Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Time to resume the ultimate DiCaprio marathon, and round it off with Catch Me If You Can.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    This thread moves fast. :moon:

    (Original post by Phalanges)
    I had stopped but I recently went on a bit of a binge which took me up to episode 7. I would have watched the last one but the weekend came and F1 beckoned instead.

    It's very watchable. I do enjoy it, but I don't think it's a great work. There are moments when it all comes together and that's fantastic (and they usually involve Aidan Gillen, who is absolutely sensational in this) but for every moment like that there's a moment where you think "ugh, why am I watching this?". And also something that really annoys me is how jarringly clunky some of the dialogue can be, when they speak as if they're from some historical stereotype but only do it intermittently and nobody really gets how to put inflections on that kind of speech.

    So yeah, I would class it as similar to Rome and Spartacus were it not for it's really good cast and story which occasionally shows moments of genius, which elevates it slightly above those. Speaking of crap pseudo-history shows though, I'm looking forward to The Borgias. :ahee:
    Yeah, it only gets better from that episode. I think it's great tbh. There's nothing quite like it which furthers my appreciation of it as a whole. I don't really notice the dialogue or anything, I'm too immersed too notice really. And yeah, Aiden Gillen is awesome as Littlefinger. He really elevates the scenes he's in especially that little dialogue sparring in the Throne Room with Varys (bald guy).

    Rome is apparently really good and had a really high budget but a short run. Had it on my watchlist. Didn't you like it that much?

    Is that like the Godfather in Rome? Jeremy Irons and Derek Jacobi. :holmes:

    (Original post by MizzCupcakes)
    I have a newfound fascination for the german language

    I'd be happy if you could recommend me some german and/or polish films.
    Der Untergang

    (Original post by Akaten)
    Hi all. I'm new so i'll introduce moiself

    My Fav Film is Shawshank Redemption
    I hope to become a writer/ cinematographer/ director/ actor/ producer either or is fine but my dream would be all.
    At the moment I'm excited for the Hobbit film to be made, as it was one of my favourite books as a child.
    The last film I saw was X-men: First class last Sat. In general I'd give it a 7.3/10.
    Welcome to the thread.

    Are you pursuing any academic routes to being a writer/cinematographer/director/actor/producer. Being an actor is quite different to the rest. In fact, they're all pretty different to each other.

    (Original post by lukejoshjedi)
    Saw the rest of The Descent part 2 yesterday... it sucked, not too surprised but hey
    That's a shame, but unsurprising. The first Descent was one of the most effective horrors I've ever seen. Truly chilling.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    Bingo. Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones - the greatest film about gladiators ever made.
    Why is that occupying space on your hard drive? Forgot to flush the virtual toilet? :pierre:

    I mean, the original trilogy was flawless. Even Phantom Menace had podracing and Revenge of the Sith had a descent into the dark side with fangasmic lightsaber duelling in the backdrop of a flawless John Williams soundtrack.

    Attack of the Clones was a plank of wood with a ponytail travelling from nowhere to nowhere in an attempt to get nothing done.

    (Original post by Madjackismad)
    Parts of The Dark Knight Rises have been secretly filmed in Glasgow with more shots coming. WHAT THE FRIGGING HELL!? :lolwut:

    Oh, and there's this: http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/117/1176169p1.html
    Batman has come to clean up the streets of Glasgow. By day, he is the CEO of the local fitness club but at night he becomes a hobo and purges the city of neds armed with knives using his bare hands.

    He doesn't even need a bulletproof vest. :pierre:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    Why is that occupying space on your hard drive? Forgot to flush the virtual toilet? :pierre:

    I mean, the original trilogy was flawless. Even Phantom Menace had podracing and Revenge of the Sith had a descent into the dark side with fangasmic lightsaber duelling in the backdrop of a flawless John Williams soundtrack.

    Attack of the Clones was a plank of wood with a ponytail travelling from nowhere to nowhere in attempting to get nothing done.
    Don't forget the hour of Anakin gently caressing Padme's head in a field.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Akaten)
    Well they could have made it less jumpy. They editing of the film wasn't up to scratch and there were parts in the movie which would make sense to a non-xmen fan who was familiar with the characters and their realtionships etc. Throughout the film my sister's friend kept on asking me question "How did they get there?", "When did that happen?" stuff like that. The whole film was really just a big hype. yeah suspense is built and your entertained by the special fx but the end left me wanting more I wasn't satisfied They needed to cut all the loose ties (trying not to give anything away) Also Magneto's actor (forgot his name) kept mixing his accent really ruined the suspension of disbelief

    And that rating system probably is more accurate and concise but, then again the bigger the number the better it looks right?
    I disagree with you on X-Men but then I would

    About the rating system read this:

    (Original post by Phalanges)
    When it comes to scoring though, I differ quite drastically. For starters, I am firmly against the idea of affixing some kind of numerical rating to a review; I feel it cheapens the review as a whole. If you cannot understand my feelings about it from the written content, then I have failed as a reviewer. Similarly if you just want to see what I think of a game but don't want to bother actually reading my thoughts, then I don't see why I should pander to you. Furthermore, ratings are wholly derivative. To use an example imagine two games, one competently mediocre in every way whereas one has a wonderfully innovative idea but horrible execution. Now this innovation might be so good that I might recommend playing it just for that, but when ascribing it a score I would have to mark it lower than something functional but bland. A quick glance at these scores might tell you that I preferred the latter to the former, but that wouldn't be the case, and without reading the reviews and allowing them to stand on their own merits you wouldn't know that.

    If you must insist on including some kind of rating system, then I would further question the logic behind a 100-point scale. In your own post, you talk about a need for simplicity; how many people reading reviews (or writing them, for that matter) do you think can spot the difference between an 82 and an 84? To have so many different levels is ludicrous and just results in arbitrary ratings. You don't need anything more than a five-point rating, which assesses great, good, average, bad and terrible. Anything else just over-complicates matters.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambo211)
    About the rating system read this:
    It's bad enough having Phalanges plugging his own posts and content in here without you doing it too.

    (Original post by Phalanges)
    Rating score post
    Fundamentally, I agree with you, in that a score shouldn't be necessary. That said, there's a rather wide gap between what should or should not be necessary and what is or is not necessary.

    Film reviews are, in general, written by 'film fanatics' (for want of a better phrase) for fellow film enthusiasts. However, the purpose of these reviews stretches beyond this to the realm of being used by people who enjoy watching films, but aren't real enthusiasts. They don't care if something won an Oscar, if it's a subtly brilliant character portrayal etc, they just want a few hours of enjoyment and escapism. These people don't want to spend several minutes reading the intricacies of your detailed review, they want a quick summary as they browse film titles. They want a sentence and a rating.

    Now, I agree, we shouldn't really have to be pandering to what these people want. However, there's two reasons why film reviewers - at least those reviewing for earnings - have to: first, the magazine or website they write for is always looking to expand commercially. The greatest appeal to the greatest number will always help this. Second, and more relevant to questions of artistic integrity that your post throws up, there is the consideration that the average film review is written by someone with an in-depth knowledge of films. This is reflected in their review; with references to other works, directors, writers and the like. Now, someone with a passing interest in films - as mentioned earlier - isn't interested in wading through all this. They just want to know whether the film is considered "good". Unfortunately for us film enthusiasts, this represents the majority of the film-viewing public.

    The scoring system works for this purpose when its simplistic; five points being all that's required, really. The problem the scoring system encounters, which was brought up by someone else, is when people with a passion for films read a review. They don't want something as arbitrary as "good" or "terrible", they want an 8.2/10 or an 82/100. However, these people should be content with reading the reviews, rather than jumping to the score at the end of the piece. That said, the problem is the "internet generation". We're always looking for information quickly. If you're looking for a film to watch in the next five minutes, you aren't likely to wade through reviews for each of the films you've 'shortlisted' for yourself.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by zjs)
    Fundamentally, I agree with you, in that a score shouldn't be necessary. That said, there's a rather wide gap between what should or should not be necessary and what is or is not necessary.

    Film reviews are, in general, written by 'film fanatics' (for want of a better phrase) for fellow film enthusiasts. However, the purpose of these reviews stretches beyond this to the realm of being used by people who enjoy watching films, but aren't real enthusiasts. They don't care if something won an Oscar, if it's a subtly brilliant character portrayal etc, they just want a few hours of enjoyment and escapism. These people don't want to spend several minutes reading the intricacies of your detailed review, they want a quick summary as they browse film titles. They want a sentence and a rating.

    Now, I agree, we shouldn't really have to be pandering to what these people want. However, there's two reasons why film reviewers - at least those reviewing for earnings - have to: first, the magazine or website they write for is always looking to expand commercially. The greatest appeal to the greatest number will always help this. Second, and more relevant to questions of artistic integrity that your post throws up, there is the consideration that the average film review is written by someone with an in-depth knowledge of films. This is reflected in their review; with references to other works, directors, writers and the like. Now, someone with a passing interest in films - as mentioned earlier - isn't interested in wading through all this. They just want to know whether the film is considered "good". Unfortunately for us film enthusiasts, this represents the majority of the film-viewing public.

    The scoring system works for this purpose when its simplistic; five points being all that's required, really. The problem the scoring system encounters, which was brought up by someone else, is when people with a passion for films read a review. They don't want something as arbitrary as "good" or "terrible", they want an 8.2/10 or an 82/100. However, these people should be content with reading the reviews, rather than jumping to the score at the end of the piece. That said, the problem is the "internet generation". We're always looking for information quickly. If you're looking for a film to watch in the next five minutes, you aren't likely to wade through reviews for each of the films you've 'shortlisted' for yourself.
    It's pretty different when it comes to video games, which was the context of that post although I get the feeling Phalanges was speaking for ratings as a whole rather than medium specific ratings in reviews.

    We live in a culture where video games are automatically compared to each other by even the passing gamer. Games are a heavier investment than films both in cost and time therefore gamers are interested in getting the best value for money. A typical film is £8 for 2 hours. A game can be £50 for 200 hours. Reviews in this regard are enormously beneficial to nearly everyone, ratings on the other hand are damaging. Nobody wants to invest in a crap game or spend that much money (provided they do, in fact, care for reviews) on a game based on its rating alone or even a few lines of written critique.

    The average game review has to account for past innovations, for current technology, for past games, for like games and for the effectiveness of the gameplay and features. Therefore these factors, unlike to passing film viewers, are of great interest. Your average film viewer may not care that Source Code isn't as good a film as a whole than Moon, or that it doesn't quite stand out in the genre like The Matrix, Blade Runner and Inception. Or even that it's core concept doesn't quite make sense in the end. But as a gamer, I would like to know if Deus Ex: Human Revolution incoporates mechanics of the first game, of games like Mass Effect, and how exactly the cover mechanics work. I would also like to know about replayability and the length of the story and gameplay hours. I would like to know what value and experience was derived from the game.

    However, game reviewing is flawed at the moment. I know Phalanges doesn't have a particular liking for reviewing specific aspects of a video game experience. But what I'm arguing is that it really differs based on the medium to the point where the mass audience do actually care for the review. Unfortunately, gaming reviews aren't up to the integrity of a film review.

    I do agree with your point about film reviews and the mass audience, but those who wish to get a rating and a sentence or two will usually get it in a magazine or newspaper. I would expect a higher level of indulgence in written reviews and artistic integrity on TSR though. We browse the Internet and live in an age where we receive information extremely fast, but we also have the freedom to choose. There is a large audience who do want well written film reviews just like there are a large number of people who would dissect a trailer or who would spend countless hours speculating about a concept or point in the film. Whilst there are a lot of publications that do pander to the masses, we should encourage the opposite. Commercial expansion matters most to the bigger websites where the audience is essentially the mass and majority public. That doesn't preclude success if you don't quite conform to the view of a simple rating and a few sentences summary.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I should have pointed out that the context of the ratings was gaming

    But i got the impression he was speaking of ratings as a whole and not just gaming.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    It's pretty different when it comes to video games, which was the context of that post although I get the feeling Phalanges was speaking for ratings as a whole rather than medium specific ratings in reviews.
    He did mention ratings as a whole, so I replied in the film context. Naughty, I know. :naughty:

    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    We live in a culture where video games are automatically compared to each other by even the passing gamer. Games are a heavier investment than films both in cost and time therefore gamers are interested in getting the best value for money. A typical film is £8 for 2 hours. A game can be £50 for 200 hours. Reviews in this regard are enormously beneficial to nearly everyone, ratings on the other hand are damaging. Nobody wants to invest in a crap game or spend that much money (provided they do, in fact, care for reviews) on a game based on its rating alone or even a few lines of written critique.
    It's the same with films though, really. Both are compared instantaneously to anything similar. The difference, of course, is that the "passing" gamer tends to be a lot more involved than the "passing" film-watcher, given the amount of hours invested (as you mention).

    I agree that a game represents a much greater investment than a film. However, ratings can still be decisive. If you pick up, for the sake of argument, Playstation magazine, skim through and see a game receive 8.4/10 (I'm not sure how their rating system works, so we'll pretend this figure is the case for now), then go out and buy it, I think it's unlikely that you'd be disappointed. The point is that good ratings from reputable, reliable, review magazines or sites (i.e. Playstation magazine for PS3 owners) tend to indicate a good game. The sort of "passing" gamer who buys a game on the merit of a score alone tends to enjoy a game that was highly rated. Awful, boring, games don't tend to score highly. The difference is, however, that the more discerning gamer is pickier about what they want.

    Also, it has to be taken into account that someone who buys a game on the basis of a review score also tends to pick up the box in the shop and read the blurb, talk to friends who own the game, google screenshots etc. The score is a helpful guide, even if it's weighted far more in influencing a casual gamer's opinion.

    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    The average game review has to account for past innovations, for current technology, for past games, for like games and for the effectiveness of the gameplay and features. Therefore these factors, unlike to passing film viewers, are of great interest. Your average film viewer may not care that Source Code isn't as good a film as a whole than Moon, or that it doesn't quite stand out in the genre like The Matrix, Blade Runner and Inception. Or even that it's core concept doesn't quite make sense in the end. But as a gamer, I would like to know if Deus Ex: Human Revolution incoporates mechanics of the first game, of games like Mass Effect, and how exactly the cover mechanics work. I would also like to know about replayability and the length of the story and gameplay hours. I would like to know what value and experience was derived from the game.
    The average film review takes account of past films, like films too. Technology factors in when it's a review of a DVD/Blu-ray. The real difference is the effectiveness of gameplay and features. But this is the meat'n'potatoes of the review in the same way that the review of a cast's acting ability, the plotline and the overall entertainment value of a film is for film reviewers.

    This is true, but you're taking it from your point of view: that of an informed gamer. There isn't really evidence to suggest that a "passing" gamer cares about any of these aspects. Take, as an example, a "passing" gamer who plays the "big" release games and is a fan of GTA. GTA 4 has just been released. He'll, most likely, buy the game anyway. His first port-of-call is, most likely, trawling the 'net for screenshots and talking to his mates / reading comments from owners of the game. He'll use a game review to check the "rating" - i.e. to see if the game is considered good. This is more of a preliminary check to ensure the series hasn't suddenly taken a nose-dive. The only real interest he'll take in past games is how it compares to previous GTA games, or whether he should opt for the other crime titles that are out at the same time - i.e. Just Cause 2, Saints Row 2.


    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    However, game reviewing is flawed at the moment. I know Phalanges doesn't have a particular liking for reviewing specific aspects of a video game experience. But what I'm arguing is that it really differs based on the medium to the point where the mass audience do actually care for the review. Unfortunately, gaming reviews aren't up to the integrity of a film review.
    Games are all about enjoyment value though, really. Although films are too, there's also more of a "deeper level" to the whole thing: films with clever political points, overreaching messages and the like are far more commonplace than games with a similar tone. As such, there's more to engage with when reviewing films.

    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    I do agree with your point about film reviews and the mass audience, but those who wish to get a rating and a sentence or two will usually get it in a magazine or newspaper. I would expect a higher level of indulgence in written reviews and artistic integrity on TSR though. We browse the Internet and live in an age where we receive information extremely fast, but we also have the freedom to choose. There is a large audience who do want well written film reviews just like there are a large number of people who would dissect a trailer or who would spend countless hours speculating about a concept or point in the film. Whilst there are a lot of publications that do pander to the masses, we should encourage the opposite. Commercial expansion matters most to the bigger websites where the audience is essentially the mass and majority public. That doesn't preclude success if you don't quite conform to the view of a simple rating and a few sentences summary.
    But we do, those of us who're very into our films and games, have a medium for in-depth reviews without need of a rating system: the internet. I cannot think of a review site that doesn't use ratings, other than RottenTomatoes, which uses a rating system, but one that's more complex and valuable. Commercial entities will always have to pander to the masses and expand, it's in their very nature. A magazine aimed at the "hardcore" does have a chance at commercial success, but it's a risk that many aren't willing to take, as it's aimed at a niche market that may not be interested in a printed publication that they have to spend money on when they've got the internet, for free.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone seen Meek's Cutoff?
    Offline

    13
    With regards to ratings, I'd also point out that some people (like me) don't read full reviews before they watch the movie to avoid spoilers. For example, if I'm planning to watch a movie, I might take a look at the 'Reception' section of it's wikipedia page and it's Metacritic score before I do. I only read reviews afterwards.

    I'm not sure if that's very relevant, but it does highlight another reason ratings might be good to have.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by zjs)
    It's the same with films though, really. Both are compared instantaneously to anything similar. The difference, of course, is that the "passing" gamer tends to be a lot more involved than the "passing" film-watcher, given the amount of hours invested (as you mention).

    I agree that a game represents a much greater investment than a film. However, ratings can still be decisive. If you pick up, for the sake of argument, Playstation magazine, skim through and see a game receive 8.4/10 (I'm not sure how their rating system works, so we'll pretend this figure is the case for now), then go out and buy it, I think it's unlikely that you'd be disappointed. The point is that good ratings from reputable, reliable, review magazines or sites (i.e. Playstation magazine for PS3 owners) tend to indicate a good game. The sort of "passing" gamer who buys a game on the merit of a score alone tends to enjoy a game that was highly rated. Awful, boring, games don't tend to score highly. The difference is, however, that the more discerning gamer is pickier about what they want.

    Also, it has to be taken into account that someone who buys a game on the basis of a review score also tends to pick up the box in the shop and read the blurb, talk to friends who own the game, google screenshots etc. The score is a helpful guide, even if it's weighted far more in influencing a casual gamer's opinion.
    You've brought up a good point about the reality of a high rating for a video game. It's true, I've never bought or played a game which was good which scored low or vice versa. But then I might be a little more involved and a little wiser than the casual gamer in terms of what games to purchase. The general consensus towards games from publications is more or less in concurrence. This game is either really good, mixed or it's terrible. But with films it's going to be so utterly scattered with one publication praising a film as an innovative work of art whilst another publication discounts it as utter trash. Who do you trust with a rating which may as well influence whether you end up watching it? You don't quite get that with gaming.

    I wouldn't put much value on magazines. Most of the good ones have been discontinued. These 'official' magazines like the Playstation or Official Xbox Magazine tend to be heavily biased. Are they really going to give a poor rating to AAA first party game? We don't have official magazines for reviews for films, for example. The notion that we do for game companies seems a little ridiculous. Though there's the benefit of in-depth insight in the system's games, more so than an ordinary publication would receive.

    The average film review takes account of past films, like films too. Technology factors in when it's a review of a DVD/Blu-ray. The real difference is the effectiveness of gameplay and features. But this is the meat'n'potatoes of the review in the same way that the review of a cast's acting ability, the plotline and the overall entertainment value of a film is for film reviewers.
    Ah yes, but does the average film viewer care for a review about an actor's acting ability? It's very subjective, I guess you could argue a gaming experience is subjective too. But not as subjective as a film experience. There are somwhat objective factors in a games review such as whether the controls are actually broken, whether the cover mechanics are a pain in the ass, whether loading is too long, how many glitches are present within the game and how many hours the sidequests roughly are. Not decision-changing factors, but important aspects of a games review.

    This is true, but you're taking it from your point of view: that of an informed gamer. There isn't really evidence to suggest that a "passing" gamer cares about any of these aspects. Take, as an example, a "passing" gamer who plays the "big" release games and is a fan of GTA. GTA 4 has just been released. He'll, most likely, buy the game anyway. His first port-of-call is, most likely, trawling the 'net for screenshots and talking to his mates / reading comments from owners of the game. He'll use a game review to check the "rating" - i.e. to see if the game is considered good. This is more of a preliminary check to ensure the series hasn't suddenly taken a nose-dive. The only real interest he'll take in past games is how it compares to previous GTA games, or whether he should opt for the other crime titles that are out at the same time - i.e. Just Cause 2, Saints Row 2.
    I think the passing gamer does to be honest. The very language you see casual gamers or even those with a vague interest talking about games will be beyond than of what you'd expect. People do talk about how good the graphics were, how difficult the game was, the storyline and the linear/sandbox gameplay.

    The GTA thing is more branding than reviews. Would a single rating really stop a fan of the GTA series? He would look to see if the features he cherished and the experience he loved about the previous games in the series was present in this game. That's why fans get excited when Rockstar announce that they have jetpacks or parachutes or planes. And if he was to look at other games, he wouldn't look at ratings.

    The only way to compare GTA to Saints Row 2, for example, is to read about the gameplay features and mechanics. What difference is there in gameplay? What does Saints Row have that GTA doesn't? Which one has opted for realism? Which one has better multiplayer? Which has more things to do in the sandbox environment?

    It might just be me as what I'd class as a fairly hardcore gamer, but I find it hard to imagine any GTA fan opting for a similar game in the genre without really reading about the difference in the core aspects of each respective game. To do that really requires reading reviews where that comparison will be made.

    But we do, those of us who're very into our films and games, have a medium for in-depth reviews without need of a rating system: the internet. I cannot think of a review site that doesn't use ratings, other than RottenTomatoes, which uses a rating system, but one that's more complex and valuable. Commercial entities will always have to pander to the masses and expand, it's in their very nature. A magazine aimed at the "hardcore" does have a chance at commercial success, but it's a risk that many aren't willing to take, as it's aimed at a niche market that may not be interested in a printed publication that they have to spend money on when they've got the internet, for free.
    I can think of several that don't use number systems or rating systems. By bigger sites I really meant the usual websites. Independent blogs which have a treasure trove of valuable opinion and interesting perspectives on various mediums don't tend to have ratings. Looking at IMDB, the overall rating is somewhat helpful but when reading user reviews, I couldn't give a toss what James Smith gave a film. What I'm instantly drawn to is the review. It's the same with something like Amazon.

    And yeah, ultimately, there's still a rating system present. IGN, Gamespot, 1Up, GiantBomb, Empire and the collected publications on Metacritic and RottenTomatoes only serve to highlight the popularity of ratings. I, myself, regularly use Metacritic but really only as a portal to the actual reviews. I guess the irritating thing for me is when someone will cite a publication's rating as an indication of how good a game is. Or when people ridiculously compare one rating to another rating. Different games, different experiences. Attaching a number and then using that as the value for the game is silly. Look at Zero Punctuation for example. I don't think it has ratings (risking looking like a fool here) yet it's well known and has become famous with it's approach to reviewing. Though I guess it's become famous outside of casual gamer circles.

    Like I said in the games review thread, a much better system for video games would be 'Recommend a buy, rent it or do not recommend'. You seriously do not need more than that. And it effectively communicates the ultimate opinion of the reviewer. You don't need to differentiate between a 9.0 or a 8.9 because it comes down to either getting the game or not getting the game. A rating may tell you the difference between a great game or a good game but then that could be effectively communicated within words.

    I'm not saying abandon ratings completely. A star system is a good system. But websites should really put writing before ratings. They should really let go of these out of 100 rating systems (agreeing with Phalanges' post here). Such a breakdown should be left to the actual review if someone wants it. If someone is quickly scanning for films, the star system makes more sense than the number system. There is a real danger of losing intelligent writing to dumbed down reviews and fixations with ratings.

    I think the out of a 100 systems, or the letter grading or even the '8.9' decimal systems are pandering to the minority (and not the majority) who enjoy a breakdown than the masses who just want a simple answer eg. 5 stars, 4 stars, 3 stars.

    I don't have much else to say on the subject, and I don't think I'm wholly disagreeing either.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abiraleft)
    With regards to ratings, I'd also point out that some people (like me) don't read full reviews before they watch the movie to avoid spoilers. For example, if I'm planning to watch a movie, I might take a look at the 'Reception' section of it's wikipedia page and it's Metacritic score before I do. I only read reviews afterwards.

    I'm not sure if that's very relevant, but it does highlight another reason ratings might be good to have.
    I second this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    your thoughts on "Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind"?

    I think it's brilliant!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Abiraleft)
    With regards to ratings, I'd also point out that some people (like me) don't read full reviews before they watch the movie to avoid spoilers. For example, if I'm planning to watch a movie, I might take a look at the 'Reception' section of it's wikipedia page and it's Metacritic score before I do. I only read reviews afterwards.

    I'm not sure if that's very relevant, but it does highlight another reason ratings might be good to have.
    That's a good point. I guess it comes down to how good the reviewer is at not spoiling a plot point whilst being able to communicate his opinion on it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    That's a good point. I guess it comes down to how good the reviewer is at not spoiling a plot point whilst being able to communicate his opinion on it.
    Even really good reviewers like Ebert have a tendency write a lot of the story of a film in sequence, which he has to do really in order to then talk about other things but sometimes he gives an awful lot away. I certainly won't read any of his "Great Movies" reviews before seeing the film because I think he assumes we've seen the film and we are going to him for his interpretation on it, though he never gives the ending away.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Uxari)
    your thoughts on "Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind"?

    I think it's brilliant!
    Yep - it's brilliant. One of my favourite films
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I found Kermode on spoilers an interesting listen on how a reviewer approaches spoilers:

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by TheMagicRat)
    Even really good reviewers like Ebert have a tendency write a lot of the story of a film in sequence, which he has to do really in order to then talk about other things but sometimes he gives an awful lot away. I certainly won't read any of his "Great Movies" reviews before seeing the film because I think he assumes we've seen the film and we are going to him for his interpretation on it, though he never gives the ending away.
    I love that about reviews. I mean going back to a review and having seen the film, and reading a completely different interpretation into it. There should be more of that. Especially in cases where a film or narrative is fairly unambiguous, a different interpretation on that is always interesting. Lets face it, with ambiguity and mystery, you're always going to have rich speculation and interpretations anyway. But with fairly ordinary films, an interesting interpretation is just as good. On giving away too much, it's probably harder with films which are concept heavy like Source Code or Inception or ones whose narrative relies on a twist.

    So do you just look at ratings or a general consensus (word of mouth, Metacritic/Rotten Tomatoes) for an overview or is there a particular source you know to be spoiler free? :holmes:

    I'm not particularly bothered about film reviews. With video games, reviews matter a lot to me. But with films, I just really want verification it's not terrible ie Sucker Punch.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    Really want to give Moon another watch. Think I might go do that.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.