Official RAZZIE® Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > FORUMS on 30th RAZZIES Choices > MISS MARCH
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: How LOW Can Your Libido Go??
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

How LOW Can Your Libido Go??
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
Message
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4803 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: How LOW Can Your Libido Go??
    Posted: December 17 2010 at 2:20pm
This is a teen sex comedy with a cliched plot and stupid jokes...but on purpose. Not to mention is funny! A certain scene made fall out of my bed laughing, and that rarely happens. I wanted to give a higher rating, but it loses points because some jokes weren't funny, some were (but they re-used them too many times) and some were too gross or too sexist. Also,Zach & Trevor shouldn't do so many jobs on one movie, because their directing was sloppy. 

Now that you mentioned it...it's true -- Hefner was doing bad line readings.  
http://vits-ingthemovies.blogspot.com
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557 		Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 17 2010 at 2:24pm
This is why I highly question the high ratings you give to some movies. When I ask you why you gave that review, you admit there are many flaws to the movie. If that is the case, then the movie clearly shouldn't be getting that high of a rating. The Ford Pinto had a number of problems to it, but no car critic overlooked them an said "All problems aside, it's a fun ride, I give it 4 out of 5 stars!".
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4803 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 18 2010 at 7:51am
Based only on laughs, I would've give this 10, but I lowered it to 8. Also, I reviewed it as the "teen sex comedy" it is.
http://vits-ingthemovies.blogspot.com
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557 		Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 18 2010 at 7:59am
Again, like MWG, you're giving the movie entirely too many points just for being "entertaining." For only being entertaining, it should get only one point, not ten. I wouldn't reward a heavily flawed movie just because it has one redeeming quality.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4803 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 18 2010 at 2:18pm
Film is two things:Entertainment and art.Both aspects equally matter.Also,this is a comedy,so it's main purpose is to make you laugh.
http://vits-ingthemovies.blogspot.com
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557 		Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 18 2010 at 4:54pm
Originally posted by Vits

Film is two things:Entertainment and art.Both aspects equally matter.Also,this is a comedy,so it's main purpose is to make you laugh.
Yeah, but EQUAL parts entertainment AND art. So that means it's still a failure because it had no balance of the two. There was no art and it wasn't even THAT entertaining. On the realistic movie review scale, it's a 1 star or F+.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
Vheid View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: December 10 2010
Location: Utrecht
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 977 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Vheid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 19 2010 at 4:11am
Agree with you Burn and Vits, but have to say that both "art" and "entertainment" doesn't seem like real guidelines for making a good film. Mainly because both terms are very vague.

I went to an art school and one of the first questions they ask there is "What is art?". It shouldn't be a suprise that this is a question that is very hard to answer and oftenly leads to very heavy discussions. Mainly because there is just not one universal answer for this question.

Entertainment is a very personal thing. I find The Room very entertaining (because I find it extremelly funny) but someone else would just be bored by it.

As for your rating Vits, giving a film something like a 10 would means you saw something extraordinary, Something that had a deep effect on you as a filmwatcher, something you couldn't stop thinking about, something you would remember 30 years from now, something that remained on your mind days after you saw it, something that changed the way you look at things etc.

I havn't seen Miss March, but i doubt you felt any of these thing when you watched the movie. Am I wrong?

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Originally posted by Vits

Film is two things:Entertainment and art.Both aspects equally matter.Also,this is a comedy,so it's main purpose is to make you laugh.
Yeah, but EQUAL parts entertainment AND art. So that means it's still a failure because it had no balance of the two. There was no art and it wasn't even THAT entertaining. On the realistic movie review scale, it's a 1 star or F+.
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557 		Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 19 2010 at 9:53am
Well, Vheid, by "art", I mean the quality of filmmaking. The choices in editing, writing, acting, etc. Here, they are all VERY poor. As I said Hugh Hefner was just line reading in a monotone voice. The sidekick character acts like he is on speed throughout the movie, and there are running gags galore that stopped being funny the third or fourth time they are used. As for entertainment, to me at least, it's not all that funny, I chuckled only once or twice. Vits apparently thought elsewise. But no, it's a movie unworthy of an 8 out of 10 rating (or say 4 out 5 stars or B+, the REAL rating systems that make sense), and you're not missing anything from not watching it.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
Vheid View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: December 10 2010
Location: Utrecht
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 977 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Vheid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 19 2010 at 10:27am
I find this statement a little harsh. I think there is a surden personal preference in every ratingsystem. That doesn't mean one system is better than the other (as long as you can get your message across).

In my highschool they graded tests/exams with a one through ten rating. I myself would use this anytime before using a one through ten rating or rating something with letters, simply because I am more comfertable/used to this system. It doesn't mean my rating counts to a lesser extend because I don't use the same system that critics use (or the system that American high schools use).

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Well, Vheid, by "art", I mean the quality of filmmaking. The choices in editing, writing, acting, etc. Here, they are all VERY poor. As I said Hugh Hefner was just line reading in a monotone voice. The sidekick character acts like he is on speed throughout the movie, and there are running gags galore that stopped being funny the third or fourth time they are used. As for entertainment, to me at least, it's not all that funny, I chuckled only once or twice. Vits apparently thought elsewise. But no, it's a movie unworthy of an 8 out of 10 rating (or say 4 out 5 stars or B+, the REAL rating systems that make sense), and you're not missing anything from not watching it.
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557 		Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 19 2010 at 10:32am
Originally posted by Vheid

I find this statement a little harsh. I think there is a surden personal preference in every ratingsystem. That doesn't mean one system is better than the other (as long as you can get your message across).

In my highschool they graded tests/exams with a one through ten rating. I myself would use this anytime before using a one through ten rating or rating something with letters, simply because I am more comfertable/used to this system. It doesn't mean my rating counts to a lesser extend because I don't use the same system that critics use (or the system that American high schools use).
I guess it varies from person to person. To me, 1 to 10 ratings make no damn sense. At what point is the movie bad or good? 1-3 is bad? 4-7 is okay? 8-10 is good? 1 to 5 is so much simpler. 1 is bad, 2 is alright, 3 is okay, 4 is good, 5 is great. See, simple. Same goes for letter grades. A is great, B is good, C is okay, D is alright, F is bad.
 
And as for school grade point averages, as you have seen from my debates with MWG, I apply them to RT ratings. Where as he would consider 50% to be a good thing, I see it as an "F", since that was the GPA method in school. To each his own I suppose.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
Vheid View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: December 10 2010
Location: Utrecht
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 977 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Vheid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 19 2010 at 11:02am
I didn't mind that you believe your own system works better than other systems. It's just that claiming there is just one REAL system comes over as a bit judgemental (or even arrogant).

I asume this wasn't your intention, because so far you came over as a reasonable/rational person.

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

I guess it varies from person to person. To me, 1 to 10 ratings make no damn sense. At what point is the movie bad or good? 1-3 is bad? 4-7 is okay? 8-10 is good? 1 to 5 is so much simpler. 1 is bad, 2 is alright, 3 is okay, 4 is good, 5 is great. See, simple. Same goes for letter grades. A is great, B is good, C is okay, D is alright, F is bad.
 
And as for school grade point averages, as you have seen from my debates with MWG, I apply them to RT ratings. Where as he would consider 50% to be a good thing, I see it as an "F", since that was the GPA method in school. To each his own I suppose.
Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4803 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 19 2010 at 11:15am
I usually use the rating system from my country:

7,0=100%
6,5=90%
6,0=80%
5,5=70%
5,0=60%
4,5=50%
4,0=40%
3,0=30%
2,0=20%
1,0=10%
0=0%

By in sites like this I choose to write one that you all understand.

Art is an abstract concept,and in movies I consider it the quality of the technical aspects.

Laughs:90%
Directing:40%
Acting:50%
http://vits-ingthemovies.blogspot.com
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557 		Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 19 2010 at 1:20pm
Vheid, sorry if my wording upset you, but I was just going by what I was taught to be the correct movie rating system that is embraced by professional critics. You do have to admit, having five degrees of quality is easier to understand than 10 degrees, that's why it's the system that critics use.
 
Vits, my opinion, it was more like this according to that system. Laughs: 10%, Directing: 20%, Acting: 5%. 35% = F.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
Vheid View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: December 10 2010
Location: Utrecht
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 977 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Vheid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 20 2010 at 3:13am
I still prefer 10 degrees for myself, but will admit that I understand why critics use it. It is a clearer system.

I do also have to admit that I never understood why a reviews always included a rating of the film. It doesn't make the words printed on paper stronger. So to me it always seemed a bit unnecessary.

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Vheid, sorry if my wording upset you, but I was just going by what I was taught to be the correct movie rating system that is embraced by professional critics. You do have to admit, having five degrees of quality is easier to understand than 10 degrees, that's why it's the system that critics use.
 
Vits, my opinion, it was more like this according to that system. Laughs: 10%, Directing: 20%, Acting: 5%. 35% = F.
Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4803 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 20 2010 at 12:04pm
Yeah.At first I used to use that system too.I prefer the 0-10 because my opinion on a movie sounds more specific to me.
http://vits-ingthemovies.blogspot.com
Back to Top
Vheid View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: December 10 2010
Location: Utrecht
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 977 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Vheid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 20 2010 at 12:16pm
Okey, intresting Vits. Can you explain how you mean specific?
I myself prefer the 1-10 system because I rarely give film a 9 out of 10. So one can imagine how much status the few films have that get a 10 out of 10 (same goes the other way around for a 1 out of 10 rating)

Originally posted by Vits

Yeah.At first I used to use that system too.I prefer the 0-10 because my opinion on a movie sounds more specific to me.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down