If I love a movie and can rewatch them it usually an 8 or 9 for me.
To get a 10 it would realy have to connect to to me on a personal level.
It's not that much thinking, it's just the general feel of the movie and how much I enjoyed it.
so depending on how you feel about that... we could be noticeably different here as to me a 8 is a pretty high score to just to START re-watch level. i would figure re-watch level for you would be AT LEAST down to a 7/10 minimum if not a bit lower.
But what about films that arent as rewatchable but are amazing.. like Taxi Driver, Schindlers List, Mean Streets, Etc
It's quite interesting to see how people think. Some give a 10 just becouse they liked it. Others (like me) are looking for how well made the movie was made and how good the actors are as well.
those who spam 10/10's fairly commonly if they just 'like' a movie i totally disagree with as people should be rating movies against ALL movies they have seen. so in other words... if there is some movies you like quite a bit more than others then you should adjust your ratings accordingly if your trying to properly use the rating scale (like you and i do).
those who regularly spam 8's/9's/10's it's hard to tell what they truly like a lot vs what's just good to a mild like and average to below average and so on.
p.s. but it appears you and i are very similar, if not the same, in how we rate movies.
10/10 is not too rare for me. I've given around 23 movies that rating. But I know people who've given like 100 or 200 movies 10/10
Spielberg said something about great movies being made up of great moments, and the more moments, the more memorable the movie.
Maya Angelou said: âI've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.â
It is believable that he said that, and it illustrates why he is a very successful and highly competent commercial director, but not a truly great artist, just a great "pop" artist. I cannot imagine Bergman, Michael Powell, Satyajit Ray, Jean Renoir or Kurosawa agreeing with that philosophy.
True Grit. Duke.
basically outside of John Wayne i think the 1969 is pretty dull overall. the 2010 movie on the other hand has much more going for it overall like the general feel/tone of it (basically it's cinematography) and things are better shot with a all around better cast as i would say outside of John Wayne the 1969 movie does not really have anything going for it basically. like you just FEEL more in the 2010 movie where as the 1969 movie is quite bland
but from my best guess... those who are huge John Wayne fans will probably prefer the 1969 movie but those who are not will probably prefer the 2010 movie given the info above i posted.
I could easily have described the 2010 version the same way. I found it dull, insipid and completely lacking in the feel and tone that you somehow found in it. It felt and looked like a Hallmark movie. It had no........GRIT!!
I rated it 1/10 - it failed on every level for me.
That's a huge assumption rather than a guess. I feel it very unfair to tar everybody with the same fanboy brush. I would be saddened indeed if I thought there was no one out there who could judge a film merely on it's merits rather than because of who had the lead role.
This of course excludes fans of Star Bores, The Dark Fright and Bored Of The Rings who do generally fall into that category. At least on IMDB. :)
My movie collection dates from the 30's to current, so I don't see movies as dated, just good or bad. I would suggest that they only seem dated because you don't watch enough of them.
I once watched Destry Rides Again 1939 with a friend and afterward he said: "You know, that was really good but I would never have watched that at home"
"Don't you like James Stewart?" I asked.
"No, it's not that" He replied. "But I always ignore Black and White movies"
He now has a huge collection of movies, like myself, old and new.
It seems very sad for a movie fan to dismiss 40 years of movie making because of the colour of the pictures the shape of the image or because they were made before a certain date.
Once Upon a Time in the West is another overrated piece of garbage that gets 1/10 from me.
i am actually surprised it was THAT bad for you as almost no movies are THAT bad for me in general.
surely, you got to think the 2010 is better in some aspects (even if you prefer the 1969 movie overall)(?).
i am not automatically saying your praising the 1969 because of John Wayne
but from my best guess... those who are huge John Wayne fans will probably prefer the 1969 movie
unless you happen to dislike modern movies in terms of feel/tone which i personally think in terms of atmosphere that newer movies are largely well ahead of older movies.
while i agree with your basic good(Thumbs Up) or bad(Thumbs Down) point ill say... it's the general style etc of old movies is nothing like modern movies which are just generally all around superior as they tend to have more emotion etc to them.
"there could be a decent movie prior to the 1960's here and there"
while there is a fair chance there could be another quality movie prior to the 1960's out there it won't be easy for me to find it without having to watch a bunch of largely forgettable movies
basically what you said has no effect on why i generally dislike movies prior to the 1960's.
it's not that a certain date etc makes them suck... it's just a general guideline
the vast majority of my favorite movies are from the 1990's to date as i would rank the decades like this overall.
From this I can only infer that you are far easier to please and far less critical than I. Or that you have watched far fewer bad movies than I.
I found it lacking in everything that you and many others seemed too find in it.
But that's all just a matter of taste and preference.
My point was that you were assuming that only Wayne fans would prefer the original. An assumption that does a huge injustice to those who think it's a better movie.
Unlike yourself, I hold no prejudice toward any movie era from the 30's to date. I judge movies individually and on their own merits or lack of.
Oh dear no. That's a terribly sweeping comment that dismisses almost 60 years of movies that are, according to you, mostly inferior!
This is not reflected in ANY critical analysis of movies throughout history by ANYONE.
For example, The AFi's 100 Greatest American Movies, by far the most widely respected of these type of listings, can be broken down as follows:
Silent era (1912-1929): 22 nominated films, only 3 films in the top 100
1930s (1930-1939): 56 nominated films, with 15 films in the top 100
1940s (1940-1949): 61 nominated films, with 12 films in the top 100
1950s (1950-1959): 61 nominated films, with 20 films in the top 100
1960s (1960-1969): 58 nominated films, with 18 films in the top 100
1970s (1970-1979): 54 nominated films, with 18 films in the top 100
1980s (1980-1989): 58 nominated films, with 6 films in the top 100
1990s (1990-1996): 30 nominated films, with 8 films in the top 100
14 films, out of the 100 were made after 1980. More than half of the movies, 56, were made between 1950 and 1979, thereby ignoring cinema's early years and some of the modern era.
Really? I'm sorry but I can't believe you said that!!! See AFI above. ^^
There are at least 50 "Great" movies prior to this. Decent movies would count into hundreds!!
It took me all of five seconds to Google the AFI list.
We're having this discussion on the single biggest movie information database in the history of movies. I'm sure, with very little effort, you could obtain a huge selection of suggestions from IMDB members only willing to expand your knowledge and lessen your ignorance of movies pre 1980.
Yes it does. A general guideline that you've stated often, though changing the date frequently, that you think movies made before a certain date are inferior.
Which is the point I was making when I said:
"It seems very sad for a movie fan to dismiss 40 years of movie making because of the colour of the pictures the shape of the image or because they were made before a certain date."
You keep moving the goalposts here. "Best" and "Favourite" are not interchangeable.
If you don't "like" older movies in general, as you say, that's fine, but please don't dismiss them all as inferior because of your dislike. That is plain foolish.
i said it simply because out of the movies i watch, which obviously i don't TRY to find bad movies, that the vast majority are no where near THAT bad.
i doubt i am easily pleased given this simple fact... only 201 movies out of the 2,025+ total movies i have seen scored a 7/10 or higher.
as far as the 'far fewer movies' comment... personally i feel i have hit the point (for a while now) that my opinion would not change as i feel i have largely exhausted seeing the quality movies out there from the past.
which is why i am in no rush to see plenty of movies i have not seen before
hard for me to see the 1969 movie as better from a general cinematography angle etc.
you sure about that? ; i think your only looking at critics.
that 'ANYONE' comment is definitely not accurate when looking at more common people out there.
it's AFI which is far from actual peoples opinions
it's AFI which is far from actual peoples opinions as they tend to just look at movies 'being ahead of their time'
i know there are people who like many pre-1960's movies around here but i also think it's true that there are many who generally avoid them to.
the terms 'best' and 'favorite' as they are the same to me as movies ultimately come back to personal enjoyment as rating a movie higher that you personally don't enjoy watching more makes no sense to me and most people.
do you have a difference between 'best' and 'favorite'? ; i do not as they are the same thing to me as it makes no sense to say Movie A is "better" than Movie B if Movie B is more all around interesting/enjoyable etc to watch.
also, i say they are inferior because of the style of them.
they lack emotion etc etc vs modern movies.
i just can't see most people alive today preferring pre-1960's movies over post-1960's movies.
'post-1960's' movies over 'pre-1960's' movies if you had to choose one or the other, right?
if not we are not on the same page at all when it comes to movies.
once i include the 1990's to date vs prior to that it's VERY easy for me to choose the 1990's to date then.
Also I almost never rewatch even if it's a 10 because I always want to find something new.
I think m-slovak79 should stop pushing large groups of alleged people in front of him to voice his opinions.
You are perhaps the least adventurous movie fan around here, and getting increasingly stagnant with your re-watches instead of broadening your tastes by actually exploring whats out there. Challenge yourself, that's how you grow.
You cannot claim anything about the "vast majority" of movies as by your own claims, you have seen only a small minority.
Misunderstood again. My point was referring NOT to the high scores you give, but to the few LOW scores that you yourself admitted you give.
How on earth do you know if you haven't seen them????? Lord help me!!
So you make these absurd claims in the safe knowledge that you now only watch movies that you've already seen before in case you watch one you don't like????
So after saying on numerous occasions that it is the TONE/FEEL of a movie that is most important for you, you are telling me that I should consider the quality of cinematography because it's the way it LOOKS that's important.
I don't give two hoots for cinematography. I don't give points for something I expect to be there. These movies are made by seasoned professionals - experts in their field - so I expect them to point the camera in the right direction.
It would be like giving extra points because it has sound or it's in colour. These things are a given.
According to Empire magazines list of "Greatest Movies Of All Time" as voted for by their "common" readers - 139 of those movies are from era's you consider inferior. That is not good movies but GREAT movies.
According to Channel 4's list of 100 Greatest movies, as voted for by 20,000 "common people", 46 of them - almost half - are from era's you consider inferior.
Actually it's not at all. You insist on making these unfounded statements without any research - or anything - to substantiate them.
Just because you think something does not make it so.
Do they?? And where, pray tell, did you find this nugget of information? Because I can't find anywhere that confirms that this is what criteria their members use.
I'm sure it is. But that could be said about tea and coffee. It still wouldn't make one inferior to the other, which is the point you consistently make but consistently fail to support.
Best and favourite are not the same to me.
Again, you're crossing your lines. If the difference is best and favourite then I am NOT saying that A is better than B - merely that it is a bigger favourite.
That's what the word "difference" means. There are more reasons to find a movie favourable than just interesting/enjoyable. The main one being - and I said this so long ago now - is how it makes you feel.
Now how about your end comment above. "makes no sense to me and most people."
I'm amazed at the fact that yet again,without any foundation, you are so positive about what "most people" think. Are you a mystic??
Just because you say it, does not make it so. Simply because you dislike something does not make it inferior.
And to say they are is a pompous and arrogant attitude that insults everyone who happens to think differently.
No, you just think they do. All the evidence says otherwise. You are free to think such things, as is your right, but it not your right to state something as fact that is merely your opinion.
Yet again, the point being made is flying through the stratosphere. Why should there be a preference at all. As I've stated clearly before, I have no preference. I like movies. I don't care when it was made - just whether it's any good or not.
Thankfully, we are most assuredly not.
I watch movies that sound interesting, entertaining and absorbing. The one thing I never check before making my decision is when it was made.
I don't care.
For me a 10/10 is next to impossible for a movie to achieve, it must have great actors and chemestry between them, there can't be any (major) logical errors or misses and the story has to really capture me.
I've yet to find a 10/10 and the one that comes closest is the goodfather 1 and 2.
Mostly I just rate movies 1 or 10 to change an exagerated average rating.
10/10 movies don't have to be perfect, but if they do have any problems they need to be minor and easy to overlook. Mostly a 10/10 movie means I just LOVE watching the movie. It entertains the crap out of me.
I've rated about 15 or 16 movies 10/10 and rated nearly 1600 titles so far, to me that's reasonable.
that's what i say... a movie that gets a 10/10 should be as enjoyable as movies get and anything that falls a bit short of that goes to a 9 and below that to a 8 and so on.
be honest when they rate movies and don't raise or lower a movies score in a attempt to boost it's average rating etc.
but like i always say... i never restrict ratings just to restrict them as i always rate a movie based on what you basically said
It's too bad this happens, really more often than we realize. Look at any of the latest blockbusters from the past few years (Force Awakens, Suicide Squad, etc.) where it seemed as though everyone was rating them either 10/10 or 1/10. Like there was no in-between, when in reality they were not doing this because they 100% loved or hated the films, they just wanted to change the rating.
That's good. I mean, if I had a ton of movies rated 10/10, I would consider it maybe odd; like perhaps I should reconsider...but I definitely don't restrict myself to the idea that I can't rate any movie I want a 10. It's just like you say: most movies just aren't deserving of that rating.
but i would imagine that kind of damage is mostly limited to those super hero blockbuster variations.
i would have to imagine, especially assuming they are using the rating scale decently, that it's a small amount of people.
at that time i considered the 6/10 score as a Thumbs Down but since that date i now consider it a mild Thumbs Up as this way my 7/10 score is worth more now
Yeah, it sort of took me a while to get a handle on how I would have to treat the different ratings in order rate as accurately as possible. At first I considered 5/10 to be a pretty bad rating; I would never have thought I'd need to give out 1, 2, or 3/10 ratings. But I learned that 5 has to be considered an average; there are a lot of bad movies out there that deserve less than a 4 or 5 IMO. A 6/10 therefore became a much better rating in my mind. Anything I rate a 6 or above is usually warranted for at least one rewatch, because to some degree or another I enjoyed it.