How my Movie Ratings work

I haven’t posted anything in a while, mainly because I’ve been extremely busy with both studying for my final exams and dealing with crippling writers’ block. In the meantime, here’s a quick explanation of the scale I use to review movies. Not exactly riveting, I suppose, but I find that forcing myself to write some mindless filer is a fine way to round myself back into mediocre form.

I’m sure (Insert popular celebrity’s name here) would agree.

Hey,  I said I had writer’s block, didn’t I?

Anyways, let’s start from the top, shall we?

10/10 (My Highest Possible Recommendation)

Notable examples: Pulp Fiction, The Empire Strikes Back, Citizen Kane, The Shawshank Redemption, The Godfather.

There is no such thing as a perfect movie, but these movies are the closest possible things to perfection. Not only should every moviegoer see these films, regardless of whether it’s their preferred genre or not, but they should also be shown in elementary school, so kids learn what can be the result when one strives for excellence.

Short answer: Headshots.

9/10, 9.5/10 (Classic)

Notable examples: The Dark Knight, Jurassic Park, Lion King, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Sure, these movies may not be quite as good as those in the aforementioned category, as they may suffer from minor problems such as small plot holes, slip-ups in tone and dialogue, or children…

*Shudder*

…But these problems can be easily overlooked, and overall, these movies could still be considered some of the best in their genre.

8/10, 8.5/10 (Pretty Damn Great)

Notable Examples: Kick-Ass, Donnie Darko, Pacific Rim

While an 8/10 movie is still an A-list title and does much more good than bad, its flaws are much more pronounced than in the superior categories (It could be a combination of minor flaws or one big honking eyesore of a flaw), and it may only interest fans of the genre. Most people will enjoy it though, and any filmmaker would be proud to be involved in a movie like this.

7/10, 7.5/10 (Solid)

Does anybody even read these?

This rating is officially when some aspects of the movie start to negatively impact my enjoyment of it. It’s still a good movie, and most people would be entertained with it, but it still has a couple of major flaws that may drive other people away. However, it could also be a movie that aims low, but hits surprisingly high (A la RED).

6, 6.5/10 (Meh)

Goddamn. Talk about mismarketing.

Maybe this movie has something interesting to offer, but the finished product is just mediocre. It likely does have several positive elements, but they’re more or less cancelled out by elements that are mediocre or just plain bad. Fanboys might be fine with it, and the Academy has been known to give nominations to “Meh” movies, but the rest of us probably won’t be too wild about it.

5, 5.5/10 (Your Movie Sucks)

Somebody needs to explain to me why everyone thought this movie was so great. It infuriated me to no end.

These are some of the most forgettable movies around, as they are pretty much unspecial in every sense of the word. While a “meh” movie might have more positive than negatives (Albeit barely) maybe throwing around some good ideas, performances and whatnot, a sucky movie, while you can’t knock it for being terrible, makes it really hard for the audience to say anything good about it.

4, 4.5/10 (Deficient)

Notable Examples: The Lone Ranger, Spider-Man 3, most M.Night Shyamalan movies.

 There are very, very little good things going for these movies. Maybe there might be some minor positives in the way of  performances or action scenes, but it’s pretty fucking stupid overall. You can still watch it if you’re interested, but I wouldn’t recommend it, and you should all think really hard about your priorities in life before paying money to watch it.

3, 3.5/10 (Turd Sandwich)

Proof that even Roger Ebert could be wrong sometimes.

Maybe there’s a small group of masochists somewhere out there that may enjoy watching them, but they are few and far between, and I wouldn’t recommend hanging out with them for fear of getting any stupid on you.

Just kidding. Obviously, it’s a matter of opinion, and I’d rather see one of these movies than, say, Amanda Bynes within the limits of my high school, but it’s close.

0-2.5 (Pretty much the worst thing ever)

Notable examples: Most direct-to-DVD Disney sequels, Movie 43, Batman & Robin, The Phantom Menace, After Earth

If, at any point, you find yourself enjoying one of these movies, it’s time to start considering moving to a psych ward, because at this point, it stops becoming a matter of opinion and starts being a matter of mental health. Forget fighting off Amanda Bynes, I’d rather have nails driven into my kneecaps as that fucking Rebecca Black song plays in the background then watch this movie again.

The Scale Of Douchiness- (Quadruple Feature!) Emma Roberts, Amanda Bynes, North Korea and Rolling Stone Magazine

The best part about writing about douchebags is that you never run out of source material. Case in point, for the very first edition of the SoD, I have four subjects! Oh, how I love the shittiness of humanity!

That’s right Kony…Keep those blog hits flowing nicely…

SUBJECT: Emma Roberts

Goddammit Emma, why’d you have to be so adorable? It just makes my job that much harder!

Douche-Crime: Beating up her boyfriend, fellow actor Evan Peters (American Horror Story).

Well shit, that makes sense, I guess.

Douche Points Awarded: 2/2

Severity Douche Points: 1.5/2. It wasn’t close to being a Chris Brown-style beatdown, but there isn’t too much of a gray area when it comes to beating somebody up Either you beat the living shit out of them or you don’t.

Frequency: First-time offender. However, may happen again, considering that they are still together, apparently. The joint statement read that they “are working together to move past it.” 1/2

Circumstances: None revealed yet, but it’s highly suggested that the assault wasn’t justified. 2/2

Overall Douche Rating: 6.5/8 (Definite douchebag)

It’s completely possible that Roberts just lost her cool at Peters, as people in a relationship are likely to do. However, it’s also not out of the question that this may be a recurring, theme. Plenty of young actresses tend to become mentally unstable as they fly through puberty, much like our next douchebag

AMANDA BYNES

Part of me knew that she would be on my very first edition.

Douche-Crime (This time): Tweeting, after getting her head shaved earlier this year because it was damaged by salon treatments, on her schizophrenic clusterfuck of a Twitter account that “Not having hair makes [her] feel like a cancer  patient.” She later tried to explain herself, claiming that the tweet was meant to be read “Not having hair makes her feel like a  Cancer: Patient.” (As in the astrological sign) In addition to being a bullshit excuse, it bears mentioning that Bynes is an Aries. 2/2

Severity: 1/2. Try to remember that some retard posting idiotic tweets

Frequency: 2/2. Chronic offender. By now, the thing that comes to mind whenever anyone mentions Amanda Bynes  is not her dead-in-the-water acting career, but her crude, offensive, unintentionally hilarious and all-around insane Twitter account. Some other gems of hers include:

“I have no clue [why people say I’m insane]. Every time I’ve heard it, it came from an ugly person’s mouth, so I don’t care.”

“Rihanna you look so ugly tryin to be white.”

Yep, total Uncle Tom, right here.

“I’m 27 and don’t like when press talks to my parents. My parents are almost 70 years old. We are no longer on speaking terms. I would rather them be homeless than live off of my money.”

“I only have hot friends. They have my back until I die.”

“Everything is connected and connection is everything.”

“I want Drake to murder my vagina.”

“I’ll post ugly pics of @Drake every time I see one! Not hard  ”

“Chris Brown beat you because you’re not pretty enough.”

“Barack Obama and Michelle Obama are ugly!”

“Hey @Barack Obama… I don’t drink. Please fire the cop who arrested me. I also don’t hit and run. The end.” 

“I have no clue [why people say I’m insane]. Every time I’ve heard it, it came from an ugly person’s mouth, so I don’t care.”

To “American Pie” star Jason Biggs: “You’re so ugly I won’t talk to you.”

Adam Sandler-ish? Maybe. Ugly? Fuck no.

And my personal favourite:

“Chrissy Teigen, you’re not a pretty model compared to me,I signed to Ford models at age 13. I don’t looks up to you beauty wise. I’m far prettier than you! I’m offended that you’re saying I have a mental illness when I show no sign of it. But thankfully not one man that wants me wants you and you are an old ugly model compared to me!”

For those who don’t know, this is Chrissy Teigen.

“Look! Look at this ugly piece of shit!”

And this is Amanda Bynes:

“I’m very aroused.”

Circumstances: 2/2. Let’s see…. No one but her accesses her Twitter account, which means that she intentionally posted it.

ODR: 7/8 (Major Douchebag)

Sure, she’s just a has-been celebrity and who gives a shit, but that doesn’t make her any less douchey or her comment any more douchey and ignorant.

I try to be nice to our next douchebag, but they’ve finally crossed the line. Presenting…

ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE

Douche-Crime: Previously just a magazine with terrible music coverage and a socially liberal political slant (And yet, they back Obama), Rolling Stone decided to run a story about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving Boston Marathon bomber. This would have been okay if they didn’t depict him as some sort of indie pop star. 2/2

Severity: 2/2. Truth be told, I do think the story needed to be run. From that I’ve heard on the Philip DeFranco Show, it’s a pretty informative, well written article.

But for God’s sake, did they have to run this picture? It’s bad enough that some freaky teenage girls are starting to turn him into a teen idol.

I can’t think of a joke here, this is fucking horrifying.

Couldn’t they have picked a different cover? Something that’s edgy, but not overly offensive? How about a photo of a rescue mission, or of the EIGHT YEAR OLD BOY HE MURDERED.

Henry Rollins did a spoken word piece on how death and violence are being “sexed-up” by the media. (Army ads, video games) I’m not here to tell everyone to not play Call of Duty, because it’s fun as hell, but they’re still glorifying violence any way you spin it. That magazine cover doesn’t make Tsarnaev look like the terrorist that he is, but a cute, tortured artist. That is not good. Those idiot teenagers I mentioned will not look at that cover and think “How could a regular, American kid be so horribly twisted.” They’re more likely to think “I hope he escapes custody, I wanna bang him.”

Frequency: 0.5/2. One-time thing, but they haven’t been good enough to apologize.

Circumstance: 1/2. It WAS their fault  that the cover was run, but I get what they’re trying to say with it: “How could such a sweet, peaceful American kid turn out to be such a monster?” They probably could’ve picked a better picture to convey that image, though.

ODR: 5.5/8 (Douchebag)

I think the story needed to be told, but I think Rolling Stone had the chance to present their message better and blew it badly. I just hope the “Free Jahar” people grow the fuck up before they do something horrible.

And, speaking of fucked up cults nobody likes… Our forth douchebag of the day!!!

NORTH KOREA

Douche-Crime: Transporting missiles across the Panama Canal and trying to riot when Panamanian authorities boarded the ship. Missiles are bad, m’kay? 2/2

Severity: 0.5/2. Sure, missiles aren’t always a laughing matter, but they are in the hands of a country that think that a twenty-something fat man is the reincarnation of the sun go or whatever the fuck they’re telling them now.

Frequency: 2/2. Kim Jong-Un is always trying to test his might against the powers that be, even though it really is hard to be intimidated by someone who looks Chaz Bono with allergies.

Circumstances: I dunno, Kim’s just an asshole. 2/2

ODR: 6.5/8 (Definite douchebags)

Cheers!