I write this because I randomly realized that I have been blogging my ratings about movies for months now but have neglected to actually explain my ratings system. It's truly a pippin06 original and, actually, I developed it a long time ago, before I adopted the ubiquitous pippin06 persona. You see, there was a time (which may not actually be over) when I wanted to be a professional movie critic. Perhaps these groovy Spout features will help to bring me closer to my dream of past and possibly present. Of course, I'd be happy being any kind of critic. Food. Music. Theater. Eat, drink, and be merry, I say.
But, I digress. I developed this ratings system several years ago for my own benefit, because I'm not-so-secretly a nerd like that. The ratings system was designed to be more descriptive about a rating than randomly assigning one of five stars or giving it a thumbs up or thumbs down type deal. It truly runs the gamut of good to bad, with helpful descriptions to guide me.
If you've read my filmblog in the past, you'll realize that probably my most common rating is somewhere in the 6-8 range. That's an average to an above average rating. You should know going in, however, that I am kind of a snob when it comes to watching movies. I don't watch just anything. Granted, I watch lots of teen flicks and fantasy films, but I also watch artsy films and Oscar films and things that generally pique my interest. Truthfully, I won't watch anything for the sake of watching it. It has to pull me in. I have to hear good things about it, or it has to have a premise that grabs me, or an interesting looking trailer that betrays something, well, interesting about the film. I won't watch things that don't interest me, even if I'm missing a very important film. Chances are, if it's truly that important, I'll be peer pressured into watching it anyway. Otherwise, I am content to spend that two hours watching a different movie or rewatching a movie I've already seen and love.
In other words, I tend to watch movies that I know have the potential to be good. Or, that have someone pretty to watch in it, at least.
You also may have noticed, if you read my blog, that I refer to something called "the test." The test is what I use to determine whether or not the film is so good, I'll actually be buying it. This is my personal test and sometimes has nothing to do with the rating. I may love a movie but decide that I can't buy it because I know I won't rewatch it. I may not be as impressed with a movie but still decide to buy it because I already have the first two damn movies, so why the hell not (think X-Men and the Matrix). I may just find a movie for cheap, even if I wasn't planning to buy it beforehand, like the Untouchables. The test refers to whether I can see myself watching it repeatedly. I tend to own movies that aren't so artsy and important, but I have a few.
So, without further adieu, then, here is my, pippin06's, patented, registered trademarked and copyrighted rating system. That's right, I said this rating system is copyrighted, so go find your own! Or, just ask nicely and give some credit where credit is due.
On a scale of 10 to 1:
10 - The movie is perfection, or as I like to call it, a masterpiece! There's nothing wrong that I can see, and I defy anyone to try. Movies I have rated as masterpieces: Walk the Line, To Kill a Mockingbird, Lord of the Rings, Good Night, and Good Luck, Gladiator, Crouching Tiger, and so on.
9 - The movie is not quite perfect, but it has very little wrong with it. Chances are, it is at least perfectly entertaining. Movies I have rated as "perfectly entertaining": Love Actually, Bridget Jones' Diary, Chicago, Scent of a Woman, Oklahoma!, Cars, and so on.
8 - The movie has minor flaws but is still very good. Many of the films in my filmblog have received 8's or "very goods."
7 - The movie has some major flaws, or the work of the film is shaky, but I still felt entertained watching it. I rated the DaVinci Code as "shaky", for example.
6 - The film is flawed to the point of mediocrity, but it had something about it I liked, so I tend to call it "cute." Often, "cute" films have recycled plots, such as predictable romantic comedies or the rash of CGI films that aren't very good lately. I gave Elizabethtown and Two Weeks' Notice 6's.
5 - The film is utter mediocrity. It's not horrible, but it can't be called good, though it was a decent effort. I rated films like The Kid, Wedding Crashers, and the Pink Panther as "mediocre."
4 - Fair, or less than mediocre. These films were based on good or intriguing ideas, but the idea was not pulled off at all. I gave Unbreakable a "fair." I still hold to that to this day. Nothing can convince me that Samuel L. Jackson was a good casting choice for that flick.
3 - This is what I call the "what'choo talkin bout Willis" rating, or simply, the WTF category. The concept is nonsensical or preposterous; the filmmaking does not make up for it; the concept, therefore, is lost and so is the movie. I can't remember a recent movie I gave a 3 to, so I'll have to think about this one.
2 - This film can only be called Bad. There's nothing else to say other than don't bother with the rental. Pauly Shore movies tend to get 2's from me.
1 - This rating is rare but is subtitled, "So bad that anyone involved in this movie should be shot." Sorority Boys is a good example of this type of movie. I don't usually go there, but sometimes it has to be done.
So, there's my ratings system, if you care. I know I do because, hey, it's mine. Now all I have to do is watch more movies, and you'll see this fascinating ratings system in action.
Oh, and for the record, I'm not usually so obsessively narcissistic. I'm clearly developing my "critic's voice." How's it coming so far?
;-)