CRITIQUING THE CRITIC - HOW'S THAT FOR A SLICE OF FRIED GOLD!

a lot of people have asked me how i come up with my ratings for films, and i think it is only fair for me now to try and explain it. because my ratings are out of 5 (instead of 10), each digit is worth taking into account. so here goes. i'll provide a brief explanation and give examples as i go, but take note that different aspects of different films have significant weight.

things i typically take into account include:
acting, perfomance
directing, editing
themes and concepts explored
production values
overall package

1/5 - ABSOLUTE SHITHOUSE.
this rating, which i have yet to give, is awarded to films that have no redeeming qualities. not even good production values or underlying concepts could salvage such a shit movie. i can't think of any film that immediately comes to mind, apart from maybe "2001: A Space Odyssey", which was excruciating to sit through. i wanted to stab myself in teh eye with a pencil - twice.

2/5 - WATCHABLE
generally production values along can push a film into this category. take Star "Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith" for example. the movie was shit, but it looked nice and had decent special effects. films that get this rating are usually good on a superficial level, but when you dig a little deeper and try to make sense of it, it just becomes stupid. but production values doesn't trump acting or character development.

3/5 - BETTER THAN GOOD
from 2 to 3, there's plenty in between. films that elicit some kind of emotional response in a decent overall package get this rating. an example is "Fantastic Four"; while the story was very dry and A to B, the characters and the script work well together, making it enjoyable jsut to sit back and watch. films that get this rating are usually ones that have a good set of characters and utilises them to tell a solid, even if ho-hum, story. furthermore, a 3/5 means i've probably seen the movie more than twice, which is enough to suggest that it deserves such a rating.

4/5 - AWESOME
generally, no critic will ever give full marks unless they're being paid to. and unfortunately, i aint getting paid. films that get this rating are brilliant in nearly all the aspects i have listed above. the fusion of great directing, cast performances, and story will push a film into this bracket. "Life as a House" and "Batman Begins" are two examples of such greatness. Both tell an interesting story, both have their own different but distinctly excellent directing, and the cast members have put thier heart and soul into their performances. if a film gets a 4/5, it's pretty damn good.

5/5 - FUCKING BRILLIANT
i've only ever given two films this rating, "The Incredibles" and "Shaun of the Dead". both times it was an immediate rating, i didn't have to think about it cos these films are so damn good. the 5/5 is usually awarded where the film, on a subjective level, makes me change the way i think, or inspires me to do something. taking into account all the above mentioned aspects of film and filmmaking, movies that get this rating have definitely fulfilled those. but as i said, subjectivity is a funny thing. if a film affects me in a profoud way, it'll get that 5.

there you have it, it may have just made things a hell of a lot more confusing, but i think you kinda get the picture. basically all i'm saying t you really is this: the rating system might seem inconsistent, but if you really think about it, all films are different and should therefore be looked at in differnt ways. ulitmately, that means rating the film as i see it.

-LOki