rank a director

[beavis]

INDEX:
1. Hsiao-Hsien Hou - beavis 1
2. Jacques Rivette - beavis 2
3. Alfred Hitchcock - outdoorcats 1
4. Billy Wilder - Dimitris Psachos Springer 1
5. Kim Ki-duk - YUME 1
6. John Sayles - blocho 1
7. Ryuichi Hiroki - onderhond 1
8. Mike Leigh - blocho 2
9. Satyajit Ray - beavis 3
10. Kira Muratova - beavis 4
11. Charles Laughton - flavo5000 1 (although just a bit of a joke)
12. Andrzej Żuławski - Ivan0716 1
13. Umberto Lenzi - beavis 5
14. Jacques Tourneur - insomnius 1
15. Werner Herzog - YUME 2
16. Alejandro González Iñárritu - flavo5000 2
17. Delmer Daves - OldAle1 1
18. Xavier Dolan - Fergenaprido 1
19. Jesus Franco - beavis 6
20. Ousmane Sembene - Fergenaprido 2
21. Eloy de la Iglesia - Fergenaprido 3
22. S(h)ion Sono - Torgo 1 (without his own ranking?!?)
23. David Cronenberg - beavis 7
24. Theodoros Angelopoulos - Cinephile 1
25. Frederick Wiseman - YUME 3
26. John Carpenter - Cinepolis 1
27. Andrzej Wajda - blocho 3
28. Ingmar Bergman - St. Gloede 1
29. Hong Sang-soo - AB537 1
30. George Clooney - blocho 4
31. Peter Jackson - Cinepolis 2
32. Jing Wong - onderhond 2
33. Jean Renoir - beavis 8
34. Roger Corman - OldAle1 2
35. Pedro Almodóvar - brokenface 1
36. Christian Petzold - AB537 2
37. Jane Campion - OldAle1 3
38. Ronny Howard - OldAle1 4
39. Abbas Kiarostami - beavis 9
40. Danièle Huillet & Jean-Marie Straub - OldAle1 5
41. David Fincher - blocho 5
42. Kiyoshi Kurosawa - pitchorneirda 1
43. Zacharias Kunuk & Alanis Obomsawin - Fergenaprido 4
44. Nicolas Ray & Josef von Sternberg - tobias 1
45. Yûzô Kawashima - Fergenaprido 5
46. Shin'ya Tsukamoto - flavo5000 3
47. Lav Diaz - OldAle1 6
48. Spike Lee - Lonewolf2003 1
49. Miklós Jancsó - YUME 4
50. Kleber Mendonça Filho - AB537 3
51. Lina Wertmüller - YUME 5
52. Claire Denis - Torgo 2 (again without his own list... )
53. John McTiernan - Fergenaprido 6
54. Nicolas Winding Refn - Lakigigar 1
55. Jean-Marc Vallée - Lonewolf2003 2
56. Peter Bogdanovich - OldAle1 7
57. Michael Powell - OldAle1 8
58. Takashi Miike - onderhond 3
59. Olivier Assayas - beavis 10
60. King Vidor - tobias 2
61. Ivan & Jason Reitman - OldAle1 9
62. Sidney Lumet - blocho 6
63. Youssef Chahine - OldAle1 10
64. Cheh Chang - onderhond 4
65. Bertrand Bonello - beavis 11
66. Hal Hartley - YUME 6
67. Shinji Aoyama - onderhond 5
68. Peter Weir - OldAle1 11
69. Agnès Varda - St. Gloede 2
70. Herman Yau - onderhond 6
71. Tsui Hark - beavis 12
72. Céline Sciamma - AB537 4
73. Terence Davies - OldAle1 12
74. James Benning - prodigalgodson 1
75. Paul Schrader - blocho 7
76. William Wyler - blocho 8
77. Denys Arcand - OldAle1 13
78. Andrey Zvyagintsev - Fergenaprido 7
79. Luis Buñuel - Torgo 3
80. Bob Rafelson - OldAle1 14
81. Sydney Pollack - YUME 7
82. Aleksandr Sokurov - beavis 13
83. Sergio Leone - OldAle1 15
84. Wolfgang Petersen - blocho 9
85. Tim Burton - Good_Will_Harding 1
86. Barry Levinson - Fergenaprido 8
87. Park Chan-wook - YUME 8
88. Steven Soderbergh - YUME 9
89. Jean-Luc Godard - Arkantos 1
90. M Night Shyamalan - Good_Will_Harding 2
91. Susanne Bier - Fergenaprido 9
92. Johnnie To - onderhond 7
93. Makhmalbaf family - Fergenaprido 10
94. Rainer Werner Fassbinder - beavis 14
95. David O. Russell - YUME 10
96. Jean-Pierre & Luc Dardenne - YUME 11
97. Ernst Lubitsch - beavis 15
98. Chantal Akerman - Good_Will_Harding 3
99. Wong Kar Wai - prodigalgodson 2
100. Doris Wishman - flavo5000 4
101. Philippe Falardeau - Arkantos 2
102. Hayao Miyazaki - Good_Will_Harding 4
103. Quentin Dupieux - beavis 16
104. Charlie Chaplin - Arkantos 3
105. David Lynch - YUME 11
106. Kelly Reichardt - YUME 12
107. Robert Altman - Good_Will_Harding 5
108. Carlos Saura & Hugh Hudson - blocho 10
109. Frédéric Back - Fergenaprido 11
110. François Truffaut - AB537 5
111. Andrew/Wai-keung Lau - onderhond 8
112. Howard Hawks - prodigalgodson 3
113. Martin Scorsese - OldAle1 15
114. Lee Chang-dong - OldAle1 16
115. Wes Anderson - Good_Will_Harding 6
116. Stan Brakhage - Fergenaprido 12
117. Jaume Balagueró - Cinepolis 3
118. John Huston - Lakigigar 2
119. David Lean - Lakigigar 3
120. Peter Greenaway - YUME 13
121. Nicolas Roeg - YUME 14
122. Koji Wakamatsu - onderhond 9
123. the Coen brothers - Lakigigar 4
124. William Friedkin - brokenface 2
125. Jean Eustache - AB537 6
126. Jim Jarmusch - GruesomeTwosome 1
127. James Cameron - Good_Will_Harding 7
128. Youssef Chahine - Fergenaprido 13


---

Let's start it of with Hsiao-Hsien Hou
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0396284/#director

Because he is mentioned a lot in a current results thread and my overview I posted there today is already lost 4 pages deep
I tried to make a new ranking now, and it looks like this:

1 - The Boys From Fengkuei (1983) - 8,5
2 - The Assassin (2015) - 8,5
3 - Café Lumière (2003) - 8
4 - Voyage du Ballon Rouge (2007) - 8
5 - Millennium Mambo (2001) - 8
6 - A City of Sadness (1989) - 8
7 - A Time to Live, A Time to Die (1985) - 8
8 - A Summer at Grandpa's (1984) - 8
9 - The Puppetmaster (1993) - 8
10 - Daughter of the Nile (1987) - 8
11 - The Green, Green Grass of Home (1983) - 8
12 - The Sandwich Man (1983) - 7,5
13 - Goodbye South, Goodbye (1996) - 7,5
14 - Flowers of Shanghai (1998) - 7,5
15 - Three Times (2005) - 7,5
16 - Dust in the Wind (1986) - 7,5
17 - Good Men, Good Women (1995) - 7
18 - Cute Girls (1980) - 5,5

I think I need to rewatch Flowers of Shanghai sometime, if I remember correctly that one was a favorite of Tony Rayns

post your own rankings! we'll let it run for a few days/weeks and then somebody else drops a new name for use to "judge"

[kongs_speech]

I misunderstood the topic and didn't read that we were specifically doing Hou. Oops!

01) The Time to Live and the Time to Die - 4.5/5
02) The Assassin - 4/5
03) Flowers of Shanghai - 4/5
04) Dust in the Wind - 4/5

[OldAle1]

TOP TIER
1. The Puppetmaster *+
2. Good Men, Good Women *+
3. A City of Sadness
4. The Assassin
5. Summer at Grandpas *+
6. A Time to Live, A Time to Die *

EXCELLENT
7. Goodbye, South, Goodbye *
8. Café Lumière
9. Flowers of Shanghai *
10. Flight of the Red Balloon *

VERY GOOD
11. Three Times
12. Millenium Mambo
13. Dust in the Wind *

* seen in the cinema
+ seen multiple times

I don't consider these rankings terribly meaningful; most of these I've only seen once when they were new in the cinema or relatively new on video, and even the top two I just saw twice each in the cinema new, so I don't remember them as well as I'd like to. As discussed elsewhere several of Hou's great earlier films, notably #1 on my list, remain unavailable in really good transfers, and while he is a director I'd really like to re-visit, and catch up to the early films I've missed, I'm sort of waiting for better copies at the moment.

[clemmetarey]

1. The Puppetmaster (1993) 8/10 (Favorite)
2. Goodbye South, Goodbye (1996) 8/10 (Favorite)
3. The Assassin (2015) 7/10
4. A City of Sadness (1989) 7/10
5. Daughter of the Nile (1987) 5/10
6. The Green, Green Grass of Home (1983) 5/10
7. Cute Girls (1980) 4/10

I quite like him, but I'm missing some of his essential films.

I guess we agree that Ciry Girls is terrible

[Onderhond]

Hsiao-Hsien Hou

01. 4.5* - Three Times [Zui Hao De Shi Guang]
02. 4.5* - Millennium Mambo [Qianxi Manbo]
03. 4.0* - Café Lumière [Kohi Jiko]
04. 4.0* - Goodbye South, Goodbye [Nanguo Zaijan, Nanguo]
05. 3.5* - Flowers of Shanghai [Hai Shang Hua]
06. 3.5* - A Time to Live and a Time to Die [Tong Nien Wang Shi]
07. 3.5* - Good Men, Good Women [Haonan Haonu]
08. 3.5* - 10+10 (anthology)
09. 3.5* - The Flight of the Red Balloon [Le Voyage du Ballon Rouge]
10. 3.0* - Dust in the Wind
11. 3.0* - The Puppetmaster [Hsimeng Jensheng]
12. 3.0* - The Green, Green Grass of Home [Zai Na He Pan Qing Cao Qing]
13. 3.0* - Chacun Son Cinéma (anthology)
14. 2.5* - The Assassin [Cìkè Niè Yinniáng]
15. 2.5* - A Summer at Grandpa's [Dong Dong de Jiàqi]
16. 2.5* - A City of Sadness [Beiqíng Chéngshì]
17. 2.5* - Daughter of the Nile [Ni Luo He Nu Er]
18. 2.0* - Cute Girl [Jiu Shi Liu Liu De Ta]
19. 2.0* - The Sandwich Man [Er Zi De Da Wan Ou]
20. 1.5* - The Boys from Fengkuei [Feng gui Lai de Ren]
21. 1.5* - Cheerful Wind [Feng Er Ti Ta Cai]

[zuma]

My ranking:

01 - The Assassin (2015) - 8.5
02 - A Summer at Grandpa's (1984) - 8.5
03 - Dust in the Wind (1986) - 8.5
04 - Three Times (2005) - 8
05 - Good Men, Good Women (1995) - 8
06 - Millennium Mambo (2001) - 7.5
07 - The Boys From Fengkuei (1983) - 7
08 - A City of Sadness (1989) - 7
09 - Café Lumière (2003) - 7
10 - Flowers of Shanghai (1998) - 7*
11 - Daughter of the Nile (1987) - 6.5
12 - Voyage du Ballon Rouge (2007) - 6.5
13 - A Time to Live, A Time to Die (1985) - 6.5*
14 - The Puppetmaster (1993) - 6
15 - The Sandwich Man (1983) - 6
16 - Goodbye South, Goodbye (1996) - 5.5
17 - The Green, Green Grass of Home (1983) - 5.5
18 - Cute Girls (1980) - 3.5

I have marked both Flowers of Shanghai (1998) and A Time to Live, A Time to Die (1985) with an asterisk because I saw them before I had starting giving films a numerical score. I do remember liking Flowers of Shanghai a bit better though.

[Onderhond]

So apart from the two anthologies, it seems Cheerful Wind is the most obscure one of Hou's oeuvre so far.

[Ivan0716]

I do this for every director I've seen 3+ films from: https://letterboxd.com/ivan0716/list/di ... ographies/

HHH:
1. The Assassin 2015 ★★★★★
2. Three Times 2005 ★★★★½
3. The Time to Live and the Time to Die 1985 ★★★★
4. Daughter of the Nile 1987 ★★★★
5. Millennium Mambo 2001 ★★★★
6. Flowers of Shanghai 1998 ★★★★
7. A City of Sadness 1989 ★★★★
8. A Summer at Grandpa’s 1984 ★★★★
9. Good Men, Good Women 1995 ★★★★
10. Goodbye South, Goodbye 1996 ★★★★

[mightysparks]

1. Hai shang hua (1998) 5/10
2. Bei qing cheng shi (1989) 5/10
3. Tong nien wang shi (1985) 4/10
4. Nan guo zai jian, nan guo (1996) 4/10
5. Lian lian feng chen (1987) 4/10
6. Xi meng ren sheng (1993) 4/10

[beavis]

So the Assassin comes out as the most universally beloved Hou film so far, and yet it is an atypical one for him... usually his sensibilities skew more towards Japanese than Chinese...

[insomnius]

Good initiative. I remember we had polls like this back on the IMDb forums many years ago to determine the consensus of the board. Not sure how it was calculated, but votes from those who had seen more of a filmography weighed heavier. Would be fun to do something like that here too. "ICMForum ranks the films of: ..."

Anyway, Hou. Except for 'The Assassin' I haven't seen most of these in over 10 years.

Faves
1. The Puppetmaster (1993)
2. Dust in the Wind (1986)
3. Flowers of Shanghai (1998)

4. The Boys from Fengkuei (1983)
5. Goodbye South, Goodbye (1996)
6. The Assassin (2015)
7. A Summer at Grandpa's (1984)
8. A Time to Live, a Time to Die (1985)
9. Three Times (2005)
10. Daughter of the Nile (1987)
11. Café Lumière (2003)
12. A City of Sadness (1989)
13. Millennium Mambo (2001)
14. Good Men, Good Women (1995)
15. Flight of the Red Balloon (2007)

[Onderhond]

Just a little fyi, but it appears HHH celebrated his 74th birthday yesterday.

[outdoorcats]

The Time to Live and the Time to Die (1985) 8
The Puppetmaster (1993) 7.5
Good Men, Good Women (1995) 8.5
Goodbye South, Goodbye (1995) 9
Flowers of Shanghai (1998) 5.5
Millennium Mambo (2001) 9
Cafe Lumiere (2003) 8.5
Three Times (2005) 8
Flight of the Red Balloon (2007) 9
The Assassin (2015) 10

Also (belated) happy birthday!

[Traveller]

01. Millennium Mambo (2001) - 9/10
02. Flowers of Shanghai (1998) - 9/10

03. The Puppetmaster (1993) - 8/10
04. The Assassin (2015) - 8/10
05. Daughter of the Nile (1987) - 8/10
06. Three Times (2005) - 8/10
07. Good Men, Good Women (1995) - 8/10
08. Cafe Lumiere (2003) - 8/10
09. A City of Sadness (1989 - 8/10
10. A Time to Live and a Time to Die (1985) - 8/10
11. The Sandwich Man (1983) - 8/10
12. The Green, Green Grass of Home (1982) - 8/10

13. Goodbye, South, Goodbye (1996) - 7/10
14. Dust in the Wind (1986) - 7/10
15. The Flight of the Red Balloon (2007) - 7/10
16. A Summer at Grandpa's (1984) - 7/10
17. Cheerful Wind (1981) - 7/10

18. The Boys from Fengkuei (1983) - 6/10
19. Cute Girl (1980) - 6/10
20. 10+10 (2011) - 6/10

03.-10. are virtually the same ranking. Haven’t seen the french anthology film.

[beavis]

Good initiative. I remember we had polls like this back on the IMDb forums many years ago to determine the consensus of the board. Not sure how it was calculated...

I do not have the Excel/Math skills for it, and for people who can do this with software tools we should probably have provided Imdb-codes... so I'm not sure if such a thing is possible now, but if somebody would like to do (something like) that, it could be interesting. For me it is an interesting exercise to evaluate a directors body of work AND to get a better sense of the taste of other forum members (in that regard the individual lists are more interesting to me than an aggregated total).

fun that the universe aligned to have this thread started around Hou's birthday, I'm looking forward to more of these special occasions around the names that will be brought to the table by others in the future!

[insomnius]

Good initiative. I remember we had polls like this back on the IMDb forums many years ago to determine the consensus of the board. Not sure how it was calculated...

I do not have the Excel/Math skills for it, and for people who can do this with software tools we should probably have provided Imdb-codes... so I'm not sure if such a thing is possible now, but if somebody would like to do (something like) that, it could be interesting. For me it is an interesting exercise to evaluate a directors body of work AND to get a better sense of the taste of other forum members (in that regard the individual lists are more interesting to me than an aggregated total).

fun that the universe aligned to have this thread started around Hou's birthday, I'm looking forward to more of these special occasions around the names that will be brought to the table by others in the future!

Yeah, me neither. And don't worry, I didn't expect you to calculate anything. But if someone feel like it I'd support it. I agree that the individual lists are more interesting, but one thing doesn't exclude the other.

[hurluberlu]

1. The Assassin 8
2. The Puppetmaster
3. A City of Sadness
4. The Boys from Fengkuei
5. Millennium Mambo 7
6. Flowers of Shanghai
7. Three Times
8. Cute Girl
9. Goodbye, South, Goodbye 6
10. A Summer at Grandpa's
11. A Time to Live and a Time to Die
12. Good Men, Good Women
13. The Green, Green Grass of Home

[klaus78]

1. Flowers of Shanghai (1998) 8/10
2. The Assassin (2015) 8/10
3. The Puppetmaster (1993) 8/10
4. A City of Sadness (1989) 8/10
5. A Time to Live and a Time to Die (1985) 8/10
6. A Summer at Grandpa's (1984) 8/10
7. Goodbye, South, Goodbye (1996) 8/10
8. Dust in the Wind (1986) 8/10
9. Three Times (2005) 8/10
10. The Boys from Fengkuei (1983) 7/10
11. Good Men, Good Women (1995) 7/10
12. Millennium Mambo (2001) 6/10

Probably my highest rated director without a single favourite.

[Teproc]

I've seen a whole three HHH films, I guess that's the absolute minimum for a ranking of some sort:

1. Xi meng ren sheng / The Puppetmaster - 7/10
2. Hai shang hua / Flowers of Shanghai - 6/10
3. Cike Nie Yin Niang / The Assassin - 4/10

[Fergenaprido]

I've only seen 4 Hou films, 2 just at the end of last year thanks to Mubi.

1. Liàn liàn fengchén [Dust in the Wind] (1986) - 7.2 (2020-12-30)
2. Tóngnián wangshì [A Time to Live and the Time to Die] (1985) - 7.0 (2020-12-29)
3=. Hao nan hao nu [Good Men, Good Women] (1995) - 6.4 (2014-09-05)
3=. Nan guo zai jian, nan guo [Goodbye South, Goodbye] (1996) - 6.4 (2018-07-28)

Nothing horrendous, and those two I saw a few years ago might improve upon a rewatch, but I remember being generally disinterested the whole time. The two '80s films were decent. I don't know what's most likely to be successful with me with Hou.

Good initiative. I remember we had polls like this back on the IMDb forums many years ago to determine the consensus of the board. Not sure how it was calculated...

I do not have the Excel/Math skills for it, and for people who can do this with software tools we should probably have provided Imdb-codes... so I'm not sure if such a thing is possible now, but if somebody would like to do (something like) that, it could be interesting. For me it is an interesting exercise to evaluate a directors body of work AND to get a better sense of the taste of other forum members (in that regard the individual lists are more interesting to me than an aggregated total).

fun that the universe aligned to have this thread started around Hou's birthday, I'm looking forward to more of these special occasions around the names that will be brought to the table by others in the future!

Yeah, me neither. And don't worry, I didn't expect you to calculate anything. But if someone feel like it I'd support it. I agree that the individual lists are more interesting, but one thing doesn't exclude the other.

I don't know/remember if someone did this before, but I can probably whip something up if there's interest in it. IMDB urls aren't a problem since it's a single director's filmography, so they're easy to collect.

[tommy_leazaq]

I use Criticker for rating films based on my personal feel (subjective rating) and Letterboxd for rating films for their quality (objective rating).

Here is my ranking of 7 films I have seen from HHH, sorted by Criticker, LB ratings.

1. CR: 80, LB: 4.0* - A Summer at Grandpa's (1984)
2. CR: 56, LB: 4.0* - The Puppetmaster (1993)
3. CR: 55, LB: 3.5* - A Time to Live, a Time to Die (1985)
4. CR: 54, LB: 3.5* - Dust in the Wind (1986)
5. CR: 54, LB: 3.5* - The Assassin (2015)
6. CR: 53, LB: 4.0* - A City of Sadness (1989)
7. CR: 48, LB: 3.5* - Flowers of Shanghai (1998)

You can see, though I have appreciated and respected all of his films, they haven't appealed to me on personal level. Except of course, A Summer at Grandpa's. May be I like kids in drama better than teens and adults

[Fergenaprido]

I use Criticker for rating films based on my personal feel (subjective rating) and Letterboxd for rating films for their quality (objective rating).

Here is my ranking of 7 films I have seen from HHH, sorted by Criticker, LB ratings.

1. CR: 80, LB: 4.0* - A Summer at Grandpa's (1984)
2. CR: 56, LB: 4.0* - The Puppetmaster (1993)
3. CR: 55, LB: 3.5* - A Time to Live, a Time to Die (1985)
4. CR: 54, LB: 3.5* - Dust in the Wind (1986)
5. CR: 54, LB: 3.5* - The Assassin (2015)
6. CR: 53, LB: 4.0* - A City of Sadness (1989)
7. CR: 48, LB: 3.5* - Flowers of Shanghai (1998)

You can see, though I have appreciated and respected all of his films, they haven't appealed to me on personal level. Except of course, A Summer at Grandpa's. May be I like kids in drama better than teens and adults

Care to expand on your rating system? It makes no sense to me (the subjective vs objective part).

[tommy_leazaq]

I use Criticker for rating films based on my personal feel (subjective rating) and Letterboxd for rating films for their quality (objective rating).

Here is my ranking of 7 films I have seen from HHH, sorted by Criticker, LB ratings.

1. CR: 80, LB: 4.0* - A Summer at Grandpa's (1984)
2. CR: 56, LB: 4.0* - The Puppetmaster (1993)
3. CR: 55, LB: 3.5* - A Time to Live, a Time to Die (1985)
4. CR: 54, LB: 3.5* - Dust in the Wind (1986)
5. CR: 54, LB: 3.5* - The Assassin (2015)
6. CR: 53, LB: 4.0* - A City of Sadness (1989)
7. CR: 48, LB: 3.5* - Flowers of Shanghai (1998)

You can see, though I have appreciated and respected all of his films, they haven't appealed to me on personal level. Except of course, A Summer at Grandpa's. May be I like kids in drama better than teens and adults

Care to expand on your rating system? It makes no sense to me (the subjective vs objective part).

Well, not sure how I can I explain it more than what I have posted there but let me try .

It's pretty literal actually. Subjective rating (Criticker) caters to how I felt about the film. How much I enjoyed, cared, connected with the film irrespective of what is the film about/how well the film is made etc. Like how would I react if I was a casual viewer. Only thing that matters here is me and my feelings alone. My objective (Letterboxd) rating cares about the filmmaking/craft/techniques and all. How good the film is made irrespective of how I felt towards the film. Like how would I rate if I was a film critic.

Example: I enjoyed Ice Age 3: Dawn of Dinosaurs a lot. My Criticker Rating of it is 93 ("All Time Favorite"). But my LB rating is 2.5* only as I am aware of its shortcomings. Other extreme is Raging Bull (or City of Sadness from my above post). I know its masterfully made and has exceptional acting. I appreciate ,respect that film and its craft. It has LB rating 5.0* from me. But the film itself bored me a bit, and occasionally I was losing interest with what is happening at the screen. So it has Criticker rating of 52 ("OK").

Guess I made some it somewhat clear. Please ask me any specific things that you didnt get.

[Lakigigar]

I use Criticker for rating films based on my personal feel (subjective rating) and Letterboxd for rating films for their quality (objective rating).

Here is my ranking of 7 films I have seen from HHH, sorted by Criticker, LB ratings.

1. CR: 80, LB: 4.0* - A Summer at Grandpa's (1984)
2. CR: 56, LB: 4.0* - The Puppetmaster (1993)
3. CR: 55, LB: 3.5* - A Time to Live, a Time to Die (1985)
4. CR: 54, LB: 3.5* - Dust in the Wind (1986)
5. CR: 54, LB: 3.5* - The Assassin (2015)
6. CR: 53, LB: 4.0* - A City of Sadness (1989)
7. CR: 48, LB: 3.5* - Flowers of Shanghai (1998)

You can see, though I have appreciated and respected all of his films, they haven't appealed to me on personal level. Except of course, A Summer at Grandpa's. May be I like kids in drama better than teens and adults

Care to expand on your rating system? It makes no sense to me (the subjective vs objective part).

Well, not sure how I can I explain it more than what I have posted there but let me try .

It's pretty literal actually. Subjective rating (Criticker) caters to how I felt about the film. How much I enjoyed, cared, connected with the film irrespective of what is the film about/how well the film is made etc. Like how would I react if I was a casual viewer. Only thing that matters here is me and my feelings alone. My objective (Letterboxd) rating cares about the filmmaking/craft/techniques and all. How good the film is made irrespective of how I felt towards the film. Like how would I rate if I was a film critic.

Example: I enjoyed Ice Age 3: Dawn of Dinosaurs a lot. My Criticker Rating of it is 93 ("All Time Favorite"). But my LB rating is 2.5* only as I am aware of its shortcomings. Other extreme is Raging Bull (or City of Sadness from my above post). I know its masterfully made and has exceptional acting. I appreciate ,respect that film and its craft. It has LB rating 5.0* from me. But the film itself bored me a bit, and occasionally I was losing interest with what is happening at the screen. So it has Criticker rating of 52 ("OK").

Guess I made some it somewhat clear. Please ask me any specific things that you didnt get.

No, that seems kinda ridicilous.

1. You're not a film critic, so why rate as a film critic?
2. If a film doesn't appeal to you at all, why even rate it highly. If the film doesn't appeal to you at all, it is a shortcoming of that
3. Film critics are subjective as well, and will only like a certain kind of movie, regardless whether a movie is well made or not. I've seen some film critics trash Zack Snyder's Justice League, though it it's in the IMDb top 250 for instance
4. Pretty much every movie is well made (or at least 90-95%) technically, so is Ice Age 3: Dawn of Dinosaurs. What however differs is that it is not really original anymore, and that we see Ice Age type of movies every year at least 5 to 10 times. Yet they can still be enjoying, and it's by no means a terrible movie. It's a very good one. It just doesn't offer anything new in the mix, when you compare it with all other western animation movies.

these kind of ratings are fraudulent IMO and also kind of: "i feel better than the rest"-type of ratings. If you don't like a movie, why give it such a high rating??? And how are you able to determine whether a movie is well made technically (by reading someone else's reviews, or not daring to go against the current and question the "standard"?).

Like why rate as a film critic. We have plenty of enough film critics. I don't care about their opinion. Their opinions don't matter. The only opinion that matters to me is MINE at the end! And i don't use film critics' reviews as recs, because they're also selective in what they'll view. Perhaps i'll check sometimes what Onderhond rates (but his opinion of movies is not the same as mine). There are some users on Moviemeter I follow to look for perhaps something i'll enjoy, but that's not always the case, since my taste is kinda ecletic, and i feel like sometimes i can enjoy a certain type of movie more than on a different moment, but yes.

Subjectivity can be influenced by objectivity, but more importantly objectivity will certainly be influenced by subjectivity. In fact complete objectivity without prejudgments does not exist, and if you think it does, you're only making a fool of yourself.

[mightysparks]

I think it's fine to rate like a film critic, just not as if you are all the other film critics . Otherwise I echo Laki.

[tommy_leazaq]

No, that seems kinda ridicilous.

1. You're not a film critic, so why rate as a film critic?
2. If a film doesn't appeal to you at all, why even rate it highly. If the film doesn't appeal to you at all, it is a shortcoming of that
3. Film critics are subjective as well, and will only like a certain kind of movie, regardless whether a movie is well made or not. I've seen some film critics trash Zack Snyder's Justice League, though it it's in the IMDb top 250 for instance
4. Pretty much every movie is well made (or at least 90-95%) technically, so is Ice Age 3: Dawn of Dinosaurs. What however differs is that it is not really original anymore, and that we see Ice Age type of movies every year at least 5 to 10 times. Yet they can still be enjoying, and it's by no means a terrible movie. It's a very good one. It just doesn't offer anything new in the mix, when you compare it with all other western animation movies.

these kind of ratings are fraudulent IMO and also kind of: "i feel better than the rest"-type of ratings. If you don't like a movie, why give it such a high rating??? And how are you able to determine whether a movie is well made technically (by reading someone else's reviews, or not daring to go against the current and question the "standard"?).

Like why rate as a film critic. We have plenty of enough film critics. I don't care about their opinion. Their opinions don't matter. The only opinion that matters to me is MINE at the end! And i don't use film critics' reviews as recs, because they're also selective in what they'll view. Perhaps i'll check sometimes what Onderhond rates (but his opinion of movies is not the same as mine). There are some users on Moviemeter I follow to look for perhaps something i'll enjoy, but that's not always the case, since my taste is kinda ecletic, and i feel like sometimes i can enjoy a certain type of movie more than on a different moment, but yes.

Subjectivity can be influenced by objectivity, but more importantly objectivity will certainly be influenced by subjectivity. In fact complete objectivity without prejudgments does not exist, and if you think it does, you're only making a fool of yourself.

I am really sorry that you took this much time and effort to make this long post as they seem to be valid queries but you have asked them to a wrong person

As people close to me know, I always try to give as much explanation as possible when they ask me "HOW I'm doing" it but when it comes to "WHY I'm doing it", the answer is always the same and here it goes: "I just like to do it". No other reason, not a care on what others would think etc. I like to do it and I can do it and no one gets hurt, so I am doing it. Simple as that.

For my LB ratings, I was liberal with the word Film Critic. You could substitute it with Film Analyst, Film Historian, Film Enthusiast, Film Maker, Film Student etc. Basically its an Academic Rating or "Robotic Rating", devoid of any personal feel. And, of course yes, it is formed by the experience of watching many films and reading a lot about them. Seems you have problem with this type of rating, so you could check my Criticker ratings alone, which is like, "Human Rating".

Guess this answers almost all your queries.

And for your last para,

Subjectivity can be influenced by objectivity, but more importantly objectivity will certainly be influenced by subjectivity. In fact complete objectivity without prejudgments does not exist, and if you think it does, you're only making a fool of yourself.

I absolutely agree with this. Its difficult and near impossible to maintain 100% subjectivity or objectivity. That is why I present you,

My Flickchart rankings!!!!...

Its a Ranking of all my watched films formed with a complex combination of my subjective and objective and subjective objectivity and objective subjectivity feels of the films with some "gut feel" thrown into it.

So, here is my Flickchart ranking of the HHH films I have seen. (Only ranked about 3100 films so far there in FL. Still some 500-600 films to go but all HHH films are accounted for).

And, I might as well throw my IMDb rating as well, which represents my overall feel of the film. Definition of Overall Feel? I honestly dont know. May be the number, that I feel, would suit better next to that film name. Not joking, this is more or less how I rate in IMDb.


1. FL: #0162, IMDb: 8 - A Summer at Grandpa's (1984)
2. FL: #1769, IMDb: 7 - The Puppetmaster (1993)
3. FL: #2117, IMDb: 7 - Dust in the Wind (1986
4. FL: #2406, IMDb: 7 - The Assassin (2015)
5. FL: #2722, IMDb: 7 - A Time to Live, a Time to Die (1985)
6. FL: #2762, IMDb: 7 - A City of Sadness (1989)
7. FL: #2906, IMDb: 6 - Flowers of Shanghai (1998)


I recently signed in in TMDb as well. Havent started rating there yet, as I havent found any valid criteria yet to use there. May be combining everything and get a consensual rating.

And I always wanted to rate films by grade like A-, B+ etc. but couldn't find any site that support this kind of ratings. So I am currently using our own forum's film log thread for this kind of rating. Unfortunately, I have started this rating in the logs last year only so no HHH films. An excel should have been lot useful to maintain such things, but I hate using excel. So well, that's that.

[mightysparks]

I hate using excel

[Lonewolf2003]

No, that seems kinda ridicilous.

1. You're not a film critic, so why rate as a film critic?
2. If a film doesn't appeal to you at all, why even rate it highly. If the film doesn't appeal to you at all, it is a shortcoming of that
3. Film critics are subjective as well, and will only like a certain kind of movie, regardless whether a movie is well made or not. I've seen some film critics trash Zack Snyder's Justice League, though it it's in the IMDb top 250 for instance
4. Pretty much every movie is well made (or at least 90-95%) technically, so is Ice Age 3: Dawn of Dinosaurs. What however differs is that it is not really original anymore, and that we see Ice Age type of movies every year at least 5 to 10 times. Yet they can still be enjoying, and it's by no means a terrible movie. It's a very good one. It just doesn't offer anything new in the mix, when you compare it with all other western animation movies.

these kind of ratings are fraudulent IMO and also kind of: "i feel better than the rest"-type of ratings. If you don't like a movie, why give it such a high rating??? And how are you able to determine whether a movie is well made technically (by reading someone else's reviews, or not daring to go against the current and question the "standard"?).

Like why rate as a film critic. We have plenty of enough film critics. I don't care about their opinion. Their opinions don't matter. The only opinion that matters to me is MINE at the end! And i don't use film critics' reviews as recs, because they're also selective in what they'll view. Perhaps i'll check sometimes what Onderhond rates (but his opinion of movies is not the same as mine). There are some users on Moviemeter I follow to look for perhaps something i'll enjoy, but that's not always the case, since my taste is kinda ecletic, and i feel like sometimes i can enjoy a certain type of movie more than on a different moment, but yes.

Subjectivity can be influenced by objectivity, but more importantly objectivity will certainly be influenced by subjectivity. In fact complete objectivity without prejudgments does not exist, and if you think it does, you're only making a fool of yourself.

I am really sorry that you took this much time and effort to make this long post as they seem to be valid queries but you have asked them to a wrong person

As people close to me know, I always try to give as much explanation as possible when they ask me "HOW I'm doing" it but when it comes to "WHY I'm doing it", the answer is always the same and here it goes: "I just like to do it". No other reason, not a care on what others would think etc. I like to do it and I can do it and no one gets hurt, so I am doing it. Simple as that.

For my LB ratings, I was liberal with the word Film Critic. You could substitute it with Film Analyst, Film Historian, Film Enthusiast, Film Maker, Film Student etc. Basically its an Academic Rating or "Robotic Rating", devoid of any personal feel. And, of course yes, it is formed by the experience of watching many films and reading a lot about them. Seems you have problem with this type of rating, so you could check my Criticker ratings alone, which is like, "Human Rating".

Guess this answers almost all your queries.

And for your last para,

Subjectivity can be influenced by objectivity, but more importantly objectivity will certainly be influenced by subjectivity. In fact complete objectivity without prejudgments does not exist, and if you think it does, you're only making a fool of yourself.

I absolutely agree with this. Its difficult and near impossible to maintain 100% subjectivity or objectivity. That is why I present you,

My Flickchart rankings!!!!...

Its a Ranking of all my watched films formed with a complex combination of my subjective and objective and subjective objectivity and objective subjectivity feels of the films with some "gut feel" thrown into it.

So, here is my Flickchart ranking of the HHH films I have seen. (Only ranked about 3100 films so far there in FL. Still some 500-600 films to go but all HHH films are accounted for).

And, I might as well throw my IMDb rating as well, which represents my overall feel of the film. Definition of Overall Feel? I honestly dont know. May be the number, that I feel, would suit better next to that film name. Not joking, this is more or less how I rate in IMDb.


1. FL: #0162, IMDb: 8 - A Summer at Grandpa's (1984)
2. FL: #1769, IMDb: 7 - The Puppetmaster (1993)
3. FL: #2117, IMDb: 7 - Dust in the Wind (1986
4. FL: #2406, IMDb: 7 - The Assassin (2015)
5. FL: #2722, IMDb: 7 - A Time to Live, a Time to Die (1985)
6. FL: #2762, IMDb: 7 - A City of Sadness (1989)
7. FL: #2906, IMDb: 6 - Flowers of Shanghai (1998)


I recently signed in in TMDb as well. Havent started rating there yet, as I havent found any valid criteria yet to use there. May be combining everything and get a consensual rating.

And I always wanted to rate films by grade like A-, B+ etc. but couldn't find any site that support this kind of ratings. So I am currently using our own forum's film log thread for this kind of rating. Unfortunately, I have started this rating in the logs last year only so no HHH films. An excel should have been lot useful to maintain such things, but I hate using excel. So well, that's that.

But the real question is not why you rate objectively, but how you do that? Of course you are free to rate however you feel like, but like yourself also say it’s near impossible to maintain 100% objectivity, so I really wonder how anyone can analyze a movie objectively. Maybe one could do this by completely dissecting a movie in what works and doesn’t. But even than it will still be (partly) influenced by subjectivity.

I don’t mean this in an attacking condensing way as it might sounds. I’m really curious how you do that. If you really analyze every movie you see that way I take a big bow to you. I would love to read your analysis, I think they could be interesting.

[Torgo]

Everybody knows there's no scientific objectivity to arts like for measuring temperature; yet everybody will find himself say every once in a while: "Not a terrible film at all, seems quite competently made and this and that aspect is kinda interesting. But it's really not my thing and I felt rather indifferent/bored some of the time tbh, so while I see others enjoying this for legitimate reasons, I personally don't feel like watching any more of this soon. Should be worthwhile for fans of [more like this]." opposed to "Omg worst film of all time NO SINGLE QUALITY ABOUT IT WHATSOEVER, 1/10 and only because I can't rate it negatively!!"
Or not?

This said - what a coincidence to have another of those infinite debates on subjectivity in a thread on HHH, of all places ..

[Onderhond]

Everybody knows there's no scientific objectivity to arts like for measuring temperature; yet everybody will find himself say every once in a while: "Not a terrible film at all, seems quite competently made and this and that aspect is kinda interesting. But it's really not my thing and I felt rather indifferent/bored some of the time tbh, so while I see others enjoying this for legitimate reasons, I personally don't feel like watching any more of this soon. Should be worthwhile for fans of [more like this]." opposed to "Omg worst film of all time NO SINGLE QUALITY ABOUT IT WHATSOEVER, 1/10 and only because I can't rate it negatively!!"
Or not?

Yes, it's usually a sign of not knowing enough different audiences. Even those films usually have fanatic supporters.

[tommy_leazaq]

No, that seems kinda ridicilous.

1. You're not a film critic, so why rate as a film critic?
2. If a film doesn't appeal to you at all, why even rate it highly. If the film doesn't appeal to you at all, it is a shortcoming of that
3. Film critics are subjective as well, and will only like a certain kind of movie, regardless whether a movie is well made or not. I've seen some film critics trash Zack Snyder's Justice League, though it it's in the IMDb top 250 for instance
4. Pretty much every movie is well made (or at least 90-95%) technically, so is Ice Age 3: Dawn of Dinosaurs. What however differs is that it is not really original anymore, and that we see Ice Age type of movies every year at least 5 to 10 times. Yet they can still be enjoying, and it's by no means a terrible movie. It's a very good one. It just doesn't offer anything new in the mix, when you compare it with all other western animation movies.

these kind of ratings are fraudulent IMO and also kind of: "i feel better than the rest"-type of ratings. If you don't like a movie, why give it such a high rating??? And how are you able to determine whether a movie is well made technically (by reading someone else's reviews, or not daring to go against the current and question the "standard"?).

Like why rate as a film critic. We have plenty of enough film critics. I don't care about their opinion. Their opinions don't matter. The only opinion that matters to me is MINE at the end! And i don't use film critics' reviews as recs, because they're also selective in what they'll view. Perhaps i'll check sometimes what Onderhond rates (but his opinion of movies is not the same as mine). There are some users on Moviemeter I follow to look for perhaps something i'll enjoy, but that's not always the case, since my taste is kinda ecletic, and i feel like sometimes i can enjoy a certain type of movie more than on a different moment, but yes.

Subjectivity can be influenced by objectivity, but more importantly objectivity will certainly be influenced by subjectivity. In fact complete objectivity without prejudgments does not exist, and if you think it does, you're only making a fool of yourself.

I am really sorry that you took this much time and effort to make this long post as they seem to be valid queries but you have asked them to a wrong person

As people close to me know, I always try to give as much explanation as possible when they ask me "HOW I'm doing" it but when it comes to "WHY I'm doing it", the answer is always the same and here it goes: "I just like to do it". No other reason, not a care on what others would think etc. I like to do it and I can do it and no one gets hurt, so I am doing it. Simple as that.

For my LB ratings, I was liberal with the word Film Critic. You could substitute it with Film Analyst, Film Historian, Film Enthusiast, Film Maker, Film Student etc. Basically its an Academic Rating or "Robotic Rating", devoid of any personal feel. And, of course yes, it is formed by the experience of watching many films and reading a lot about them. Seems you have problem with this type of rating, so you could check my Criticker ratings alone, which is like, "Human Rating".

Guess this answers almost all your queries.

And for your last para,

Subjectivity can be influenced by objectivity, but more importantly objectivity will certainly be influenced by subjectivity. In fact complete objectivity without prejudgments does not exist, and if you think it does, you're only making a fool of yourself.

I absolutely agree with this. Its difficult and near impossible to maintain 100% subjectivity or objectivity. That is why I present you,

My Flickchart rankings!!!!...

Its a Ranking of all my watched films formed with a complex combination of my subjective and objective and subjective objectivity and objective subjectivity feels of the films with some "gut feel" thrown into it.

So, here is my Flickchart ranking of the HHH films I have seen. (Only ranked about 3100 films so far there in FL. Still some 500-600 films to go but all HHH films are accounted for).

And, I might as well throw my IMDb rating as well, which represents my overall feel of the film. Definition of Overall Feel? I honestly dont know. May be the number, that I feel, would suit better next to that film name. Not joking, this is more or less how I rate in IMDb.


1. FL: #0162, IMDb: 8 - A Summer at Grandpa's (1984)
2. FL: #1769, IMDb: 7 - The Puppetmaster (1993)
3. FL: #2117, IMDb: 7 - Dust in the Wind (1986
4. FL: #2406, IMDb: 7 - The Assassin (2015)
5. FL: #2722, IMDb: 7 - A Time to Live, a Time to Die (1985)
6. FL: #2762, IMDb: 7 - A City of Sadness (1989)
7. FL: #2906, IMDb: 6 - Flowers of Shanghai (1998)


I recently signed in in TMDb as well. Havent started rating there yet, as I havent found any valid criteria yet to use there. May be combining everything and get a consensual rating.

And I always wanted to rate films by grade like A-, B+ etc. but couldn't find any site that support this kind of ratings. So I am currently using our own forum's film log thread for this kind of rating. Unfortunately, I have started this rating in the logs last year only so no HHH films. An excel should have been lot useful to maintain such things, but I hate using excel. So well, that's that.

But the real question is not why you rate objectively, but how you do that? Of course you are free to rate however you feel like, but like yourself also say it’s near impossible to maintain 100% objectivity, so I really wonder how anyone can analyze a movie objectively. Maybe one could do this by completely dissecting a movie in what works and doesn’t. But even than it will still be (partly) influenced by subjectivity.

I don’t mean this in an attacking condensing way as it might sounds. I’m really curious how you do that. If you really analyze every movie you see that way I take a big bow to you. I would love to read your analysis, I think they could be interesting.

Well, I used some of the terms quite liberally, like Film Critic and Objective , without thinking how it would be interpreted here. My bad.

In my first post itself, I made clear of the distinctions of the ratings (Personal feel vs Quality). I put the terms Subjective and Objective in brackets only to give some idea, like the usual Favorite vs Best debate we would have.

When I say objective, I obviously didnt mean 100% objective as I dont think one can have a universally true measurements to an artform like cinema. It will have our own constructions and definitions of what is good/bad which is formed based on experience, studies, learnings etc. I myself have my own pre defined set of notions of what constitutes a good craft. So of course as you said, it is very well influenced by subjectivity. Should have used a different term may be.

So when I say I rate objectively, I mean I rate the film on the craft, filmmaking, and context level (like leveraging Hays code films on their bad and forced ending), with the measurements I made for myself. So basically, I rate how the film is made and presented to me. But I dont consider how I felt by the film. Was I entertained/ bored/ connected/ interested/ impacted by the film are inconsequential in my "objective" rating.

[tommy_leazaq]

I hate using excel

I dont hate Excel itself. I just hate using it.

Spoiler

I would rate Excel objectively 9/10 but subjectively 4/10

[Fergenaprido]

I use Criticker for rating films based on my personal feel (subjective rating) and Letterboxd for rating films for their quality (objective rating).

Here is my ranking of 7 films I have seen from HHH, sorted by Criticker, LB ratings.

1. CR: 80, LB: 4.0* - A Summer at Grandpa's (1984)
2. CR: 56, LB: 4.0* - The Puppetmaster (1993)
3. CR: 55, LB: 3.5* - A Time to Live, a Time to Die (1985)
4. CR: 54, LB: 3.5* - Dust in the Wind (1986)
5. CR: 54, LB: 3.5* - The Assassin (2015)
6. CR: 53, LB: 4.0* - A City of Sadness (1989)
7. CR: 48, LB: 3.5* - Flowers of Shanghai (1998)

You can see, though I have appreciated and respected all of his films, they haven't appealed to me on personal level. Except of course, A Summer at Grandpa's. May be I like kids in drama better than teens and adults

Care to expand on your rating system? It makes no sense to me (the subjective vs objective part).

Well, not sure how I can I explain it more than what I have posted there but let me try .

It's pretty literal actually. Subjective rating (Criticker) caters to how I felt about the film. How much I enjoyed, cared, connected with the film irrespective of what is the film about/how well the film is made etc. Like how would I react if I was a casual viewer. Only thing that matters here is me and my feelings alone. My objective (Letterboxd) rating cares about the filmmaking/craft/techniques and all. How good the film is made irrespective of how I felt towards the film. Like how would I rate if I was a film critic.

Example: I enjoyed Ice Age 3: Dawn of Dinosaurs a lot. My Criticker Rating of it is 93 ("All Time Favorite"). But my LB rating is 2.5* only as I am aware of its shortcomings. Other extreme is Raging Bull (or City of Sadness from my above post). I know its masterfully made and has exceptional acting. I appreciate ,respect that film and its craft. It has LB rating 5.0* from me. But the film itself bored me a bit, and occasionally I was losing interest with what is happening at the screen. So it has Criticker rating of 52 ("OK").

Guess I made some it somewhat clear. Please ask me any specific things that you didnt get.

Thank you. That explanation covers a lot more than what you had posted previously. I understand it now, but I think your Letterboxd ratings are uninteresting. I'll just look at your Criticker ones and ignore the rest. I've never seen someone use completely different ratings systems for different platforms before. Which system is the one you refer to when creating your lists for forum polls?

I hate using excel

I dont hate Excel itself. I just hate using it.

Spoiler

I would rate Excel objectively 9/10 but subjectively 4/10

[Lonewolf2003]

I am really sorry that you took this much time and effort to make this long post as they seem to be valid queries but you have asked them to a wrong person

As people close to me know, I always try to give as much explanation as possible when they ask me "HOW I'm doing" it but when it comes to "WHY I'm doing it", the answer is always the same and here it goes: "I just like to do it". No other reason, not a care on what others would think etc. I like to do it and I can do it and no one gets hurt, so I am doing it. Simple as that.

For my LB ratings, I was liberal with the word Film Critic. You could substitute it with Film Analyst, Film Historian, Film Enthusiast, Film Maker, Film Student etc. Basically its an Academic Rating or "Robotic Rating", devoid of any personal feel. And, of course yes, it is formed by the experience of watching many films and reading a lot about them. Seems you have problem with this type of rating, so you could check my Criticker ratings alone, which is like, "Human Rating".

Guess this answers almost all your queries.

And for your last para,



I absolutely agree with this. Its difficult and near impossible to maintain 100% subjectivity or objectivity. That is why I present you,

My Flickchart rankings!!!!...

Its a Ranking of all my watched films formed with a complex combination of my subjective and objective and subjective objectivity and objective subjectivity feels of the films with some "gut feel" thrown into it.

So, here is my Flickchart ranking of the HHH films I have seen. (Only ranked about 3100 films so far there in FL. Still some 500-600 films to go but all HHH films are accounted for).

And, I might as well throw my IMDb rating as well, which represents my overall feel of the film. Definition of Overall Feel? I honestly dont know. May be the number, that I feel, would suit better next to that film name. Not joking, this is more or less how I rate in IMDb.


1. FL: #0162, IMDb: 8 - A Summer at Grandpa's (1984)
2. FL: #1769, IMDb: 7 - The Puppetmaster (1993)
3. FL: #2117, IMDb: 7 - Dust in the Wind (1986
4. FL: #2406, IMDb: 7 - The Assassin (2015)
5. FL: #2722, IMDb: 7 - A Time to Live, a Time to Die (1985)
6. FL: #2762, IMDb: 7 - A City of Sadness (1989)
7. FL: #2906, IMDb: 6 - Flowers of Shanghai (1998)


I recently signed in in TMDb as well. Havent started rating there yet, as I havent found any valid criteria yet to use there. May be combining everything and get a consensual rating.

And I always wanted to rate films by grade like A-, B+ etc. but couldn't find any site that support this kind of ratings. So I am currently using our own forum's film log thread for this kind of rating. Unfortunately, I have started this rating in the logs last year only so no HHH films. An excel should have been lot useful to maintain such things, but I hate using excel. So well, that's that.

But the real question is not why you rate objectively, but how you do that? Of course you are free to rate however you feel like, but like yourself also say it’s near impossible to maintain 100% objectivity, so I really wonder how anyone can analyze a movie objectively. Maybe one could do this by completely dissecting a movie in what works and doesn’t. But even than it will still be (partly) influenced by subjectivity.

I don’t mean this in an attacking condensing way as it might sounds. I’m really curious how you do that. If you really analyze every movie you see that way I take a big bow to you. I would love to read your analysis, I think they could be interesting.

Well, I used some of the terms quite liberally, like Film Critic and Objective , without thinking how it would be interpreted here. My bad.

In my first post itself, I made clear of the distinctions of the ratings (Personal feel vs Quality). I put the terms Subjective and Objective in brackets only to give some idea, like the usual Favorite vs Best debate we would have.

When I say objective, I obviously didnt mean 100% objective as I dont think one can have a universally true measurements to an artform like cinema. It will have our own constructions and definitions of what is good/bad which is formed based on experience, studies, learnings etc. I myself have my own pre defined set of notions of what constitutes a good craft. So of course as you said, it is very well influenced by subjectivity. Should have used a different term may be.

So when I say I rate objectively, I mean I rate the film on the craft, filmmaking, and context level (like leveraging Hays code films on their bad and forced ending), with the measurements I made for myself. So basically, I rate how the film is made and presented to me. But I dont consider how I felt by the film. Was I entertained/ bored/ connected/ interested/ impacted by the film are inconsequential in my "objective" rating.

Thanks for the answer.
But don’t you think film craft and the experience of a film are related? So that your experience should at least play some part in your rating of films craft and is not completely inconsequential. Of course a experience of a movie is influenced by your personal preference and just something basic as your mood that day. But that experience is also partly influenced by the craft. I won’t go so far as Laki to say if a film bores you it’s a shortcoming of that movie, but I do agree that if a film bores you it must be doing something not right and vice versa.

[tommy_leazaq]

Thanks for the answer.
But don’t you think film craft and the experience of a film are related? So that your experience should at least play some part in your rating of films craft and is not completely inconsequential.

Yes, a 100% complete objective analysis is near impossible and my objectivity is influenced by subjectivity, both of which I have already mentioned. But I'm trying as much as possible not to take my experiences into account while rating in Letterboxd i.e. the craft.

Let me try to explain with some examples. From the years of experience of film watching, I developed a set of indicators for craft. Let's take Music/Background Score. Few of my positive indicators for Good BGM are

"It should blend well the scene"
"It should enhance the mood of the scene"
"It shouldn't be too intrusive and too loud"
"It shouldn't try to oversell the scene"

Now, who decides what is overselling, intrusive, loud, blending or not, enhancing or not? Me. So obviously it's not 100% objective,as mentioned before. But these indicators would never be,

"I should like the music"
"It should create an impact on me"
"It should be memorable to me"
"It should resonate with me" etc.

If I find the music blends well with the scene, that is good enough for me. Even if I liked the music and it created an impact on me as well, it wouldn't get any extra point in LB rating. That goes into Criticker rating. I first rate my experience in IMDb and Criticker. Then, after some time I specifically spend few more minutes to take my experience out of the equation before going into LB.

And, I don't always enjoy or have a good experience with all "Good" craft films. Not necessarily. For ex, I feel PTA's The Master has high quality craft. Cinematography, Editing, Acting, Score were all very good. So 4.0* in LB (I have some problem with its writing though). But the film did nothing to me, with all those great technical and acting achievements. There was couple of good scenes but overall it's underwhelming experience for me. So, Criticker: 52/100. On other end of the spectrum, let's take another PTA film. There Will be Blood is one of the films that excelled in all departments of a film, IMO. So perfect 5.0* in LB . Though the film is not a a favorite of mine, I actually enjoyed the craft. Loved the Acting and cinematography. So Criticker: 70/100.

This all might seem like lot of unnecessary and time-consuming work. But its not . I mostly go by the instinct as these things are all for my personal keep and I never gonna publish about it elsewhere. Also, I have never mentioned that my system is 100% fool proof.

I won’t go so far as Laki to say if a film bores you it’s a shortcoming of that movie, but I do agree that if a film bores you it must be doing something not right and vice versa.

Boredom can happen because the film is bad and long, e.g.: Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon [CR: 36, LB: 1.0*] or it can happen because the subject the film deals is not enticing to me, which is not fault of the film, e.g.: Vampyr [CR: 41, LB: 4.0*].

[Lonewolf2003]

I would love to read more reviews by you, using those indicators to judge the craft. I really think those could be very interesting and insightful

[Onderhond]

Boredom can happen because the film is bad and long, e.g.: Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon [CR: 36, LB: 1.0*]

Ehhhhhh .....

[tommy_leazaq]

I would love to read more reviews by you, using those indicators to judge the craft. I really think those could be very interesting and insightful

Sorry but I don't write reviews I find it very difficult to articulate and express in words, what I exactly feel. Part of the reason why I have so much of this rating system is to cover my lack of ability to put my feel and experience into words. A simple X/10 could mean lot of things for different films that's why I like to have diverse ratings. So now I know which rating I should look for, if I wanted to see how I reacted for a specific aspect of a film (like,, the overall feel, where the film stands among all films, how I found movie experience etc.). And, those indicators and all are not written rule or anything. Most of them are intuitional and Instinctive, formed based on the experience.

[beavis]

I'd like to keep this topic active for a while (as I haven't been doing director rankings for ages now )
So I take the liberty to throw in another now it has become quiet and nobody stepped in yet

Another one I've almost have seen the complete director filmography of: Jacques Rivette https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0729626/

1 - Out 1, noli me tangere (1971) - 9
2 - Haut bas fragile (1995) - 8,5
3 - La belle noiseuse (1991) - 8
4 - L'amour par terre (1984) - 8
5 - Paris nous appartient (1960) - 8
6 - Lumière et compagnie (1995) - 7,5
7 - L'amour fou (1969) - 7,5
8 - La bande des quatre (1989) - 7,5
9 - Jeanne la Pucelle I - Les batailles (1994) - 7,5
10 - Jeanne la Pucelle II - Les prisons (1994) - 7,5
11 - La religieuse (1966) - 7,5
12 - Merry-Go-Round (1981) - 7,5
13 - Noroît (1976) - 7
14 - Le pont du Nord (1981) - 7
15 - Histoire de Marie et Julien (2003) - 7
16 - Secret Défense (1998) - 7
17 - Va savoir (2001) - 7
18 - Hurlevent (1985) - 7
19 - Ne touchez pas la hache (2007) - 7
20 - Duelle (une quarantaine) (1976) - 6
21 - Céline et Julie vont en bateau - Phantom Ladies Over Paris (1974) - 6

That last one I've seen ages ago and I disliked it a bit on the day, while on paper it should be one of my favorites... I wouldn't mind rewatching it someday...

[mightysparks]

1. La belle noiseuse (1991) 6/10
2. Céline et Julie vont en bateau (1974) 5/10
3. Out 1, noli me tangere (1971) 3/10