mood (Dazed And Confused)? Most scores and soundtracks don't seem to stand out to the average viewer, but when they do, good or bad, it's really noticeable. Keep in mind that some films purposely lack background music to set a desired mood (example: No Country For Old Men). When this is the case, I will still dock points in this category, but if the method works to the director's preferred purpose, I'm more likely to add points to other categories such as Direction / Editing.
6) Sound Effects / "In Sync" Dialogue (Sound Editing): Another "sound" category, this category captures everything besides the music: voice dubbing, recording quality, special sound effects (like the explosions in action movies) or other random sounds that are thrown in.
7) Cinematography / Visual Effects / Choreography, etc.: The first of the "visual" categories, this captures a very large array of the things that make a movie appealing to the eye. Special visual effects and cinematography are the most influential things here, but also taken into account are stunts and choreography (for musicals or dance movies). Basically, did it look real and fascinating or did it appear cheap, fake, and just plain stupid?
8) Costumes / Makeup, etc.: Do the clothes and hairdos appear to be genuine from the time period? Are they colorful or sexy? In a horror or fantasy movie, does the special makeup make the gruesomeness hit home?
9) Sets / Props, etc.: This category has to do with where the story is set and how accurate or interesting the sets and props are. Action movies and period films tend to do well in this category, as do movies set in exotic places or a wide range of locations. For example, points were subtracted from the great film 12 Angry men since the setting is essentially one small room in the courthouse for the entirety of the movie (again, this was done on purpose for effect, so other categories more than made up for it). Also, as far as props go, cool cars, planes, ships, guns, etc. will usually help quite a bit.
10) Direction / Editing (Overall Mood): Finally, this category wraps up all the loose ends. Talented directors have a way of leaving a distinct imprint on a film that you can't always put your finger on. For example, a knowledgeable viewer can almost always tell if it's a Quentin Tarantino or a Wes Anderson movie. Alfred Hitchcock was the master of making an otherwise average story into a heart-racing thriller. Directors are ultimately responsible for the overall mood and flow of a movie and use subtle methods to develop the depth of a character or bring a buried emotion to the surface.
  
Overall Score: The previous 10 categories are added up to to come up with the overall score. This score can be thought of as a grade, much like the ones received in school. For example, a score of 90+ can be considered an "A", 80-90 a "B", 70-80 a "C", 60-70 a "D", and below 60 an "F". After rating several movies, I've also noticed they also tend to break down in the following way:
82-100: Legendary status. These movies made an impact on me that will likely last my lifetime and "rocked my world" as far as making me dwell on it for months afterward.
75-82: Very good!! Either a very solid film that has a lot to offer, or for some reason just struck me as a personal favorite despite having a few flaws here and there.
71-74: I liked it for the most part. Entertaining and fun, but not necessarily something that will make a lasting impression on an overall basis despite certain memorable scenes or characters.
67-70: Eh, wasn't necessarily bad, but tended to be a bit disappointing or bland.
60-66: More bad than good. I probably won't be recommending these to anyone for any reason, unless the awfulness is somehow overly entertaining.
59 and below: These get progressevily worse, from being on the verge of being terrible to easily being the worst movies ever seen. Only the die-hard movie fanatics and historians should attempt the worst of these.
Other Things to Keep in Mind: This grading system is my best effort to recreate my overall feeling for a movie, but as with anything else, there is always a small room for error. For example, I might rate one movie an 82 and another an 84, but looking back I actually preferred the former. Therefore, using about a +/- 2 point margin of error is probably more accurate. Also, certain movie types don't always fit neatly in this system, such as animated movies, silent films, and to an extent, foreign films. For animated movies, I grade the characters more than the actual actors, since the character is sort of a made-up actor anyway. For the cast appeal, I rate the real actors who do the voices, all the while keeping in mind that a voice-only is never as appealing as the complete package. In my experience, animated movies tend to be scored slightly lower than other types of movies. Silent movies also get penalized slightly for obvious reasons. Sound is a large part of a movie, and my system stacks all movies against all other movies, regardless of genre, era, language, etc. So a silent movie is always working with a handicap. Keep in mind that many silent movies, especially remastered versions, do have musical scores however. Foreign language films seem to do ok. In fact, some foreign language films might even get a slight advantage. Let me explain. In America and Great Britain, it's not uncommon for our English-speakers actors to make movies in settings and times in which English is not the native tongue, and yet English is used anyway, often times with a strange accent. Think of The Ten Commandments or The Adventures Of Marco Polo. So, when a movie is made in the correct language it comes across as much more authentic and interesting. In my opinion, subtitles should always be used in place of voiced-over dubbing. Dubbing completely ruins an otherwise fantastic film by taking all the feeling and emotion out of the character and can in fact make a serious mood rather funny, defeating the whole purpose. -JNJ
Return to Home from Ratings Explained
|
|
|
