Match Cut Director Consensus - Todd Haynes

[Boner M]

Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story - 8
Safe - 9
Velvet Goldmine - 6
Far From Heaven - 6.5
I'm Not There - 7

[Grouchy]

Superstar: the Karen Carpenter story - 7
Velvet Goldmine - 8
Far From Heaven - 9
I'm Not There - 10

It's like walking up a ladder.

[Yxklyx]

Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story - 8
Dottie Gets Spanked - 7
Safe - 6
Velvet Goldmine - 9
Far from Heaven - 7

[trotchky]

Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story - 9.5
Poison - 9
Velvet Goldmine - 9
Far From Heaven - 9
I'm Not There. - 10

I'm Not There. is the logical climax of Haynes' career; I'm extremely curious where he goes next.

Also, I should be seeing Safe and Dottie Gets Spanked before this is over.

[ThePlashyBubbler]

Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story - 6
I'm Not There - 9

[Kurosawa Fan]

Superstar - 4
Safe - 8
Far from Heaven - 5.5
I'm Not There - 6

[balmakboor]

Superstar - 8
Poison - 10
Safe - 10
The Velvet Goldmine - 7 (needs a re-watch)
Far From Heaven - 8
I'm Not There - 8 (also needs a re-watch)

[Bosco B Thug]

Safe - 9/10
I'm Not There - 7.5/10

[Qrazy]

I dunno how I feel about using the out of ten grading schematics for these consensuses... although I guess it's the best way (for averaging)... just that I think many of us use the school grading system where... 7/10 is C or average, B is 8/10 or above average, 9/10 and up is varying degrees of excellent... while others use 5/10 as average. I guess it's the best way but I wonder how the results would vary if we all graded one way or the other.

[Yxklyx]

For me 5-6 out of 10 would be the average of ALL movies but since I tend to watch movies that are supposed to be "good", my ratings average at 7-8.

[Raiders]

I dunno how I feel about using the out of ten grading schematics for these consensuses... although I guess it's the best way (for averaging)... just that I think many of us use the school grading system where... 7/10 is C or average, B is 8/10 or above average, 9/10 and up is varying degrees of excellent... while others use 5/10 as average. I guess it's the best way but I wonder how the results would vary if we all graded one way or the other.

I suppose at the beginning of it all, I could have made a chart:

1 = Absolute dreck, an abomination
2 = Very bad: Vapid and tedious; horrid, either technically or politically repulsive.
3 = Bad: Approaching emptiness, commerical tripe, very boring.
4 = Somewhat bad: Without pleasure, there may be a few redeeming moments, has significant flaws.
5 = Can be enjoyable, but with major systemic flaws.
6 = Meh: Forgettable, fine at the time but very little worth mentioning
7 = Good: Lacking focus, an idea, or derivitive in some way, which aggravates its flaws.
8 = Very good: With minor but systemic flaws.
9 = Excellent: Brilliant, amazing, or otherwise memorable, with few minor flaws.
10 = Masterpiece: Perfect in form and content, or has a profound personal effect.

(I borrowed most of these from a blog I know)

... but really, I wasn't trying to hold everyone's hand or run a scientific experiment. It's for fun, and I felt that the rules were more than enough to ensure decent, interesting results.

[Spinal]

The point of this should not be to come up with a number that objectively reflects a film's value. It should be to serve as a rough guide for which films in a particular director's filmography a viewer might want to prioritize. Therefore, as long as people vote consistently, who the hell cares?

[Yxklyx]

...
6 = Meh: Forgettable, fine at the time but very little worth mentioning
7 = Good: Lacking focus, an idea, or derivitive in some way, which aggravates its flaws.
...

There seems to be too big of a jump between 6 and 7 here. For me a 6 is barely recommendable - not necessarily "forgettable". 7 looks right though.

[Raiders]

There seems to be too big of a jump between 6 and 7 here. For me a 6 is barely recommendable - not necessarily "forgettable". 7 looks right though.

This is my point. I just borrowed those, but we would constantly have people arguing over the validity of my enforced system. This is only for our site and community, so if people always vote the same, the results will be by and large uniformly accurate. Skewed perhaps in the objective definition of the grading system, but since every director should be skewed the same since the same people voted.

[Qrazy]

The point of this should not be to come up with a number that objectively reflects a film's value. It should be to serve as a rough guide for which films in a particular director's filmography a viewer might want to prioritize. Therefore, as long as people vote consistently, who the hell cares?

Yeah I didn't mean it as a negative or anything, I really appreciate you guys doing it at all but I just think it does have the potential to skew results (a few people who vote a certain way miss a particular director or haven't seen that director's films so it does change overall rating) so that's why I brought it up. The chart helps ground things a bit better I think.

[Pop Trash]

I suppose at the beginning of it all, I could have made a chart:

1 = Absolute dreck, an abomination
2 = Very bad: Vapid and tedious; horrid, either technically or politically repulsive.
3 = Bad: Approaching emptiness, commerical tripe, very boring.
4 = Somewhat bad: Without pleasure, there may be a few redeeming moments, has significant flaws.
5 = Can be enjoyable, but with major systemic flaws.
6 = Meh: Forgettable, fine at the time but very little worth mentioning
7 = Good: Lacking focus, an idea, or derivitive in some way, which aggravates its flaws.
8 = Very good: With minor but systemic flaws.
9 = Excellent: Brilliant, amazing, or otherwise memorable, with few minor flaws.
10 = Masterpiece: Perfect in form and content, or has a profound personal effect.

(I borrowed most of these from a blog I know)

... but really, I wasn't trying to hold everyone's hand or run a scientific experiment. It's for fun, and I felt that the rules were more than enough to ensure decent, interesting results.

Mine would be:

1: Absolutley no redeeming value at all. Very rare rating for me since most movies tend to have something of interest.
2: Very bad. Might be one or two things of interest but the rest is insufferable.
3-4: Pretty bad but might have some things going for it. Maybe a notch below mediocre.
5: Mediocre or a mixed bag of good and bad stuff. Still not total crap.
6: Approaching goodness but not quite there. Still mostly enjoyable if perhaps forgettable.
7: A "good" movie. Never quite achieves a higher plateau of filmmaking but still mostly good things here if perhaps a few nagging flaws that prevent me from giving it a better score. This is probably my most common score.
8: A very good film. Probably one of the better films of a given year and would more than likely make either my top twenty or top ten of the year.
9: Possible masterpiece. One of the best films of the year and most likely in my top five of a particular year. This is the highest rating I will give a film if I've only watched it once and it does not have several years behind it to view it more objectively.
10: A masterpiece. One of my all time favorite films. I rarely give this score out.

[Melville]

Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story - 4
Safe - 8
Far from Heaven - 7
I'm Not There - 5

My rating system: '1' denotes a spectacular failure, '5.5' an okay movie, '10' a masterpiece that has a considerable impact on how I see the world.

[NickGlass]

Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story: 8.0
Safe: 7.0
Far From Heaven: 9.0
I'm Not There: 9.0

[ledfloyd]

the version of Dottie Gets Spanked on netflix instant watching has commentary on it. bummer.

[Sycophant]

1 = Michael Bay
2 = Garry Marshall
3 = Chris Columbus
4 = Jason Reitman
5 = John Turteltaub
6 = John Woo
7 = Terry Zwigoff
8 = P.T. Anderson
9 = Preston Sturges
10 = Wes Anderson

[Spinal]

10 = Wes Anderson

That seems high.

[Sycophant]

That seems high.

Overexplanation follows:[

Show Spoiler

Sometimes with Wes, I teeter on fanboy territory. However, the only other directors who spring to mind as having such uniformly excellent work would be David Lynch and Stanley Kubrick, each of whom I have yet to see a bad film from, but I didn't quite feel like being embodying Match Cut. Sadly, Chaplin, Sturges, and Allen all have films I don't like so much. Then I remembered I didn't like Hotel Chevalier as a standalone so much. But then I wanted to just get on with it.

I thought about that selection a good deal. Then went with it.

As I continue to overthink it, I realize maybe Kitano, Kore-eda, or Takahata would've made a better choice.

]

[ledfloyd]

Overexplanation follows:[

Show Spoiler

Sometimes with Wes, I teeter on fanboy territory. However, the only other directors who spring to mind as having such uniformly excellent work would be David Lynch and Stanley Kubrick, each of whom I have yet to see a bad film from, but I didn't quite feel like being embodying Match Cut. Sadly, Chaplin, Sturges, and Allen all have films I don't like so much. Then I remembered I didn't like Hotel Chevalier as a standalone so much. But then I wanted to just get on with it.

I thought about that selection a good deal. Then went with it.

As I continue to overthink it, I realize maybe Kitano, Kore-eda, or Takahata would've made a better choice.

]

you've seen dune?

[Sven]

you've seen dune?

Dune is excellent.

[Qrazy]

Dune is excellent...

... At being terrible.