Movie Reviews 2.0

[John Reynolds]

Saw Thor tonight on Imax 3D and by the hoary beard of the All-Father, this was a great start to this year's summer movie season. Two enthusiastic drinking cups up. 8.5/10

Just remember to sit through the credits, and see if you can guess the briefcase's contents before it's opened. My Marvel lore is still strong, I correctly guessed it to a friend before it was revealed.

 

[Mize]

Seriously JR? Thor an 8.5 when everyone is 6? Is this like the desperate fan talking themself into liking the Dune movie?

 

[John Reynolds]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/thor/

 

[Squilliam]

6/10 is still 'liking'...

 

[Mariner]

I've only actually seen one film on Imax 3D - Toy Story 3 - and agree that this was much more immersive. However, I'm pretty sure that standard Imax would have made it more immersive, too.

Unfortunately, Imax 3D isn't really much of an option for me as the nearest Imax screen is located about 80 miles from where I live and there is no way I'm driving 160 miles just to watch any old film!

 

[nintenho]

6/10 is still 'liking'...

It also means that it's in the top 40% of movies you've seen.

 

[Squilliam]

It also means that it's in the top 40% of movies you've seen.

Since when do people use that kind of scale?

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Since when do people use that kind of scale?

I'd say since never, but also your saying that 6/10 is liking it is not true for many. People just don't use 1-10 scale like number purifists want them to be used... 6/10 for many is ok, average or passable. Nintenhos scale is downright ridiculous :smile:

 

[Sxotty]

It also means that it's in the top 40% of movies you've seen.

That is not real workable. Then you would need to know every film a reviewer had seen to qualify their scale. I don't watch terrible movies that often.

 

[John Reynolds]

The 1-10 scale is really the 7-9 system, so giving something a 6 is generally a pretty negative mark.

 

[Mize]

The 1-10 scale is really the 7-9 system, so giving something a 6 isn't generally a pretty negative mark.

isn't ?

 

[John Reynolds]

You knew what I meant, damnit.

Going to see Thor again tomorrow night with some former co-workers.

 

[Squilliam]

isn't ?

That's my stapler.

 

[zed]

The 1-10 scale is really the 7-9 system, so giving something a 6 is generally a pretty negative mark.

who saiz?
Ive rated a few thousand films, & the average rating Ive given is 5.33

the last 10 films I rated 6/10
the sorcerers apprentice 2002
the men who stare at goats 2009
The Mystery of the Marie Celeste 1935
the amazing mr x 1948
machine girl 2008
waz 2007
doom 2005
bowery at midnight 1942
donkey punch 2009
Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant 2009

all reasonable films

 

[NRP]

Thor was utter garbage. 3/10 is being generous.

"Thorible" is an apt description.

 

[nintenho]

Since when do people use that kind of scale?

I'm being sarcastic, the numerical scores for movies/games is just something that's always bothered me since it grabs the most attention in most reviews but it tells you absolutely nothing. Giving a movie that you like but think has problems a 6/10 score is a very good example, where some people give 7/10 as an average score and others move the bell curve to the center and consider a 5/10 an average score so, either a 6/10 is above average or below average depending on who you ask.

I don't know, you could use a score to roughly approximate how you feel the movie compares to other's in it's genre or you could try to make it a function of how much it delivers on it's potential whether it's an arthouse indie movie or an action blockbuster. In either case, a review score is kinda unnecessary and it makes more sense to go with the watch in theaters/rent it on DVD/skip it system.

 

[zed]

If you look at movie reviewers I think most use the 5-6/ 10 as being average.
Usually its 4 or 5 stars, thus 2 or 2.5 stars

Yes game reviews 6/10 typically equals a crap review, but movie reviewers tend to have better scale

 

[Squilliam]

I'm being sarcastic, the numerical scores for movies/games is just something that's always bothered me since it grabs the most attention in most reviews but it tells you absolutely nothing. Giving a movie that you like but think has problems a 6/10 score is a very good example, where some people give 7/10 as an average score and others move the bell curve to the center and consider a 5/10 an average score so, either a 6/10 is above average or below average depending on who you ask.

I don't know, you could use a score to roughly approximate how you feel the movie compares to other's in it's genre or you could try to make it a function of how much it delivers on it's potential whether it's an arthouse indie movie or an action blockbuster. In either case, a review score is kinda unnecessary and it makes more sense to go with the watch in theaters/rent it on DVD/skip it system.

I think you need to take into account that there are a lot of really terrible movies which go straight to DVD or even straight to TV which rank in the 0-4 ratings for critics. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't part of the ratings scale.

 

[Bludd]

I just finished watching "Inside Job". Finance is full of incest and people who believe in magic, creating something out of nothing. Fucking fucks.

 

[Squilliam]

Just finished watching 'Monsters'. I rate it 2/10

Spoiler

at best

just don't see the point in the movie, literally nothing happened!