Your thoughts on LossFest so far?

CallaghanFilms said:
Respectfully...
There has to be a level of comparison, Jason. How else could you tell "how well you think they did"? Compared to what? Indie films? Short films? All films? Personally I would rather compare them to each other than to everything else. Otherwise (if Casablanca is a "10"), I don't see any of these making it past 5...even the "outstanding" ones.

:beer:
Click to expand...
So when a new studio Feature comes out should the movie critics always be comparing them to The Godfather? I don't think they do.

As for these Festivals... just watch them, keep the theme in the back of your mind, and rate it. It's really that simple.

Some of these movies are so different that it's really hard to compare them. How do you compare movies like "Lost at Sea" to a movie like "Placebo"?

That's why you should rate them individually.

MAH
 
Last edited:
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
So when a new studio Feature comes out should the movie critics always be comparing them to The Godfather? I don't think they do.

As for these Festivals... just watch them, keep the theme in the back of your mind, and rate it. It's really that simple.

Some of these movies are so different that it's really hard to compare them. How do you compare movies like "Out to Sea" to a movie like "Placebo"?

That's why you should rate them individually.

MAH
Click to expand...

YEAH...what he said! (well put Michael)
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
...Some of these movies are so different that it's really hard to compare them. How do you compare movies like "Out to Sea" to a movie like "Placebo"?...
Click to expand...
Funny you should ask...
I gave "Out to Sea" my only 10 (seeing as it was the best in my eyes). "Placebo" I gave one of three 9's (which I gave to my 2nd, 3rd, & 4th place ponies).

I have no trouble at all comparing apples to oranges (genre-wise).



Edit:
Lawsuit_Boy said:
I just don't think anyone on here has the credentials to give a film a 1 in this fest, other than the fact that they flat out "hate" it. If you hate it, okay, it makes some sense, but a 1? I've given Steven Seagal films more stars than that (not much, though...
Click to expand...
Personally, I think Under Siege is a much better film than most of the LossFest entries (were I to compare them like my man Lawsuit Boy:evil:)
 
Last edited:
CallaghanFilms said:
Funny you should ask...
I gave "Out to Sea" my only 10 (seeing as it was the best in my eyes). "Plecebo" I gave one of three 9's (which I gave to my 2nd, 3rd, & 4th place ponies).

I have no trouble at all comparing apples to oranges (genre-wise).
Click to expand...
I love Lost at Sea. I do find it difficult to compare a movie that was far weaker technically when compared to a movie like Placebo. That's why in the end I don't. I rate them by pure enjoyment while watching them. Comparing them to nothing.
I do keep the theme in mind though.

So... should all critics be comparing new Features to The Godfather? Do you honestly think they rate them that way?

MAH
 
CallaghanFilms said:
Respectfully...
There has to be a level of comparison, Jason. How else could you tell "how well you think they did"? Compared to what? Indie films? Short films? All films? Personally I would rather compare them to each other than to everything else. Otherwise (if Casablanca is a "10"), I don't see any of these making it past 5...even the "outstanding" ones.

:beer:
Click to expand...

i'd say to make it relative to their intent and how successful you feel they were at executing that intent. I gave placebo a higher rating than films that I had personally liked better because I recognized the superior execution, even though it's not the sort of story content that appeals to me.
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
I love Out to Sea. I do find it difficult to compare a movie that was far weaker technically when compared to a movie like Placebo...
Click to expand...
...and I don't find it difficult at all:beer:


Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
So... should all critics be comparing new Features to The Godfather? Do you honestly think they rate them that way?
Click to expand...
I know I do. No way in hell I'm giving The Departed the same rating as The Godfather I or II (even tho I enjoyed it).
 
Zak Forsman said:
i'd say to make it relative to their intent and how successful you feel they were at executing that intent. I gave placebo a higher rating than films that I had personally liked better because I recognized the superior execution, even though it's not the sort of story content that appeals to me.
Click to expand...
My "Cup o' Tea" equation doesn't play in to my reviewing/ranking. A good film is a good film, regardless if it is up my cinematic alley or not.

For the record -

My personal criteria is (in order):
1. Writing/Story (not only a well-spun tale, but also a complete narrative)
2. Acting
3. Direction
4. Technical/Everything Else
 
CallaghanFilms said:
...and I don't find it difficult at all:beer:
Click to expand...
As I said... technically.

By your scale here...
CallaghanFilms said:
My personal criteria is (in order):
1. Writing/Story (not only a well-spun tale, but also a complete narrative)
2. Acting
3. Direction
4. Technical/Everything Else
Click to expand...
Your top movie that you gave a 10 to (Lost at Sea) was a one scene piece, shot over and over again.
It must have scaled low on the technical side? No? If so... how did it still get a 10?

It must have received a 10 in all the areas of your scale to end up with a perfect score. Technically you think it was as good as everything else this Fest?
I saw far more technical pieces that blow it away in that department, no offense to them or their crew.

Now, I also gave it a VERY high score overall, a 9 actually. So it's not like I don't like it. I just rate it simply on enjoyment and theme. It's simpler that way.

If I was going to rate it in 4 categories (assuming each holds an approximate 25% value) I would have had to rate it lower. Because technically there are more superior films in this Festival.

MAH
 
That criteria is what I look for in all films. As far as my ranking/reviewing...I just look for "the best".

And before anyone asks what "the best" is...It is the polar opposite of "the worst". On a side note...
Speaking of "the worst", it is funny to me how some have no trouble at all discussing their picks (whether it be Plan 9 From Outer Space or Glitter or a Steven Seagal flick). Those same cats see it as a Cardinal Sin and pretentious to even think about saying something is the "best"...


Edit:
Also...
I specified IN ORDER. That means they are not split 4 ways (25% each). I don't give a damn what camera was used if there is no story. For this reason, invaluable lessons can be taken from "Out to Sea", IMHO of course.
 
Last edited:
I rate the films on the enjoyment factor alone.
But that's how I rate hollywood films as well.

This a great fest because I can't see a clear cut champ or even a the group of 2nd rounders yet, because everyone loves different films. This is a fun one.

I have my favs but they are so different than some of yours.
 
CallaghanFilms said:
Edit:
Also...
I specified IN ORDER. That means they are not split 4 ways (25% each). I don't give a damn what camera was used if there is no story. For this reason, invaluable lessons can be taken from "Out to Sea", IMHO of course.
Click to expand...
I don't care about the camera either, I'm a big advocate of that. But even if your technical criteria only accounts for 5% of the overall score they should not get the full 5% when compared to some of the more technically advanced films.

One location, same scene over and over. The only thing that changes is the lighting!

That's why I suggest rating films by how you feel after watching them and not comparing them to anything.

You said you compare them to the rest. Well... technically they can't be as strong as the more technically sound films. In some cases they are not even close. I don't care what camera was used. Technically it was an easy film to shoot.

In your system you are saying that technically they are perfect, but in another post you say that you also compare them to the rest of the films when judging them. You really think that technically this is a strong as some of the more difficultly edited/shot/lit films?

Sorry, man. Too many variables in your system don't add up for me. To get a perfect score it would have to be perfect in all 4 ways, regardless of ratio. If it was perfect in category 4 your are cheating the more technically advanced films.

I hope most people just watch these films and judge them as Jason suggested.
Anyway, I loved it and gave it a 9.

As I said before, it doesn't matter how people rate these films, it will probably all balance out.

Sounds like it is. We rate them completely differently but they are both our favourites. I didn't have a perfect film this Fest so 9 was my top score.

MAH
 
Like it or not there has to be a level of comparison...how else could you say something is your favorite? Favorite outta what?

I'm a right brainer to the core, so tech shmeck I say.

I'm glad to see we agree on what (to me) is the clear winner.:beer:
 
CallaghanFilms said:
Like it or not there has to be a level of comparison...how else could you say something is your favorite? Favorite outta what?

I'm a right brainer to the core, so tech shmeck I say.

I'm glad to see we agree on what (to me) is the clear winner.:beer:
Click to expand...

The film that I liked the most is the one I enjoyed the most. It's a general comparison at best.
I didn't rate its story or technical merits versus the others. If I did it may no longer end up as my favourite. It becomes too clinical at that point.

I go with my gut and I remove marks only if they completely ignored the theme.
PS- More than one film received a 9 from me so I guess I had a few favourites this Fest.

MAH
 
Last edited:
the technical aspects are in direct support of the story. In my eyes the story/acting/plot/shot comp/artistic stuff are not independant of the technical stuff. Its alot harder to enjoy a film if there's tons of ugly room ambience mudding the dialogue and I can hardly understand them. Just like a novel, the way the story is presented (good imagery/writing) is just as important as the story itself in many cases.

I don't see technical stuff as being "5% of the film" or any percentage of the film's value. Story is 100%, and every aspect of film making (acting, cinemotography, etc etc) is either going to strengthen that story or weaken it.
 
orchidsofwrath said:
the technical aspects are in direct support of the story. In my eyes the story/acting/plot/shot comp/artistic stuff are not independant of the technical stuff. Its alot harder to enjoy a film if there's tons of ugly room ambience mudding the dialogue and I can hardly understand them. Just like a novel, the way the story is presented (good imagery/writing) is just as important as the story itself in many cases.

I don't see technical stuff as being "5% of the film" or any percentage of the film's value. Story is 100%, and every aspect of film making (acting, cinemotography, etc etc) is either going to strengthen that story or weaken it.
Click to expand...
Well put. :thumbup:
 
Story is story...whether it be a film, a play, a novel or a bard at the campfire.

Storytellers may try to one-up each other in any number of flash ways, means or presentations...but without a solid story (plot elements, character development, inspired dialogue, etc.), it's all in vain.
 
So far I've noticed that the comedies seem to outshine all the rest. Brand New Kitty, Losers to Excess, and Collections Vol. 4: Mint in Box all had me in stitches. The Puppeteer, and Falling Up were both incredibly well done as well, but they seemed almost incomplete compared to the comedies presented.
 
Falling up is awesome. Technically impaired but if those issues were fixed it probably would stand at the top. At least from what I've seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top