Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on December 06, 2005, 03:52:33 PM
-
reference: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1208
Sure, you *could* go out and buy presents and get them wrapped *before* Christmas Eve. But then you wouldn't be wasting time here, would you? Go see a movie instead.
-
Aside from a gross abuse of the clock system (not a single one of these movies is a 6-clocker, though I'd accept 5.5 for Die Hard), this is a pretty good list.
-
Speaking of the clock system, I'd like to make a complaint against movie reviews generally: there are 138 reviews in the database, and 89 of them have 4.5 clocks or more. According the the submission guidelines, 4.5 clocks is considered "great". That seems very out of line with the bell curve.
Now, the problem could very well be this: our reviewers, since they're not being paid to watch every movie out there, only review the ones they like and, therefore, the movies that "ought" to be good. The other possibility is that our critics just aren't critical enough. I would love to see some more two, three, and four clock reviews.
(Disclaimer: The Gibbs brothers seems to be doing a much better job about this than past reviewers -- this Christmas list excepted. :))
-
Yeah, the reviewers, whether it's me or the Gibbs brothers are not watching every movie out there. We're watching the ones we have interest in. That's going to color the scores. Sorry if it bugs you. If you'd like to fork out the cash and the time it would take to be comprehensive we'll gladly take it. Or, if you'd like to write some reviews of 2 or 3 clock movies I'd gladly accept your submissions. There are always DVD reviews too.
As for the Christmas article. I assumed the scores were meant to be taken in context rather than as standalone scores.
-
First of all, this is a list of classics that spread over a number of years. That alone explains the number of six clockers. Apart from that, let me explain the scores on this article.
"Die Hard" was not only a good as it could have been for what it was trying to be, but it revolutionized the action genre. It broke the mold. Hence the six clocks.
On the other hand, "Catch Me if You Can" and "Little Women" are much better movies. They may not have revolutionized any genres, but they were perfect films. There is no way they could have been better.
It is very hard to rate movies using the six clock sytem, because it makes no sense whatsover. It forces the reviewer away from rating a movie based on it's quality.
Where did people get the idea that it's a critic's job to hate movies? That's ridiculous. And when you see our year end list, you see some movies that we really hated - or wait for our upcoming review of "Aeon Flux."
From now on, we will be submitting our reviews with star ratings, on a one to four star system, poor to excellent. We would ask that therse ratings be posted, but that the editor should feel free to try and assign clocks ratings based on reading the review. We are never going to understand this system, and we give up on trying.
-
All of our reviews in all categories skew very high--movies are no higher than any other department. This is largely because, as Mustard postulated, we tend to review things we like.
-
It's important to remember that it's all relative. It's absurd to call it an abuse of the clock system that we simply liked some films better than another person did. Everyone of the films we rated 6 clocks avergae 4 stars (highest rating) among national film critics (with the possible exception of "Die Hard", which achieves that distinction because of it's influence over time).
We judge movies based on main criteria: Quality (or our personal assesment of such).
I agree that we will no longer be using the closk system, and ask that they be removed from the Christmas article. I'll stick to what I know and understand, which is the 1 to 4 star rating employed by most national films critics. For example, our 4.5 clock review of "The Legend of Zorro" simply would have worked much better as the 2.5 stars (fair) rating we would have given it using the conventional system. Six clocks is so broad that it's confusing and hard to figure out. It's like asking a teacher to add G though H as grades and try to figure out that system.
We're not trying to be overly defensive about this. People are free to disagree with, or even hate our opinions on these films. What frustrates us is that we feel we are being asked to violate our own integrity by submitting ratings which do not accurately reflect our opinion of a film. Hence, we're done with the clock system.
-
I agree that the clock system is screwy -- I can't really understand the practical difference between 5.5 clocks and 6, since both claim to be "perfect" scores.
From reading other critics' articles (particularly Ebert, though others' as well), it seems like any kind of concrete rating system is flawed. My suggestion: rather than switching to a star system (which isn't all that different from the clocks) is just abolish ratings altogether -- review the movie and let the article stand for itself.
Incidentally, I by no means meant to start an argument. I very much enjoy reading the movie reviews -- especially the Gibbs stuff.
(I think the only real reason I said I wanted to see lower-rated reviews is because it's always more entertaining to read about how crummy a movie is than how great it is. Maybe that's just me. :))
Again -- no offense intended.
-
I'm down with 4 stars, or no stars, or whatever. I'm sending an email now.
-
I think you make an excellent point, Mustard. The star system isn't inherently better, it's just standard, and it's what I've been using all my life (I've assigned star ratings to movies since I was a kid).
There has been a lot of criticsim since the early 80s that star systems or the Siskel and Ebert "Thumbs Up" was dumbing down film criticism by trying to make films apply to an arbitrary standard, and there's a lot of vailidity to that. On the other hand, the reason these systems exist is that most people read a review for a simple reason: To decide whether they want to see a film. Many scan the review or check the star/clock rating.
I'd be fine with no ratings, but I understand the reason for them. But I can't begin to wrap my head around the six clock (it's the numbers, not the clocks) system.
-
I've talked to the Brothers Gibb, and we have settled on the following: all movies will now be given a five-dimensional coordinate based on its movement through the interlocking planes of acting, directing, length, explosions, and cheesecake. Each plane has its own "terrain," so to speak, but we project that the typical bad movie will be graded as a 4, a good movie will be Green, and an excellent movie will be Rabbit.
-
I've talked to the Brothers Gibb, and we have settled on the following: all movies will now be given a five-dimensional coordinate based on its movement through the interlocking planes of acting, directing, length, explosions, and cheesecake. Each plane has its own "terrain," so to speak, but we project that the typical bad movie will be graded as a 4, a good movie will be Green, and an excellent movie will be Rabbit.
And one movie per year shall be designated as a "Wellington", based on how well it conforms to Socratic philosphy. Of course, in order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to review films backwards (or, in the case of "Memento", forwards).
-
I know it's complx, but you readers will get used to it eventually. For example, Citizen Kane would be rated "Aluminum." See how easy?
-
Nice article. I own all of these movies except for Young Sherlock Holmes. Heh, Santa Claus Conquors the Martians, never thought I'd see a review of that. Good alternate choice of christmas movies though.
-
Okay, I read this and generally agree with it, but I have to ask one thing:
The Polar Express as "the greatest Christmas movie ever made"?
I really hope that particular paragraph was steeped in sarcasm that I'm not just picking up on. After seeing that film two weeks ago I'm convinced that its relationship to quality entertainment is akin to the relationship between matter and antimater. (Though Santa Claus Conquers the Martians beats even it, gaining the status of "entertainment black hole" :))
-
Interesting choice of movies. I haven't seen the George C. Scott version of A Christmas Carol in its entirety, but I believe the one most loudly lauded by critics as being the best (I refuse to use the term "faithful") version is the 1951 "Scrooge," starring Alastair Sim. Fabulous version. And while I like the Muppet take on the story, I don't think I'd call it the "best" or the "most faithful." Unless, of course Charles Dickens was purple with a nose that resembled a kitchen faucet. Still, thanks for the suggestions.
-
That a surprisingly accurate description of the man. My personal favorite is the musical with Albert Finney.
-
I here by declare that from now on anything I review will not use clocks but the word "Fizzlifeas". It is up to all of you to decide that that means.
-
That's the most banked up thing I've ever heard.
-
I like clocks. Perhaps the clock system should simply be based be equated to this:
6 clocks: worth losing 6 hours of one's life to waste time on
5 clocks: worth losing 5 hours of one's life to waste time on
etc.
Of course, a 4 hour movie will more likely get a 4 clock rating than a 1-hour movie, but that's the whole point, isn't it?
=þ
-
The clock system is fine how it is, the problems are those that stem from a review system in general. Which, as Mustard stated, we review things we like. The second part is everyone has different views of what a perfect movie/game/item is and well never agree full on that.
I do think we've been handing out more 6 clock reviews then we should, but as long as the review justifies that score then I don't complain about it.
If we change the meaning of our clocks then that means someone, most likely me, has to go and update all the old articles. Also we originally thought of that system you suggested JK, but felt it was biased against things like movies and other short games.
The review scoring system is fine how it is, how ever reviewers could use a refresher course on what each score means.
Now I'm using my Spriggantacualr powers and saying any more comments on the current score/review system shalt be moved to the Suggestion Board. This thread is for comments on your favorite Christmas movies and what score you'd give them, not if you don't like our current system.
-
Okay, I read this and generally agree with it, but I have to ask one thing:
The Polar Express as "the greatest Christmas movie ever made"?
I really hope that particular paragraph was steeped in sarcasm that I'm not just picking up on. After seeing that film two weeks ago I'm convinced that its relationship to quality entertainment is akin to the relationship between matter and antimater. (Though Santa Claus Conquers the Martians beats even it, gaining the status of "entertainment black hole" :))
There was no sarcasm intended in that statement, and I stand by it. I've never seen a movie that captures the excitement of Christmas from a child's point of view the way "Polar Express" does. Not one of the greatest films of all time, but a Christmas classic.
As for "A Christmas Carol," the George C. Scott version is widely agreed upon by many critics to be definitive, and The Muppett version follows the book more closely than most versions, including "Scrooge," the Albert Finney version, which is also quite good. Admitttedly, there is no Rubber Chicken factory in the book, but other than the obviosu changes to make it a Muppett movie, it follows the source material very accurately. Too bad the same can't be said for "Muppett Treasure Island."
Now, I want to say one last thing about the clock system: people are a under a misconception that we have ap roblem with using clocks instead of stars. We could rate movies with waffles, I don't care.
It's the numbering system, whcih has never been clear to us, and in particular the amibiguity of what a "Six clock" movie is. "Little Women" is a classic example: you won't find a major critic in the nation who didn't give that movie four stars. It's a masterpeice. But because it's not a genre buster, it apparently doesn't rate six clock, which leaves it with empty clocks, which to me implies that the reviewer thought it could have been better, which is simply not the case.
-
Perhaps the problem of the clocks could be solved by eliminating the sixth empty clock? So if a movie is rated 3.5 clocks we get an empty clock and a half and a 5 clocker has five full clocks and no empty one.
but if a movie is rated a six clocker, you just get an extra clock on the end indicating superlativeness.
That way 5 clocks equates to 4 stars with no blank clocks misleading the readers but a 6 clock score is still possible for those genre busting pieces.
-
I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I've disliked Michael Caine for years, based solely on his performance in Muppet Christmas Carol. True, acting is difficult when your costars are foam rubber, but I just thought he was lousy lousy lousy.
He is starting to win me back, mostly because of Batman Begins and, oddly enough, Bewitched. (Which was a mediocre movie. Incidentally, Nicole Kidman will one day be my second wife, thanks to sweet sweet polygamy.)
Really, though, I think my dislike of Muppet Christmas Carol (and Caine) was because I like the Finney version so much. Say what you want for story accuracy, but Scrooge actually makes you think and feel, where Muppets makes you laugh.
-
I saw that my roommate just recently picked up a version of About a Boy. The main character has tons of money from a Christmas Jingle his father wrote, and it taunts him throughout the movie. So, if you want an alternative Christmas movie, try this one out.
-
Im craving A Christmas Story today.