What is the validity of ranking unlike films?

[JonathanLB]

How valid is it really to make a list and basically say, "The Count of Monte Cristo is better than Remember the Titans." I mean, given that I loved both films, it seems rather hard to say which is actually better to me. The films are totally unrelated, don't have many of the same themes at all, and it ends up seeming a little ridiculous.

Just in general, how do you even decide what film goes where?

I can clearly say that Shrek was better than Ice Age, or that I liked Toy Story just a little bit more than Shrek, or that Toy Story 2, I thought, was slightly better than the first one even. They are in the same genre and comparisons just seem really easy.

But to say Shrek is better than Resident Evil, it just seems like a funny thing to say. Yeah, I gave it a higher rating, but better at what? It's not a better action film, certainly not a better horror film. Both films, IMO, are very good at what they set out to do. So it just seems difficult to rank any unlike films pretty much.

Alien is better than A.I., I can say that even though I really, really like both films.

So what ultimately helps you decide if so and so film is better than so and so other film in a totally different genre?

I think lists of same-category rankings are typically more effective anyway. If someone mainly likes comedy, it's going to seem idiotic to them if Groundhog Day is below Aliens, for instance, but if they just wanted comedy and found an entire list of 100 great comedy films, that would seem to be more useful.

[CMJ]

It is hard to rank unlike films Jonathan, I know what you mean. Yet...I do it anyways. :) Several things factor into ranking of unlike films for me...but I'm sure everyone's criteria would be different.

It's just fun..or at least I find it so. Not sure if it's "valid" per se...I just do it for me. ;)

[sirdizzy]

i kind of rank them how i like them but i categorize them too

like best comedy
best drama
best action flick


and then i just have my alltime favorites movies i could watch a 1000 times like star wars axctually i have probably seen star wars a 1000 times

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by JonathanLB
How valid is it really to make a list and basically say, "The Count of Monte Cristo is better than Remember the Titans." I mean, given that I loved both films, it seems rather hard to say which is actually better to me. The films are totally unrelated, don't have many of the same themes at all, and it ends up seeming a little ridiculous.

For me it's not a matter of being better, but a matter of which one I liked best. Or which one I enjoyed more or which one I got involved most in. I grade all movies I watch and rank them accordingly. Works perfect for me.

[Champion of the Force]

I think it comes down to how you're ranking them.

For instance, if you were ranking based on individual quality, then yes it probably would be hard since each and every films has it's own ups and downs.

But based on something universal such as how much enjoyment you had? I think like Dutchy that you can rank even unlike films satisfactorily.

I guess it comes down to the individual.

[JonathanLB]

I agree that you certainly CAN rank them, I do it all of the time, but it ends up being very difficult on many many occassions. For instance, The Matrix has more pure entertainment value as far as "oooh" and "ahhh" than The Game, but so what? I still think The Game is a better movie. Also, sometimes a movie that I really only want to see maybe one or two times is actually a much better film than one I will see 5 times. Take Thirteen Days, for instance. I gave it four stars, a rating I rarely give, yet I was reluctant to buy the film on DVD until I could get it used, yet I have tons of films in my collection that only get 3 to 3.5 stars. Why? Well, they are simply more enjoyable movies on a consistent basis.

Tommy Boy, a classic many people would say, is still what I consider a 3.5 star film. However, I could watch that movie once per month and not be like, "Oh boy, not that again!" yet if I had to see Thirteen Days once per month I'd go nuts. It's a great film, but it has little replay value. I've seen it twice and I don't really plan to see it again until probably years from now, lol.

Sometimes I will even buy a three star movie that I think has good replay value, even though it's not a very good movie whatsoever. It's "good," which can be solid entertainment, and if it's crammed with effects and great action, I'm much more likely to see it many more times.

Saving Private Ryan is not a movie I really care to see again. It was good, but I think way overrated, and it was just too graphic at the start for me to want to have to "go through that" again, so to speak, hehe.

Oh yeah, I think I gave Vertical Limit three stars, but I bought it anyway because I felt the action and cinematography made it an entertaining enough film that I could see my friends and I watching it and then I figured I'd see it again too a few times.

I am biased against comedy films as far as my "top lists" of the year go, though. I love comedy, it's definitely one of my favorite genres, but I don't believe that comedy films deserve 4 stars unless they have some type of important message in them or are simply the best done in their entire genre. Heck I have seen Office Space 5 times in 7 months, but I still gave it only 3.5 stars I think. It could get an upgrade eventually because I'm not quite sure 3.5 is accurate. I mean, it probably isn't. But that's how reluctant I am normally to award a comedy with the highest accolade.

I'll give comedies 3.5 stars all of the time, but for me to push it up to 4 definitely takes a special movie. It's just easier putting a drama at the top of my list for the year than comedy. Although I also love action movies, and you guys know that, I am the same way with them. I feel bad about giving any action movie 4 stars. I just don't think they are 4 star films unless they have a deeper message, a very good storyline, exceptional acting, or are simply action at its best (at least Die Hard, the first one, qualifies for this, the other two are 3.5 star films I think). If I had an action movie as my #1 film of the year, that would really bother me. LOL, I mean it could happen theoretically but it tends not to be like that.

In 2001, it was an epic film, Lord of the Rings. Totally deserving of a top spot, and it was just ahead of A.I., which had an epic scope indeed and quite advanced ideas and morals there, raising an important question that may soon face humanity. It was a thought-provoking, brilliantly created film.

In 2000 it was Gladiator, which is another epic film, this time a revenge story that has some great action, but also great acting and dialogue, amazing production values, and superior directing.

In 1999, The Phantom Menace, the third straight epic film (counting backwards) and one that also has a bit of everything (except romance, really, not much of that there...AOTC has that, hehe).

In 1998 I believe that was The Truman Show if I am remembering my years right, which is a drama.

In 1997 it was The Game, which is more of a mind-twisting thriller I suppose.

Who knows about 1996, like I remember.

1995 was Braveheart, another epic movie. See a trend? Haha.

1994 was probably The Shawshank Redemption. Not epic, but a prison drama driven by great acting, a great script, and, dang, what an ending.

I cannot personally imagine a comedy or an action film (in the pure sense of the word, i.e. Jackie Chan, John Woo, Jet Li, Bruckheimer, etc.) taking my top spot for a year. Definitely they make the top ten (Shrek in 2001, The One in 2001), but it's very hard even for that to happen.

I do not think it is actually a "bias" as far as my reviewing, because I have no qualms about giving any film whatever rating I feel it deserves, but a film that sets out only to make me laugh will not get four stars. Even Office Space, in my opinion, has a very important lesson. It's not cotton candy comedy. Same goes for action. If all the film wants to do is show me a lot of really sweet action, it certainly could be a very entertaining, very fun movie, but it's going to get 3.5 stars unless it is one of the best I have ever seen in its genre. Then again, if it's Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or The Matrix and is not truly just about the great, awesome action, then four stars is not so hard to attain at all ;)

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by JonathanLB
I gave it four stars, a rating I rarely give

Rarely? I remember you said you give 10 movies a four star rating a year, which isn't rarely at all, I'd say.

By the way, in another thread you said you saw way better performances than Jennifer Connelly's Oscar winning performance last year and I asked you which ones. I'd still be interested to hear that from you.

[JonathanLB]

You'd have to give me a while to consider the other performances I saw and that way I could think about it, but in general if Connelly was the best, yikes, that's pretty scary for the actresses. But that is a good point, there are always so many great performances by male leads and supporting males, yet there are just very very few notable actresses. There are plenty I can think of who are extremely hot, but that doesn't make them extremely talented unfortunately. In fact, many of them leave a lot to be desired as far as acting.

Dutchy, I don't give many four star ratings, it takes a lot to get four stars. Then again I'm not a tightwad, moronic critic either, so I give whatever rating a film deserves. Some people are so stupid they are under the misguided impression that four stars somehow means perfection, when in fact four stars just means "excellent" and it always has just been that. An "A" in any class is not perfection. It is just excellence. Out of 30 students in a class, at least 4 to 5 of them will generally get A's in my experience. Sometimes you'll have 10 to 12 A students because of grade inflation, but using a more competitive, curved type of scale you're going to have between, say, 3 and 5 students with A's.

I have seen 32 movies with 2002 release dates and given 3 of them four star ratings. That is less than one in ten. A lot of time and money went into all of those 32 films, most likely, and yet not even 10% come out being excellent.

I do not attempt to be a harsh critic, it's not something I would take pride in (it just means you're not enjoying as many movies), but I certainly don't hand out that many four star ratings. I thought for sure Panic Room would be four stars, but I had to give it 3.5. It was still very good though.

10 four star ratings a year after seeing about 60 to 75 movies is still very rarely, especially given that I intentionally saw only the movies I most wanted to see in those 60 to 75.

Dutchy, since you love getting on my case for the sake of coming across as a dick, how many critics do you think give fewer than ten four star ratings per year? I'll bet you not many. The Academy nominates 5 films for best picture and those are meant to be four star films, so at least you have half right there, and there are generally other films that deserved consideration but didn't ultimately end up making the final five.

Now I do not happen to agree with the Oscar nominees for best picture nor would I give them four stars (except LOTR), but I guarantee that if a critic makes a top 10 list for the year, all of those films on it are going to be four star movies. Probably a few more, but then again they see more films slightly than I do per year (not as many more now, but in past years certainly way more).

Now if you asked me how many A+ grades I give per year, it would be much lower, probably more like 1 to 2. Plenty of films creep into the four star range with A- ratings and definitely were excellent films, but by no means classics.

Many more movies get 3.5 star ratings for sure, there are plenty of those types of films. I gave two 3.5 star ratings this weekend a lot, it was a great weekend. Already 6 or 7 this year I think. That is a solid B+ grade.

In relationship to how many movies I see, my four star rating mark is definitely very rare.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by JonathanLB
Dutchy, since you love getting on my case for the sake of coming across as a dick

Yep, I'm a dick with a woman's taste. :)