ill just comment on the OP's general rating system as i noticed it on the website...
As always here is my ratings system.
10= Perfection (maybe 5-10 films all-time have made this category)
9= Great Film/ Likely Masterpiece
8= Must See/ Worth Owning
7= Worth Seeing/ Recommend to Others
6= Decent and Not Unhappy to Have Viewed/ May Recommend to Select People, but Not to Most
5= Likely had Some Positives but Wasn’t a Good Film
4= Bad Film
3= Horrible Film
2= Offensively Bad Film/ Surely Angered Me to have Viewed
1= Worst Pile of *beep* Ever Committed to Film
sounds like we have some similarities on the general scale at the core of it all but mine varies some. (but then again after looking more at the basic ratings on random films for 2010 it does seem like you tend to give out 4/10 scores fairly often so in that sense i think we definitely different)
i typically only give out 9's and 10's to my top top stuff which comes out to around 80 films (or under a 100 for sure) out of the 1300-ish total i seen. so i think we vary a little here as i am not super super super picky on handing out 10's like it seems you are but then again i don't hand them out much either so i think for the most part we are similar on the whole 9's and 10's stuff.
i also assume your similar to me in the sense that 6/10 or lower = Thumbs Down and 7/10 or higher = Thumbs Up?... it seems this way based on the comments you made.
and i also pretty much agree with your whole 6/10 thing... basically it's a film i find OK but won't go out of my way to see again but it might be something that's OK to watch if it's on TV etc. so 'usually' a 6/10 film is not something i was disappointed with as it was possibly worth a viewing but i guess it mostly boils down to if it was on the better side of a 6 or worse side of a 6 ;) ... like if it was a 'solid 6' (i.e. at least was worth my time) or a 'weak 6' (i.e. i would rather have missed it)... so i guess that's (i.e. a solid 6/10) sort of the weakest a film can be and still feel like it was good enough to not have completely wasted my time.
and your 5/10... i think we pretty much in agreement. usually ill give a 5/10 to something i don't really find boring but it's something i definitely would not watch again as it lacks in entertainment as entertainment is pretty much the #1 thing i think most people look for in films. but sometimes i could give out a 5/10 to something that verges on boring (i.e. Inglourious Basterds). but in general a 5/10-ish is definitely something that is not worth watching.
3-4/10's... i typically give to films i find booooring. so i guess this could be considered in line with your 'bad film' / 'horrible film' stuff ;) ... because to me, generally speaking, a film being boring is the worst thing a film can be. but sometimes a film can just be poorly made etc but usually if i give a 3-4/10 out to a film the odds are good that i found it boring.
2's... i don't think i ever given out a 2/10 as if i go below a 3 it's most likely going straight to a 1.
1's... i typically only give out to stuff i dislike quite a bit/hate which is pretty rare in general.
----------------------------
but a little more on topic... i think The Color of Money is a solid film, one of Newman's best (one of the films of Newman's i watch the most along with The Hustler as he's got a commanding screen presence that keeps you glued to the screen) and it's my 4th favorite Scorsese behind Goodfellas/Casino/The Departed.
----------
My Vote History ...
http://imdb.to/b5rrNh----------
reply
share