The Criterion Collection

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by Wildcat47

I give Tree of Life a 9.53728/10.

hardy har har.

[ccfixx]

Originally Posted by Fenris

+1 And I like to see some people's opinions on here about the films. Sue me.

Opinions are irrelevant. That's why I hardly ever post my opinions because 9 out of 10 times people just come off sounding ignorant. Plus, my opinions don't matter at all in this world... only to me. No one in this forum knows what they're talking about. That is a fact.

Instead of people just throwing throwing up a bunch of film titles and numbers, why aren't they breaking down their numerical grading scale for us so that we can better understand how they've come to their wonderful conclusion about a particular film. We have no idea what merits their basing these people are basing their number grading on. Would someone that gives a 3/5 rating for a film like Gummo the same rating on a film like Thor? Who knows? For all we know, a person could have bias their ratings based on the types of movies that they're watching. That's why all of these numbers are garbage to anyone except for the person that has listed them. Too many people have come to rely on ratings and lists instead of forming their own opinions, I think. Ratings and lists of whatever are foolish to everyone but the creator of such things.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by ccfixx

Too many people have come to rely on ratings and lists instead of forming their own opinions, I think.

CG : Year 1. You are so pretentious sir.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by ccfixx

That's why I hardly ever post my opinions...

Where are the :rubeyes: and :doubletake: emoticons when you really need them?

[Tom Hiddleston]

Originally Posted by ccfixx

Opinions are irrelevant. That's why I hardly ever post my opinions because 9 out of 10 times people just come off sounding ignorant. Plus, my opinions don't matter at all in this world... only to me. No one in this forum knows what their talking about. That is a fact.

Instead of people just throwing throwing up a bunch of film titles and numbers, why aren't they breaking down their numerical grading scale for us so that we can better understand how they've come to their wonderful conclusion about a particular film. We have no idea what merits their basing these people are basing their number grading on. Would someone that gives a 3/5 rating for a film like Gummo the same rating on a film like Thor? Who knows? For all we know, a person could have bias their ratings based on the types of movies that they're watching. That's why all of these numbers are garbage to anyone except for the person that has listed them. Too many people have come to rely on ratings and lists instead of forming their own opinions, I think. Ratings and lists of whatever are foolish to everyone but the creator of such things.

I like to compare my numbers to other people's if I have seen the film(s) I'm just a lurker in the thread. I do not post my opinions often because I always sound like an idjit, and I also do not feel like posting long, drawn out comments that no one will read. I do form my own opinions about the films, that's one reason why I like to see other people's opinions. Compare and contrast. I'd give Gummo a 4/5, and Thor a 2/5.

[Jr7936]

I just saw music room, it was a blind buy but an excellent one at that. The music was so awesome, and it's a film I cant wait to watch again and eventually see other movies from the same director

[Barrysupreme]

Originally Posted by SHMACKDOJO

I just watched Hunger. Honestly, there's not much of a story here. It's well directed, but the structure (or lack thereof) bugged me. I really enjoyed the first half, but at only 96 minutes, about a fifth of that running time is a dialogue between Michael Fassbender and a priest awkwardly sandwiched in the middle of the movie.

It's an interesting conversation, but director Steve McQueen (tee hee) holds one shot for the majority of it. I suppose it's interesting that he wanted to let the performances shine, but it wasn't visually interesting enough to really hold my attention. I ended up listening to most of it while my eyes wandered.

There's only about half an hour of movie left after that scene, and only one significant thing happens. Slowly. 2.5/5

I think you'll find that the 23 minute dialogue scene is the story it sets up the whole film, watched it yesterday myself for the second time and found it to be amazing, if a little hard to watch at times, definately one of my favs.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by Fenris

I like to compare my numbers to other people's if I have seen the film(s) I'm just a lurker in the thread. I do not post my opinions often because I always sound like an idjit, and I also do not feel like posting long, drawn out comments that no one will read. I do form my own opinions about the films, that's one reason why I like to see other people's opinions. Compare and contrast. I'd give Gummo a 4/5, and Thor a 2/5.

This. It does facilitate discussion on why a film was rated as such, and I'll be more than happy to explain why I rated films like I did, if prompted because there is such a thing as a character limit per post.

Also, someone asked to post ratings.

[Crimson King]

Is "Somthing Wild" worth that blind buy?
Yes, believe it or not I have not seen it, but I'm a big fan of Jonathan Demme's "Melvin and Howard" (that one begs for the Criterion treatment in the future IMO)

[Monty70]

Originally Posted by BillyJack

Is "Somthing Wild" worth that blind buy?
Yes, believe it or not I have not seen it, but I'm a big fan of Jonathan Demme's "Melvin and Howard" (that one begs for the Criterion treatment in the future IMO)

Is (insert random movie here) worth a blind buy questions are really hard to answer. (after all, I don't know what kind of films you enjoy) I have enjoyed all of the Criterion films that I have seen besides one or two. (obviously some more then others) For example, Chasing Amy was not my cup of tea at all.

Something Wild is a funny road film with an interesting love story. (and a kickass soundtrack) If this type of film appeals to you then I would pick it up, especially at $20.00. The extras are a bit slim though unfortunately.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by ccfixx

I wanna blow my effin' brains out after reading through all these pointless ratings lists. Why is it that people in all forums like to create lists? For the love of Beelzebub and Saló, WHY?

because lists are fun and cause no harm to anyone else? and most people don't freak out over such things?

Originally Posted by SpiderBaby

Well, atleast you said it first, so we don't have 3 pages of backlash from my post. Though, wtf is with .5s? It's bad enough putting numbers on freedom in artform, and matching them up against another film that has no comparisons.

no one was matching them up against the other films in their lists, at least, i never do that and i don't think anyone else meant to we were just making lists of the Criterion titles we've seen and then giving each film our assigned score on how we feel about it. i never rate a film and say, "well, i gave Revanche a 4.5/5, and i liked Black Moon a lot less, so it MUST get no more than a 2/5."

i've never looked at a list and thought they were comparing all said films listed.

Then someone goes and can't decide on a whole number, so they put half? You either love it or you don't. There isn't a science to it.

what? lol no way is it that simple. so you either love or hate something? so everything you love you love equal amounts? i'm gonna go out on a limb and say, "no" but maybe that is the case. i do not know.

and there are tons of films that i think are just i could never assign if i "love it" or "hate it" because those feelings are a bit too much emphasis for some films.

still don't quite get your issue with giving a film a score that ends in .5 though, much like how CC apparently vomits blood uncontrollably at the site of lists, i don't understand the issue with giving a film a 4.5/5?

And this word gets thrown around ALOT, but I don't think you can get more "pretentious" than .5s.

even more puzzled...

Originally Posted by ccfixx

Opinions are irrelevant. That's why I hardly ever post my opinions because 9 out of 10 times people just come off sounding ignorant. Plus, my opinions don't matter at all in this world... only to me. No one in this forum knows what their talking about. That is a fact.

lol then why are any of us on this site and posting anything about anything?

yeah, i don't take opinions as facts or think about them when watching something, but if i ask 30 people to give me their SCORE of a film and 25 give it at least a 4/5 and 5 of the 30 give it a 3/5 or less, i am now given a starting point for how people are receiving it. from there i can ask what their tastes are and list some movies they like of the same genre or such. but if i ask those 30 people for their SCORE of the film and 25 say 3/5 or less, generally i take that to mean the film wasn't anything special, and while i may watch it eventually (to judge for myself) it would get put on hold while i watch something i'm more interested in and has more positive overall score / impressions.

Instead of people just throwing throwing up a bunch of film titles and numbers, why aren't they breaking down their numerical grading scale for us so that we can better understand how they've come to their wonderful conclusion about a particular film. We have no idea what merits their basing these people are basing their number grading on.

but, if our opinions don't matter, what does informing of our grading scales matter?

i generally look at scores and the numbers as a very basic guide. such as:

1/5 - pretty much terrible all the way around
2/5 - not awful, but not even "okay"
3/5 - an okay film with some bright spots
4/5 - very good, a few moments of excellence
5/5 - incredible. maybe not a "masterpiece" but a terrific film that's been very much enjoyed.

or varying degrees of this.

Would someone that gives a 3/5 rating for a film like Gummo the same rating on a film like Thor?

uh, sure? why not? i don't know how / why you and Spider Baby have this idea that all the films in the world that someone gives a score to is based on previous films that they've viewed? i've never looked at it that way. and 20 years from now you'd never remember your feelings on a film you saw way back when if trying to compare it to what you just saw today, so that "scale" of doing things would be illogical in no time.

For all we know, a person could have bias their ratings based on the types of movies that they're watching.

true. but if you think that, just ask?

That's why all of these numbers are garbage to anyone except for the person that has listed them. Too many people have come to rely on ratings and lists instead of forming their own opinions, I think. Ratings and lists of whatever are foolish to everyone but the creator of such things.

did you have a bad relationship with lists when you were younger? you seem to really hate lists, which baffles me. probably because i love lists but i never look at them as the end all be all. it's just neat to see what someone else feels about a film. and instead of them writing a six page diatribe about every single film they watch, assigning a score to it is easier, quicker and (for me) more logical and easy to understand.

not trying to get under yours and Spider Baby's skin, just was shocked when i saw people could hate things with such a passion that have no reflection to them!

[colinrgeorge]

Originally Posted by ccfixx

Would someone that gives a 3/5 rating for a film like Gummo the same rating on a film like Thor? Who knows? For all we know, a person could have bias their ratings based on the types of movies that they're watching. That's why all of these numbers are garbage to anyone except for the person that has listed them.

Maybe you missed it, but I addressed this:

It's my personal favorites that I rate most highly. While 8 1/2 is a technically masterful and subversive work of art, it doesn't quite strike that emotional chord that makes a film great in my eyes. Although I gave it a 3.5, I'd never suggest that it's "on par" with something like Super 8, which I also gave 3.5/5.

The rating is relative to cinema classics rather than relative to all films in all genres.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by ccfixx

Opinions are irrelevant. That's why I hardly ever post my opinions because 9 out of 10 times people just come off sounding ignorant. Plus, my opinions don't matter at all in this world... only to me. No one in this forum knows what their talking about. That is a fact.Instead of people just throwing throwing up a bunch of film titles and numbers, why aren't they breaking down their numerical grading scale for us so that we can better understand how they've come to their wonderful conclusion about a particular film. We have no idea what merits their basing these people are basing their number grading on. Would someone that gives a 3/5 rating for a film like Gummo the same rating on a film like Thor? Who knows? For all we know, a person could have bias their ratings based on the types of movies that they're watching. That's why all of these numbers are garbage to anyone except for the person that has listed them. Too many people have come to rely on ratings and lists instead of forming their own opinions, I think. Ratings and lists of whatever are foolish to everyone but the creator of such things.

I like that-- you are 100% correct!

[Monty70]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

I like that-- you are 100% correct!

Didn't you just give an opinion?

[myka22]

Have people here actually watched all 572 Criterion dvds/blu-rays? I've been slowly working at it, seen around 150 now.

[Taipan]

So my new additions to my small collection:

The 400 blows
Charade
M
Monsoon wedding
Revanche
Videodrome

I have only seen parts of Videodrome, and none of the others. Should be fun watching them.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

You forgot:
0.5/5 - very much terrible all the way around
1.5/5 - awful
2.5/5 - okay but no bright spots
3.5/5 - very good but no moments of excellence
4.5/5 - excellent but not incredible or terrific

Personally, since stars have five points, I rate everything using fifths.

i use the .5 scale as well, mainly because if something is better than a 4 does NOT mean it's a 5/5, that'd just be crazy. but i figured i didn't want to piss off Spider Baby by putting the .5's in there

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by Monty70

Didn't you just give an opinion?

why, yes I did!!

[ShellOilJunior]

Can someone give me their ratings on these paintings?

-Madonna on the Rocks
-Starry Night
-Mona Lisa
-Cezanne's fruit bowl
-Waterlillies at Giverny
-the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel

Thanks in advance!

[SpiderBaby]

Well atleast I got a friend in it this time...........Thanks CC for kicking it off.