• gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      55 seconds ago

      It depends entirely on the movie.

      Like one of my all time favourite movies is Pacific Rim, because it’s goal is simply to be a bad ass and fun movie where robots fight giant monsters and it succeeds at that incredible.

      It doesn’t pretend there’s some big important ehtic dilemma or it’s characters are particularly deep or go through big arcs, but it doesn’t ignore any of that either, it gives just another character to make the film work and be good without distracting from the robots.

      But then on the other hand a film like good will hunting has no giant monsters but has a great character arc that is the driving force of the movie and is also good.

  • Rhoeri@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 hour ago

    One is not a cinephile, and the other is a fantastic exaggeration of what a cinephile is.

  • nialv7@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    i think a film’s quality is multidimensional and shouldn’t be reduced to a single number.

    so i literally don’t rate films unless all aspects of it are consistently good or bad.

  • ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    I’m going to be honest, the number one way to get a good rating from me is to put a giant monster in your movie and have it fight other giant monsters OR a giant robot.

    My number one complaint about movies with kaiju and/or mecha, which can prevent them from getting five stars, is that there are usually too many scenes with people talking and advancing the plot, and not enough scenes of wanton destruction where the kaiju/mecha are brawling.

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      If you want high star rating from me, make a science fiction movie and make space silent and soundless, as it should be. Bonus points if the people in the spaceship don’t magically stick to the floor.

      Even more points if it doesn’t just follow the “Aliens” formula with some stupid variations on the theme.

      I used to have a higher bar, but shit has gotten so bad I can’t even. I don’t even know where to begin. I just want ONE good thing, is that too much to hope for???

  • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Incorporating both is the better perspective. Don’t let examining media critically stop you from liking what you like.

    • Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      5 hours ago

      The same goes the other way around: don’t let your enjoyment of something stop you from examining it critically, or, worse, (try to) stop others from doing so - which happens quite often, unfortunately.

      • Hazel@piefed.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Had a friend say this exact thing recently, completely baffled me. I didn’t like the movie we watched and was pointing things out, he was agreeing with most of it until he said something like: “yeah but overall I enjoyed the movie so I shouldn’t complain about it.”

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I used to be a huge turd for years thinking “these plebians liking will Farrell movies are so dumb, it’s a horrible movie with no plot”.

      Turns out you can enjoy two different things completely fine in life. I was just being an arrogant fuckwit

  • CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Neither perspective is good if they are to be applied generalized. There are flawed movies I enjoy, there are supposedly perfect movies I don’t enjoy. There are movies I enjoy because they challenge me and movies I don’t enjoy because they don’t. There are a lot of movies that I’ve already seen even on a first watch (looking at you, Marvel after Phase III) and dislike because of that and there are movies I watch because I’ve seen them before.

    Often (not always, remember we try not to generalize) it comes down to what is expected, what is delivered and when there is something delivered you didn’t expect, how well was the twist executed.

    Having craftsmanship be a factor in one’s rating of a movie is equally valid as how much you enjoyed it, as may be individual factors like historical plausibility, scientific accuracy or fidelity to the source material, if those things apply.

    That’s why I prefer to talk about movies instead of assign numerical ratings.

  • BillyClark@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I think people should rate things consistently, and both of those criteria in the post are fairly subjective. Like, they could both vary based on your mood.

    Here’s my 3-star rating system, which is less subjective:

    *** I would happily watch this movie again, or I have already enjoyed it multiple times.

    ** It wasn’t bad, but I don’t see myself watching it again.

    * I would refuse to watch this again, or I turned it off because I couldn’t watch it once.

    Of course, it’s not perfect. Movies like Dear Zachary would be forced to be 2 stars. But for the most part, since star reviews are to help people decide what to watch, if the criteria is whether or not people would want to watch it a lot, I think the intentions line up with the implementation better.

    • Limerance@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Good system. I really like the practical call to action.

      • must watch
      • watch
      • don’t watch

      You could even extend it with half stars to a 6 star system equivalent.

      Lots of rating systems gain an inflation of the hightest grades.

  • aeronmelon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I always rate entertainment based on how much I was entertained.

    I’m not a cinematographer, it’s not my job to look for fault, I’m watching stuff to be entertained. So if a stupid movie entertains me it gets high marks.

  • Siethron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Why the fuck would I want to be challenged as a viewer?

    Life is already challenging enough.

  • Prox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Neither? If you’re going to rate every movie 5/5 then there’s no point in rating movies. Just watch them and enjoy them.

  • Godort@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Right has the far better perspective. Thats the one I try to take into all movies sight unseen.

    Movies made for Left tend to make themselves known within the first 15 minutes or so, and then he can come out and offer literary critique

    • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 hours ago

      And you’d be wrong.

      Neither has the better perspective, they’re both part of the experience.

      Some movies are just fun watches, some movies are incredibly insightful, some combine both.

  • Capt. Wolf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 hours ago

    The right.

    I look at it this way, don’t let some asshole tell you how you should feel. You build up bias toward it, you’re going to go in with that bias. Watch a movie because you want an experience.