Hello everyone. If you’re curious about how the movies on this site are rated, I’ll do my best to clear the air. Here goes.
A lot of the ratings are based on spoilers – like if the twist at the end sucked, I’ll mention it in the numbers but not in the words below. That’s why the numbers and words don’t strictly add up.
Production Value, for this blog, seeks to answer one question – have you gotten what you paid for? How much did the movie convince you that it actually happened? Bad CGI messes with production value. As does poor effort put into costume and scene layout/setting.
This is probably my most polarizing category. Films have taken great and terrible creative decisions on this one. You don’t need a great budget to have impeccable production value. Movies with fantastic budgets have invested poorly in CGI. Some of the best CGI in the game isn’t even noticeable. (Eg: In The Social Network, Armie Hammer’s face was digitally inserted onto both the Winklevoss twins. Did you see that happen?)
Did well on Production Value: Raw (2016) (10/10)
Did poorly on Production Value: It (2017) (3/10)
Here I try to focus on quality of plot and dialogue. Does it keep you engaged throughout? How many quotable moments are there? If the script is boring, or has a long buildup with a disappointing reveal, it loses points on Script.
Did well on Script: Beasts of No Nation (2015) (8.5/10)
Did poorly on Script: Batman vs. Superman – DoJ (2016) (3/10)
How visually appealing are the scenes? Since that becomes too subjective, I ask myself this – will I like that screenshot of the film as my wallpaper? If you think about it, Game of Thrones has quite a few wallpaper-worthy scenes – implying it has excellent cinematography. Try taking snaps on VLC when you’re rewatching GoT while weeping on Season 8.
Cinematography also takes into account camera work, of course. Most of what I know about camera angles comes from Abhay sir’s Film Studies class in MIT’s 4th semester. When it comes to this category, a lot of films are simply unambitious. Too many unnecessary edits to clearly substitute a stuntman – and you lose points. If the scenes paint an interesting colour palette, and if the camera angles are used smartly to imply different moods, the film wins big here.
This isn’t a very polarizing category for me. If a film has unambitious cinematography, I tend to move on and rate it on other categories. Still won’t be my wallpaper though.
Did well on Cinematography: La La Land (2016) (10/10)
These are quite subjective. With Acting, I mostly try to see how convincing the roles are. It doesn’t matter if the actor is a star – every movie is a fresh start for whoever’s in it. With Direction, I try to assess the major creative decisions taken in the movie. This takes some research into the film’s making.
With both Acting and Music, movies run the risk of overdoing it. Not every scene needs a sweeping background score, and there’s no need to ugly-cry every time you express emotion.
A Study in Taste 