What if the world ends because of the release of Transformers 4?
Sherlock Holmes 2 (Late, I know)
10/10
One of the Best Movies I've seen in a while.
[QUOTE=7H3_H4CK3R;34689888]Sherlock Holmes 2 (Late, I know)
10/10
One of the Best Movies I've seen in a while.[/QUOTE]
I dont really get these kind of guys.
You dont just give 10/10 to everything.
10/10 means that the movie is perfect. No flaws, nothing to nitpick.
Incredible story, characters, sounds, music, etc.
Even if you consider SH2 to be one of the best you've seen in a while, it's still not worth 10 points.
[QUOTE=Hakita;34690530]I dont really get these kind of guys.
You dont just give 10/10 to everything.
10/10 means that the movie is perfect. No flaws, nothing to nitpick.
Incredible story, characters, sounds, music, etc.
Even if you consider SH2 to be one of the best you've seen in a while, it's still not worth 10 points.[/QUOTE]
Some people have different opinions.
[QUOTE=Hakita;34690530]I dont really get these kind of guys.
You dont just give 10/10 to everything.
10/10 means that the movie is perfect. No flaws, nothing to nitpick.
Incredible story, characters, sounds, music, etc.
Even if you consider SH2 to be one of the best you've seen in a while, it's still not worth 10 points.[/QUOTE]
i'm just fuckin lazy and my 10/10 means GO SEE THIS MOTHERFUCKING MOVIE RIGHT NOW BEFORE I EMASCULATE EVERYTHING YOU LOVE TO DUST. (i'm a fucking unicorn i can do that)
that's the base line. it's that but with less intensity as it goes down a ways. like 9/10 might have less caps, 8/10 has hardly any caps in the statement and 7/10 has none. 6/10-4/10 means it had redeemable qualities but didn't have much of a profound effect, but if you're a fan you should see it. anything below that is shit.
if you didn't understand that basically i rate less technically and more emotionally.
Misery
10/10
it would be smart to rate both technically AND emotionally. you need both aspects for a movie to be good, and your rating should take both into account.
if i think a movie is about a 9 technically and a 7 emotionally then it's an 8. not that i analyse it that simply or even think about doing it that way, its just what happens
because its the overall product that matters. its how both aspects come together to create a whole.
To be honest I liked all 3 of the transformers films, (obviously the first was much better, but they were all [i]ok[/i]).
I think the reason it got bad though is because they were running out of decent stories. They might manage to come up with a decent story for a 4th one. But I'm doubtful. Oh well, can always hope.
[sp]Just dear god dont do the ones where they turn into animals[/sp]
with a completely new cast and no michael bay, maybe
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;34693325]with a completely new cast and no michael bay, maybe[/QUOTE]
That's already half wrong.
what, why?
oh nvm
thought you were saying that it wouldn't make the movie better (not the fact that m bay is already directing it)
[QUOTE=Hakita;34690530]I dont really get these kind of guys.
You dont just give 10/10 to everything.
10/10 means that the movie is perfect. No flaws, nothing to nitpick.
Incredible story, characters, sounds, music, etc.
Even if you consider SH2 to be one of the best you've seen in a while, it's still not worth 10 points.[/QUOTE]
10/10 is subjective for the individual. Besides, that guy you questioned is an imbecile.
Went to see The Woman in Black yesterday, I felt it started out well but then just devolved into boring, cliche jump scares with little plot substance. I didn't feel there was much to Radcliffe's character either.
I'm not sure whether I'd want to see Woman in Black. The theatre version was so good and mesmorising..
same with the Warhorse movie actually.
[QUOTE=GunskiMod;34690742]Some people have different opinions.[/QUOTE]
I understand this, but I really doubt that SH2 is the pinnacle of cinema.
[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;34690918]i'm just fuckin lazy and my 10/10 means GO SEE THIS MOTHERFUCKING MOVIE RIGHT NOW BEFORE I EMASCULATE EVERYTHING YOU LOVE TO DUST. (i'm a fucking unicorn i can do that)
that's the base line. it's that but with less intensity as it goes down a ways. like 9/10 might have less caps, 8/10 has hardly any caps in the statement and 7/10 has none. 6/10-4/10 means it had redeemable qualities but didn't have much of a profound effect, but if you're a fan you should see it. anything below that is shit.
if you didn't understand that basically i rate less technically and more emotionally.[/QUOTE]
Rating emotionally is not a bad thing, but your rating system is very silly and not very useful.
[QUOTE=AK'z;34693580]10/10 is subjective for the individual. Besides, that guy you questioned is an imbecile.[/QUOTE]
I'm surprised. Akayz made a post with 2 statements, both of which are correct.
But I think Rusty said it best.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;34690970]it would be smart to rate both technically AND emotionally. you need both aspects for a movie to be good, and your rating should take both into account.
if i think a movie is about a 9 technically and a 7 emotionally then it's an 8. not that i analyse it that simply or even think about doing it that way, its just what happens
because its the overall product that matters. its how both aspects come together to create a whole.[/QUOTE]
I say rate it based on experience, then draw out reasons why you thought the experience was so however great.
[QUOTE=AK'z;34693875]I'm not sure whether I'd want to see Woman in Black. The theatre version was so good and mesmorising..[/QUOTE]
I've heard that from a friend who saw in the theatre too, I reckon a lot must have been lost in transferring it to film.
[QUOTE=Hakita;34690530]
10/10 means that the movie is perfect. No flaws, nothing to nitpick.[/QUOTE]
not necessarily.
just that the good things outweighs the bad
Technically a film should be rated accordingly:
[quote]
Sound: the quality and the placement, this includes the score and the sound effects along with others.
Cinematography: the quality of the scene, i hate shaky cam so it its overused i tend to rate it low, unless its used well. For example in the thing:2011 it seemed the camera never stopped bobbing around, this distracted us from the acting and the visuals, whereas the thing 1983 had smooth camera work on dollys or rails, this made us more involved as an outside viewer.
Camerawork: is the camera work well executed, for example in drive, i never felt claustrophobic when we saw shots inside the car, whereas in transporter i sometimes felt far to close into stathams face.
Acting, i don't really need to explain this, just compare Alien and then AVP, a class act against something you might maybe use to mop up a spill.[/quote]
Emotionally however, although its alot more objective, i rate it as such
[quote]Believability, this ties into how believable the actors are, not the scenario film. ie: I rate the acting in event horizon very well although its not really a believable scenario.
Survivability, (re-watch value) would you be happy to watch the film again, or recommend it seriously to someone who likes film, For example i found DOOM to be quite fun, but i would not really want to watch it again and i would in no way recommend it to anyone.
What i like to call "is that super glue on my ass? because i cant get off my seat" This ties into how riveting and paced the movie is, can i sit through all of it without thinking "i wish i could skip past this bit" or does it have my attention all the way through. this also ties into re-watch value.[/quote]
There are of course many more points to make, but generally these are the values of which i rate films. SO far i have never encountered a 9/10 film, but i can always hope.
Shooter
6/10
[QUOTE=dirty harry;34694395]I've heard that from a friend who saw in the theatre too, I reckon a lot must have been lost in transferring it to film.[/QUOTE]
for one thing the theatre is so small and compact which gives you extreme immersion. nothing like it.
"re-watchability" doesn't really define how good a movie is
the big lebowski is a good movie to watch again and again, but a movie like the hangover is only funny the first time
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;34694676]"re-watchability" doesn't really define how good a movie is
the big lebowski is a good movie to watch again and again, but a movie like the hangover is only funny the first time[/QUOTE]
This is what i mean though, i would rate a movie higher if i can re-watch it and feel the same tension, humour or fear that i did when i first watched it. When i re-watch alien for example I find it even scarier than the first time because of the build-up, and the inevitable end, the only thing ruined is that i know who survives.
As far as the hangover goes, i felt the jokes where well executed but cheap, meaning that they where formulated in such a way that when you rewatch it, the humour value is lost because all the jokes where "oh shit, when did i do X" and you already know what x is and how so the joke is ruined. I can rewatch airplane however because the jokes are timeless, and they dont get unfunny after the first watch, in fact I am always "this is the good bit!" and the line dont call me shirley.
However, i did call the motional side of viewing more subjective, You may feel re-watch-ability is not so important, But in my opinion it is, which is why i rate accordingly on that part. Emotion is so hard to gage from person to person as we are all individually so unique.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;34694676]"re-watchability" doesn't really define how good a movie is
the big lebowski is a good movie to watch again and again, but a movie like the hangover is only funny the first time[/QUOTE]
the hangover is never funny
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;34694676]"re-watchability" doesn't really define how good a movie is
the big lebowski is a good movie to watch again and again, but a movie like the hangover is only funny the first time[/QUOTE]
the "Dr Faggot" joke is possibly the worst, most cringe-worthy comedic experience I've ever had.
[B]J. Edgar[/B] 8/10
dicaprio rocked this one. excellent film.
[QUOTE=Zeraxify;34695438][B]J. Edgar[/B] 8/10
dicaprio rocked this one. excellent film.[/QUOTE]
I plan on seeing that tonight. Cheers.
[B]Hobo with a Shotgun[/B]
7.5: Good for shits and giggles, but obviously not a piece of cinema mastery. Watched it with Machete, which I think I enjoyed more.
I hated machete. Hobo with a shotgun was so much better
What's Your Number - 6.5/10. Anna Faris is freakin' sexy as hell and still really funny. Chris Evans is funny too.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
