I generally rate by how a movie makes me feel. Understanding comes with time and possibly rewatches, neither speak on the quality of the film in my opinion. But if a movie leaves you feeling a certain way then it’s done it’s job.
So I know what I’m meant to think about it!
Facetiousness aside, I think that wider consensus does have an influence on our opinions - especially how much benefit of the doubt to give to stuff like empty space in a film, or confusing and unclear elements. If everyone says the movie sucks, we might write that off as boring nothingness and nonsensical crap, while if we know it is highly revered (and don’t want to seem like an idiot) we might be more inclined to view it as deep and abstract and meaningful. Consciously or otherwise.
Gotcha. Fair enough, but compliments to those willingly to look like idiots for the art they care for and look for positives where others don’t see them.
> compliments to those willingly to look like idiots for the art they care for and look for positives where others don’t see them.
Yeah, I think this is something worth consciously struggling for, even if our subconscious biases try to urge us to conform.
As one of the folks who adheres to the practices of the comment you’re replying to, I wholeheartedly embrace a world that adheres to the philosophy you lay out here
I see too many people, especially on Letterboxd, try too hard to justify why they do or don’t like a film from as objective a perspective as possible, especially if their opinion is generally unpopular, so that other people can agree with them.
The reasons you like or don’t like movie don’t have to be reasonable, you don’t have to justify your rating. Give it a good rating if you liked and a bad rating if you didn’t, whether a movie was good or bad to you is subjective, but at least be honest with why you feel that way.
People are too worried about what other people think about what they think about movies.
I was fully expecting the title to have some complex metaphorical meaning, and I wouldn't understand it, but then a certain scene happens, and it somehow becomes the most literal thing about the film.
Do you rate movies based on how much you enjoy them or the level of filmmaking? I have a lot of high rated movies that aren’t necessarily “good”, but I enjoy because of a character, memory, enjoyability factor, or vibe
There’s no genuine distinction between the two. If you enjoyed it, then you liked it’s “level of filmmaking”. If you’re basing things on what others consider “good”, then you’re not really rating things, you’re just going with what it’s average is.
If you think the movies you rate highly aren’t “good”, then you have no confidence in your opinions, and you should because everyone has their own.
Obviously I'm exaggerating for comedic effect and those aren't the only ratings I use lol
Generally 2 is for movies I didn't like but weren't *that bad* and 3 is for movies I didn't like but I recognize they did something interesting/were generally competent.
I change and edit my reviews days after- typically after maybe picking up on some new things or comparing it to other films I enjoyed.
For example i recently watched Cruising (1980) by William Friedkin and only got the double entendre in the name later (cops cruise and gay men too)- that and upon more research on the films development gave it another star for me. I found a new appreciation post watch.
it’s easy for people to say that but some people like myself have ocd like tendencies. i will check my ratings and my lists after watching a movie maybe 20 times to make sure nothing has changed.
on the same note as that, my brain freaks out if i don’t rate every film i watch. it’s the same reason i don’t review them. my brain works on an all or none scale and it is frustrating but it’s just how i function
"Understanding" a piece of art is impossible. To me, that'd imply an objective meaning.
If a film leaves me short with answers, but otherwise looks miraculous and just feels right, it probably has tons of rewatch potential. I don't feel strange giving out a very high rating to such a film on first watch.
I think OP by "understanding" means getting the depicted events right rather than getting what was expressed by the film.
You may continue arguing as the events are subjectively perceived but there are objective qualities to those; Shrek has a green humanoid going on a quest. Arguing with this statement is either engaging in sophistry, demagogueing on the contrarian side, or abusing semantics. Shrek's ultimate theme is love trascends all. This statement is a lot easier to argue against, because it's an interpretation of what a piece of art means. This is disambiguation I felt needed to be pointed out.
>I think OP by "understanding" means getting the depicted events right rather than getting what was expressed by the film.
True, true. Non-linear storytelling trips me up a lot. Also, having no relationship with what a film is adapting often makes my viewing feel almost meaningless. I don't often see myself rating such things extremely high or low when I have these troubles though.
>You may continue arguing as the events are subjectively perceived but there are objective qualities to those; Shrek has a green humanoid going on a quest. Arguing with this statement is either engaging in sophistry, demagogueing on the contrarian side, or abusing semantics. Shrek's ultimate theme is love trascends all. This statement is a lot easier to argue against, because it's an interpretation of what a piece of art means. This is disambiguation I felt needed to be pointed out.
Absolutely haha. When I was posting this my head immediately went to thinking about stuff more on the anti-narrative side of cinema, because I've been enjoying a bit of it lately. We need more of this ambiguity in the seventh art!
Eh. If it's dumb and doesn't work for me, it doesn't work for me. I understood vanilla sky, which could be seen as confusing, but just wasn't into it. I feel like a second rewatch might be needed now that I get what's going on but there's too much to watch and too little time.
Though it’s a very close remake (same director, same female lead) iirc? But yes, Vanilla Sky removes the ambiguity from the ending and gives it a more positive spin.
I just rate on gut feeling and only believe in my own taste disregarding all other plebeian opinions. I’m the supreme tastemaker here, it’s an instinctual talent to be so spot on with films like I am. I’m essentially THE guy to ask what a good movie is. But I won’t tell you 🥴
sometimes I rate movies that I was completely bored at or mostly bored at 2 or 3 stars because I recognise the artisticness of it, but don't neccesarily like it
I wouldn't say I'd go that far, but yeah I tend to be a bit guilty of this. With the the exception of Berberian Sound Studio, which I didn't understand so strongly I felt like I couldn't even assign a rating to it and chickened out.
Either go with your gut - well, that was interesting a least vs god I was bored - or just log it watched.
If you try to write out your responses and give it time to percolate, usually your gut will give you a response, even if your head is left far behind.
And I deeply feel that the stars should reflect your personal response, not the masses'. You want to know what you thought, and so do any followers you might have.
Me: "Damn this film kinda sucks I didn't understand it at all"
*sees that most letterboxd users rate it 5 stars*
Me: "This film is a complex masterpiece that is not easily understood by many"
I generally rate by how a movie makes me feel. Understanding comes with time and possibly rewatches, neither speak on the quality of the film in my opinion. But if a movie leaves you feeling a certain way then it’s done it’s job.
This is the way. Movies aren't essays; they're art. (At least... they can be.)
they can be both. Godard certainly treated them like essays lol (and I like that about his stuff)
Bad take
Movies are art is a bad take?
*Quickly glances at average user rating...*
Just need to quickly make sure my opinions are valid…
Wait really? Why?
So I know what I’m meant to think about it! Facetiousness aside, I think that wider consensus does have an influence on our opinions - especially how much benefit of the doubt to give to stuff like empty space in a film, or confusing and unclear elements. If everyone says the movie sucks, we might write that off as boring nothingness and nonsensical crap, while if we know it is highly revered (and don’t want to seem like an idiot) we might be more inclined to view it as deep and abstract and meaningful. Consciously or otherwise.
Gotcha. Fair enough, but compliments to those willingly to look like idiots for the art they care for and look for positives where others don’t see them.
> compliments to those willingly to look like idiots for the art they care for and look for positives where others don’t see them. Yeah, I think this is something worth consciously struggling for, even if our subconscious biases try to urge us to conform.
As one of the folks who adheres to the practices of the comment you’re replying to, I wholeheartedly embrace a world that adheres to the philosophy you lay out here
This is why I don't rate movies with stars, I just mark the ones that I thought were good as "liked"
Same
Based
The Emperors new clothes syndrome.
I think you can still vibe with a movie you don’t fully understand
Me with 2001
Same
I see too many people, especially on Letterboxd, try too hard to justify why they do or don’t like a film from as objective a perspective as possible, especially if their opinion is generally unpopular, so that other people can agree with them. The reasons you like or don’t like movie don’t have to be reasonable, you don’t have to justify your rating. Give it a good rating if you liked and a bad rating if you didn’t, whether a movie was good or bad to you is subjective, but at least be honest with why you feel that way. People are too worried about what other people think about what they think about movies.
Me with Eraserhead
I was fully expecting the title to have some complex metaphorical meaning, and I wouldn't understand it, but then a certain scene happens, and it somehow becomes the most literal thing about the film.
This is a film I just logged and didn't review. I did ask a film sub why they liked it and I got a lot of great responses though
I recently watched it as well, gave it 2.5
Me with every David Lynch movie, except Lost Highway and The Straight Story.
lost highway is possibly one of his most difficult to understand haha
If I like it...4. If it's shit,1.
What’s 5
Perfection. As good as a movie can get. There's zero higher rating. Probably a handful of movies I've seen.
Do you rate movies based on how much you enjoy them or the level of filmmaking? I have a lot of high rated movies that aren’t necessarily “good”, but I enjoy because of a character, memory, enjoyability factor, or vibe
Just how much I enjoy them. I'm not educated in film enough to evaluate based on film making.
There’s no genuine distinction between the two. If you enjoyed it, then you liked it’s “level of filmmaking”. If you’re basing things on what others consider “good”, then you’re not really rating things, you’re just going with what it’s average is. If you think the movies you rate highly aren’t “good”, then you have no confidence in your opinions, and you should because everyone has their own.
Yeah I agree, I meant “good” by Letterboxd averages not by my thoughts on them my fault for making it confusing
I’m always flipping between these distinctions.
same it depends on my mood at the time
If it made me vibe, five stars. If I didn't vibe, 1 star. If I only vibed a little, 4 stars. (that's how I rate all the movies)
What are 2&3 then?
Obviously I'm exaggerating for comedic effect and those aren't the only ratings I use lol Generally 2 is for movies I didn't like but weren't *that bad* and 3 is for movies I didn't like but I recognize they did something interesting/were generally competent.
you don't HAVE to rate movies when you log them
Or you can just rate based on your gut feeling at the moment, and freely change that rating as and if your feelings evolve.
I change and edit my reviews days after- typically after maybe picking up on some new things or comparing it to other films I enjoyed. For example i recently watched Cruising (1980) by William Friedkin and only got the double entendre in the name later (cops cruise and gay men too)- that and upon more research on the films development gave it another star for me. I found a new appreciation post watch.
Friedkin's one of my favorite filmmakers, but Cruising is still on my to-do list. Really must give it a watch this year.
Oh it’s so hot and beautiful, quite controversial at the time - I still can’t believe a Al Pacino took this role right after The Godfather.
Many options!
it’s easy for people to say that but some people like myself have ocd like tendencies. i will check my ratings and my lists after watching a movie maybe 20 times to make sure nothing has changed. on the same note as that, my brain freaks out if i don’t rate every film i watch. it’s the same reason i don’t review them. my brain works on an all or none scale and it is frustrating but it’s just how i function
"Understanding" a piece of art is impossible. To me, that'd imply an objective meaning. If a film leaves me short with answers, but otherwise looks miraculous and just feels right, it probably has tons of rewatch potential. I don't feel strange giving out a very high rating to such a film on first watch.
I think OP by "understanding" means getting the depicted events right rather than getting what was expressed by the film. You may continue arguing as the events are subjectively perceived but there are objective qualities to those; Shrek has a green humanoid going on a quest. Arguing with this statement is either engaging in sophistry, demagogueing on the contrarian side, or abusing semantics. Shrek's ultimate theme is love trascends all. This statement is a lot easier to argue against, because it's an interpretation of what a piece of art means. This is disambiguation I felt needed to be pointed out.
>I think OP by "understanding" means getting the depicted events right rather than getting what was expressed by the film. True, true. Non-linear storytelling trips me up a lot. Also, having no relationship with what a film is adapting often makes my viewing feel almost meaningless. I don't often see myself rating such things extremely high or low when I have these troubles though. >You may continue arguing as the events are subjectively perceived but there are objective qualities to those; Shrek has a green humanoid going on a quest. Arguing with this statement is either engaging in sophistry, demagogueing on the contrarian side, or abusing semantics. Shrek's ultimate theme is love trascends all. This statement is a lot easier to argue against, because it's an interpretation of what a piece of art means. This is disambiguation I felt needed to be pointed out. Absolutely haha. When I was posting this my head immediately went to thinking about stuff more on the anti-narrative side of cinema, because I've been enjoying a bit of it lately. We need more of this ambiguity in the seventh art!
Eh. If it's dumb and doesn't work for me, it doesn't work for me. I understood vanilla sky, which could be seen as confusing, but just wasn't into it. I feel like a second rewatch might be needed now that I get what's going on but there's too much to watch and too little time.
Better watch "Abre los ojos" then if you haven't.
Is it basically the same thing? Edit: Google even says vanilla sky is an adaptation of this. Didn't realize vanilla sky is a remake.
I've watched both long time ago, but remember Vanilla Sky being a bit lesser and more sugar coated as an experience.
Though it’s a very close remake (same director, same female lead) iirc? But yes, Vanilla Sky removes the ambiguity from the ending and gives it a more positive spin.
I just rate on gut feeling and only believe in my own taste disregarding all other plebeian opinions. I’m the supreme tastemaker here, it’s an instinctual talent to be so spot on with films like I am. I’m essentially THE guy to ask what a good movie is. But I won’t tell you 🥴
sometimes I rate movies that I was completely bored at or mostly bored at 2 or 3 stars because I recognise the artisticness of it, but don't neccesarily like it
I wouldn't say I'd go that far, but yeah I tend to be a bit guilty of this. With the the exception of Berberian Sound Studio, which I didn't understand so strongly I felt like I couldn't even assign a rating to it and chickened out.
I gave Citizen Kane no rating and just logged it. It felt weird to try to pin a rating on it just for the film itself. That's rare for me though
same
Just log it without a rating man
[удалено]
How did you mess up on all 5 letters…
I watched end of evangelion for the first time a few weeks ago and it’s the only film I’ve never given a star rating
If this is true, George Ndebele, then all your reviews lack credibility.
Startling!!!! You should try a rollercoaster
Me watching Memoria and Seventh Seal
Me after watching Baghead
[удалено]
2008
me at blade runner 2049
I just rate what I wanna
Me
it makes no damn sense! compels me though
I gave Persona a 3.5 due to this, it was beautiful and well acted but I didn’t understand it at all
thats why i dont rate lol.
mulholland drive👀
Either go with your gut - well, that was interesting a least vs god I was bored - or just log it watched. If you try to write out your responses and give it time to percolate, usually your gut will give you a response, even if your head is left far behind. And I deeply feel that the stars should reflect your personal response, not the masses'. You want to know what you thought, and so do any followers you might have.
Regular copium
If a movie bores me and I can't recall how well made the film was, I just don't rate it
Me: "Damn this film kinda sucks I didn't understand it at all" *sees that most letterboxd users rate it 5 stars* Me: "This film is a complex masterpiece that is not easily understood by many"
I usually give movies that I don’t understand a 2, because at least it’s interesting enough to make me think.
99% of the time when I watch a movie I just don’t understand at all I’ll log it with no rating.