Accuracy with Movie Ratings

MortSahlFan wrote: First off, I wonder what % of my IMDB scores would change if I watched a dozen that were rated a dozen years ago. But, it occurred to me that my ratings now will be tougher simply because I've seen other movies first. Take noir. I've probably seen a few hundred, but I'm sure I sought out the best (for me), and after seeing a genre (especially one like that; femme fatale, etc) over and over, it's going to be difficult for me to watch one in the future. It's becoming very tough to even find a movie to attempt lately. I've only seen about 4-5 movies this entire year. Unique is the one attribute I've been looking for most, but after searching for it, it seems like I get mostly "weird" movies, or "unique" by some gimmick. I've come to be more interested in movies that are centered around a woman, a Norwegian movie like "Blind", which is very creative. But music, too, I've heard enough guys, and I seem to prefer women vocally, and again, I think it's the desire for something fresh. A movie like "Buffalo '66" to me is the most unique, and it's a conversational movie, with little movement, but it all has purpose.

JD wrote: I was close at 6, I guess it's actually seven.

Or Se7en? :P

I also look for something unique and new, which can be a challenge. I just don’t find the same stories, tropes and clichés in new outfits remotely interesting. Even if the choreography and acting is good, it doesn’t help when I’ve seen it dozens of times before. It doesn’t have to be an incredible story or plot, just different and interesting. Good choreography and acting certainly helps.

There are many movies with unique stories or approaches if you can find them, but it won’t be the mostpopular ones. I can’t take superhero movies. Those bore me to no end. There are exceptions I suppose. Some Batman movies are good (yes, I call him a superhero), but most of those I’ve seen are a drag. Nearly invincible superheroes punching nearly invincible antagonists through buildings were only exciting up to some point.

moshkito wrote: JD wrote: ... But I certainly can see your issue. I'm also a bit of movie buff and over the years, after an initial watching or two, I'll rewatch movies in completely different modes. So the third time I may only pay attention to background actors and completely ignore the prime actors. Next time I'll watch with my eyes closed and listen to the foley, or just focus on the music. I've even watched a movie and counted the cuts just for laughs. ... Hi, You ought to try MARAT/SADE ... the levels alone in the play will throw you off, and the difference in the folks from the "inmates" to the "aristocracy" are absolutely NOTHING ... compared to the words themselves ... just turn off the monitor, and then listen to the play ... it's another monster and then some! And if you don't pause to take a breath and see what was said ... you are NOT paying attention at all! As for ratings, I have a problem with them, and always have had that concern. One of my examples is the Portland Internation Film Festival, and the fact that the majority of the audience are mannequins ... (said in a Monty Python sort of style!!!) because they NEVER went to see a foreign film from way out there in nowhere land in the world, and only filled up the theaters on American, English, and a couple of French or Italian films with a notable name or so, and for a couple of years, here, of course, because the almighty Pedro was here with his movies from Spain and everyone went to have the glass of cheap wine and hand shake for $75 dollars to the film center!  I reviewed a lot of films and had them posted in various local spots, and sadly, many of those films were still ignored and not appreciated, and above all the one thing that many of those folks ignored was ... NONE OF THOSE SMALL FILMS WILL EVER BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN ... none will make it to video or dvd. But still the audience goes for what they "know" and completely ignore everything else. It was a major wakeup call about "art" ... and how the Internet public came to it. No taste and no individuality whatsoever, is just about what can be said!

I've heard that, too (only 6 stories), but I've seen plenty more. But the average movie isn't creative.

JD wrote: I think I heard or read that someone once said there are only, like, six stories to be told and everything is a retelling of those six stories in a different manor. I'll have to do some research on that one.

First off, I wonder what % of my IMDB scores would change if I watched a dozen that were rated a dozen years ago.

But, it occurred to me that my ratings now will be tougher simply because I've seen other movies first. Take noir. I've probably seen a few hundred, but I'm sure I sought out the best (for me), and after seeing a genre (especially one like that; femme fatale, etc) over and over, it's going to be difficult for me to watch one in the future. It's becoming very tough to even find a movie to attempt lately. I've only seen about 4-5 movies this entire year.

Unique is the one attribute I've been looking for most, but after searching for it, it seems like I get mostly "weird" movies, or "unique" by some gimmick. I've come to be more interested in movies that are centered around a woman, a Norwegian movie like "Blind", which is very creative. But music, too, I've heard enough guys, and I seem to prefer women vocally, and again, I think it's the desire for something fresh. A movie like "Buffalo '66" to me is the most unique, and it's a conversational movie, with little movement, but it all has purpose.

Edited by MortSahlFan - September 02 2022 at 13:30