I've fought it for a long, long time, but today I've given in: I'm now adding a number score to the movie entries. I'd been resistant so long because I thought that, by not providing ratings, that somehow my criticism would be "purer" somehow. And maybe it does work like that, but, let's face it, I don't write enough for anyone to make a reasonable assumption about what kind of rating I might give a movie. Also, it looked like Martin added a "We deign to rate it" tag to the end of my entries, like what appears on his blog. I admit, it excited me. Well, it was just a software error -- I couldn't just type in a rating, like he can -- but in that brief moment, I revealed my true colors to myself. So, ratings ahoy!
I've decided to go with the 1-100 scale, like all the cool kids are doing. The scale breaks down in a sort-of Metacritic fashion: 100-80 is totally awesome; 79-60 is recommended; 59-40 is so-so, with maybe a few things to make it worth watching; 39-20 is bad; and 19-0 is just godawful.
Some of the individual numbers have specific meanings, as well. I've imported Mike D'Angelo's definition of the 69 rating: a movie that's good, but is missing that certain something to put it in the unqualified thumbs-up category. I probably have more negative things to say about a 69 than, say, a 66, cuz they were just that close. And a 40 is shaping up to be a movie that, had it not had a great performance or two, or incredible talent behind the camera, would have its ass dropped 21 points or more.
Here's a more-or-less complete list of what I've seen so far this year. The (f) is for a film viewing, the (v) is for video.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004, Michel Gondry) (f) 97
Holes (2003, Andrew Davis) (v) 92
Thieves Like Us (1974, Robert Altman) (f) 90
Dawn of the Dead (2004, Zack Snyder) (f) 89
Cowards Bend The Knee (2003, Guy Maddin) (f) 83
The Saddest Music in the World (2004, Guy Maddin) (f) 81
The Barbarian Invasions (2003, Denys Arcand) (f) 75
The Winslow Boy (1999, David Mamet) (v) 74
Night Tide (1963, Curtis Harrington) (v) 73
Blade II (2002, Guillermo Del Toro) (v) 72
Assault on Precinct 13 (1976, John Carpenter) (v) 69
Hatchet For The Honeymoon (1969, Mario Bava) (v) 69
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969, George Roy Hill) (v) 69
The Stranger (1946, Orson Welles) (v) 69
Images (1972, Robert Altman) (v) 68
All The Real Girls (2003, David Gordon Green) (v) 67
The Butterfly Effect (2004, Eric Bress & J. Mackye Gruber) (f) 66
All the President's Men (1976, Alan J. Pakula) (v) 65
demonlover (2003, Olivier Assayas) (v) 64
The Company (2003, Robert Altman) (f) 63
The River (1997, Tsai Ming-liang) (v) 63
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957, David Lean) (v) 63
Dreamcatcher (2003, Lawrence Kasdan) (v) 60
The Station Agent (2003, Tom McCarthy) (f) 60
Tokyo Godfathers (2004, Satoshi Kon) (f) 60
Secret Fest #1 (can't say, won't say) (f) 59
Death Hunt (1981, Peter Hunt) (v) 57
Along Came A Spider (2001, Lee Tamahori) (v) 50
Opera (1987, Dario Argento) (v) 49
Roman Holiday (1953, William Wyler) (v) 48
The Battle of Shaker Heights (2003, Kyle Rankin & Efrem Potelle) (v) 47
Dementia 13 (1963, Francis Coppola) (v) 46
Stolen Summer (2002, Pete Jones) (v) 41
Elephant (2003, Gus Van Sant) (v) 40
House of 1000 Corpses (2003, Rob Zombie) (v) 35
Nattevagten (1994, Ole Bornedal) (v) 33
City of God (2003, Fernando Meirelles) (f) 30
Seabiscuit (2003, Gary Ross) (v) 28
Pit and the Pendulum (1961, Roger Corman) (v) 25
Anatomy of a Psycho (1961, Brooke L. Peters) (v) 23
Japanese Story (2003, Sue Brooks) (f) 15
From Hell (2001, The Hughes Brothers) (v) 8
I too have a 0-100 scale for rating my movies, and I too have a specific logic attached to the ranking of the number on my scale. My logic is this: "There shall be no logic explaining, maintinaining, or edifying any form of logic to said numbering system, with the exception to the logic that might explain that there is no logic explaining, maintaining, or edifying any form...etc. etc."
So, under my logic, a 79 carries about the same weight as a 89 if I'm in a good mood. My numbers are a snapshot of emotional involvement, tempered by a dash of chaos and appropriated by a love of creating a nonesensical rating system that only exists for amusement of the guy who rated it. I wouldn't be surprised at year end, for example, if my top ten movies of the year were not the highest scoring.
Posted by: Martin at May 25, 2004 12:16 PMHmmn, an 89 for the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake? Interesting. I didn't totally dislike the thing, but what exactly made it worthy of such a high rating in your opinion? Also, what exactly are you using to deter the comment spambots? I need to install something similar.
Posted by: Scott at May 25, 2004 01:17 PMScott--
I've been meaning to write a full review of DOTD since I saw it, but I never seem to get around to it. So, short version: It's the scariest and most downright depressing thing I've seen in a long time. It still haunts me, months later. In a sense, it's a kind of disaster movie, but whereas most disaster movies seem to have a hero who can rise above the disaster, it's pretty clear after the first ten minutes that everyone's *fucked*. To me, it's like ON THE BEACH, only the radiation runs after everyone real fast :-)
And, unlike a lot of people, I... a) like the running zombies (and I have a theory as to why they were used and why we'll see more of them in the future, but I wanted to save it for the review) and b) frankly, I'm glad this one isn't philosophical like the original. That was great for the 70s, but I feel different times need a different artistic response. (Some call it "dumbing down", I call it an artistic response.)
See, now that you've gone and made me write this, maybe I'll just have to sit down and write it anyway. Gee, thanks, Scott! :-)
Posted by: Kza at May 25, 2004 03:21 PMThings I liked about DAWN 2004:
My Husband Is A Zombie prologue
Celebrity Lookalike Zombie Hunt
The Blair Zombie Project epilogue
Things I didn't like:
Everything else
Wow--that's kinda weird, cuz your last two items are things I *didn't* like about it.
Posted by: Kza at May 25, 2004 04:01 PMAn 8 for "From Hell"? I trust all eight of those points were for Johnny Depp (fucking fabulous as usual)?
Posted by: Steve at May 25, 2004 06:12 PMOh yeah... and a 92 for "Holes"? A bit excessive, no?
Posted by: Steve at May 25, 2004 09:29 PMFrom Hell -- there's an entry on it in this blog somewheres, but short version: I just finished the graphic novel, and was flabbergasted that absolutely nothing interesting from the comic was kept. I wasn't expecting a literal adaptation -- I doubt even HBO could do it -- but ultimately it was just a serial killer movie, and not even an good one. Its major claim to fame, FAIC, is that it's eight points more interesting than THE HOUSE OF THE DEAD.
Holes -- what can I say? [Fry]I like it. I reeeely like it. [/Fry]
Posted by: Kza at May 25, 2004 11:04 PMAnd a 66 for THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT? You and Theo P. must think alike!
Posted by: Scott at May 26, 2004 08:02 PMTHE BUTTERFLY EFFECT is a weird case, cuz, really, it's NOT a good movie. But due to the way the film's structured, there's no way to really predict what's going to happen, and it kept me on the edge of my seat the entire time. That, and like Theo says, it takes place in a uniquely scuzzy world, which is something, if not a pleasant something. I said this before elsewhere, and I'll say it again: the mind boggles as to what David Fincher or the new dark Spielberg could've done with this script...
Posted by: Kza at May 26, 2004 08:12 PM