What did everyone think of Hanna?

[The Mud Doctor]

Here's my review of Hanna.

 

[Scoopicman]

Once again, I agree with another of your reviews. I also liked the cast, the throbbing score and action. I felt letdown when she got mad at her dad and could have helped him. Worth seeing, though.

 

[DDK]

C+? Wtf does that even mean?

I seriously hate this new trend of rating movies based on high-school grading systems. It makes absolutely no fucking sense whatsoever.

The 1 to 5 rating system that has been a standard of reviewers for a gazillion years is far and away a better system that everyone easily understands and is used to. Why fuck with a classic [removed insult, please do not disrespect other members - WideShot]

 

[MichaelPaul]

Just saw it last night. Really enjoyed it.

 

[The Mud Doctor]

C+? Wtf does that even mean?

I seriously hate this new trend of rating movies based on high-school grading systems. It makes absolutely no fucking sense whatsoever.

The 1 to 5 rating system that has been a standard of reviewers for a gazillion years is far and away a better system that everyone easily understands and is used to. Why fuck with a classic just to be a pretentious cock?

I don't see how a grading system like that either doesn't make any sense or is pretentious. If you need help understanding where I stand on the movie you can read the review. Getting mad about movie review rating systems is far more pretentious than that.

 

[Scoopicman]

I've seen many reviewers use letter grades. A, B, C, D, F, which happen to correlate to 1 - 5. However, I was thinking of starting a movie review blog which used a 1 - 100 or percentage system. My version goes something like this:

Acting - 7/10
Directing - 6/10
Writing - 6/10
Cinematography - 6/10 (variables may include visual style, innovation, smooth tracking and movement, etc.)
Editing & Pacing - 6/10
Sound & Music - 9/10
Setting & Backdrop - 8/10
Visual FX - 7/10
Make up/makeup FX - 8/10
Entertainment Value - 9/10 (was it good looking, but dull or low budget, but exciting?)

In this case the score is 72%.

There can be an accompanying review and/or notes explaining each category.

Perhaps the movie doesn't have visual or makeup FX. Maybe it is a period piece and you could substitute "Costumes" or if it's a dance or fight movie, "Choreography." Perhaps it has one person in a room, so Entertainment Value becomes 30% - 40% of the score.

 

[Adeimantus]

Saw it on Netflix last week. I enjoyed it. I'm a big fan of revenge flix in any case, and it hit most of the buttons. I can also say with confidence that it's a better picture than COLUMBIANA, also in the same genre. It, as well as HANNA, are descendants from that long line of female assassin movies that include LA FEMME NIKITA, another favorite of mine.

Beware young, thin, wispy waifs.

Deadly.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I didn't really like it. The story was interesting, but not compelling enough to keep me on the edge of my seat. And I found the action sequences to be quite lacking. As far as the action was concerned, it was poorly-shot, and sloppily-edited. In that one respect, I can honestly say that I think I could've done it better, myself.

As for the debate on the grading-system, actually, I'm in full support of using A-F. I would give this one a C-.

The reason I prefer grades, over stars or numbers, is because it's much more clear what it means. What is a 7? How do we know that your 7 isn't how I would call a movie a 6? Or, if we went with 5-or-4-star system, again, we can't know for sure that all of us are basing it on the same scale.

A-F grades, however, we all know what it means. C is average. B is above average. A is excellent. We all went to high school, how do we not know what these grades mean? Stick with your grading-system, Mud Dr., it's most logical, and easy to understand.

 

[Ernest Worthing]

It was good and entertaining enough with some creative shots in there but all of his other 3 movies were much better and more artistic.

 

[WideShot]

I've seen many reviewers use letter grades. A, B, C, D, F, which happen to correlate to 1 - 5. However, I was thinking of starting a movie review blog which used a 1 - 100 or percentage system. My version goes something like this:

Acting - 7/10
Directing - 6/10
Writing - 6/10
Cinematography - 6/10 (variables may include visual style, innovation, smooth tracking and movement, etc.)
Editing & Pacing - 6/10
Sound & Music - 9/10
Setting & Backdrop - 8/10
Visual FX - 7/10
Make up/makeup FX - 8/10
Entertainment Value - 9/10 (was it good looking, but dull or low budget, but exciting?)

In this case the score is 72%.

There can be an accompanying review and/or notes explaining each category.

Perhaps the movie doesn't have visual or makeup FX. Maybe it is a period piece and you could substitute "Costumes" or if it's a dance or fight movie, "Choreography." Perhaps it has one person in a room, so Entertainment Value becomes 30% - 40% of the score.

Your grading system is similar, but not exactly the one we used for our film festival judging system, and it worked very, very well. I'm not sure, but since I have been a gamer for awhile, I probably borrowed the system from a place like Gamespot or IGN. One thing we added though was that we weighted the Screenplay, Directing, and Acting categories 2:1 because we felt well written and performed stories were what we wanted to see saluted over top tier visual effects or superior editing.

BTW great review Mud Doctor.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I've seen many reviewers use letter grades. A, B, C, D, F, which happen to correlate to 1 - 5. However, I was thinking of starting a movie review blog which used a 1 - 100 or percentage system. My version goes something like this:

Acting - 7/10
Directing - 6/10
Writing - 6/10
Cinematography - 6/10 (variables may include visual style, innovation, smooth tracking and movement, etc.)
Editing & Pacing - 6/10
Sound & Music - 9/10
Setting & Backdrop - 8/10
Visual FX - 7/10
Make up/makeup FX - 8/10
Entertainment Value - 9/10 (was it good looking, but dull or low budget, but exciting?)

In this case the score is 72%.

There can be an accompanying review and/or notes explaining each category.

Perhaps the movie doesn't have visual or makeup FX. Maybe it is a period piece and you could substitute "Costumes" or if it's a dance or fight movie, "Choreography." Perhaps it has one person in a room, so Entertainment Value becomes 30% - 40% of the score.

I love ya, Scoopic, but that kind of grading system doesn't work for me, not one iota. It's like you're trying to turn something that is 100% subjective into some kind of objective science. For example, you put sound and music as 10% of the overall grade -- Holy Crap! Depending on the movie, music can be half the damn reason to see it. Setting & Backdrop gets the same percentage as Entertainment Value?! I would think that Entertainment Value should be 100%.

I'm not picking on your system, in particular, but any system like this, that tries to break it down into some sort of meaningful scoring system. It's all hogwash.

Did you enjoy watching the movie, or not? That's all that matters.

 

[Scoopicman]

you put sound and music as 10% of the overall grade -- Holy Crap!

Music and sound are the most important things in a movie for me, so in my life it works for about 50% or more. I can watch TRANSFORMERS, TRON or even STAR WARS over and over, strictly because of their scores and sounds.

Remember, sound is half of the picture.

Again, each movie is different, so you would pick the categories that are important for it. Perhaps, you could have "Scare Factor" for horror or suspense, or as I mentioned, Choreography for a dance or Martial Arts movie. The movie EVIL DEAD is brilliant for its camera work and it should be noted as a 10/10 for all the new moves it pulls off.

If you have a TERMINATOR or LORD OF THE RINGS, then the Visual FX category is crucial to the score. Each category shouldn't just be graded, but explained as to why it got the grade. Once the review base is built up, you can make logical score comparisons. There would be examples of movies that get the high and low in particular categories. Some examples could be:

SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION 10/10 for Writing.....................PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE 1/10 for writing
STAR WARS 10/10 for Sound and Score.............................DRIVE IN MASSACRE 1/10
GODFATHER Part 2 10/10 for Acting...................................MARS NEEDS WOMEN 1/10
THE CELL 10/10 for Cinematography.................................GALAXY INVADER 1/10
BLADE RUNNER 10/10 for setting/backdrop.......................FRANKENSTEIN VS THE SPACE MONSTER 1/10
RETURN OF THE KING 10/10 for Visual FX...........................SANTA CLAUS CONQUERS THE MARTIANS 1/10
THE THING (1982) 10/10 for Makeup FX.........................................ROBOT MONSTER
THE BOURNE IDENTITY 10/10 for Editing/Pace................................EMPIRE (Andy Warhol) 1/10
CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON 10/10 for Choreography.......UNDEFEATABLE 1/10
EXCALIBUR 10/10 for Costumes.............................................ESCAPE FROM GALAXY THREE 1/10

Did you enjoy watching the movie, or not? That's all that matters.

No, it's not all that matters, because I've learned to find worth in almost any movie. I enjoy most movies. Often, I have to explain why I like a movie that so many others didn't, so I've learned to be specific. For example: I've seen the bomb, SUPERNOVA, at least 7 times. I really like the amazing miniatures, sets and the chemistry from Spader and Bassett.

However, I agree that if......if I was ever to use this system for reviews, I would have to include a biased opinion to go along with the breakdown. For example: I didn't like SUCKER PUNCH, but it would score high on the technicals. So, I would probably do it like this:

Directing - 4/10
Wonderful visuals and lots of fancy moves that don't really matter because the director didn't make me care for the characters or situation.
Writing - 2/10
INCEPTION this is not. SUCKER PUNCH has fantasies within fantasies, but there was very little connect or stakes.
Acting - 7/10
There was a decent cast and it is nice to see Scott Glenn back in a movie, but it is all overshadowed by style. There is not a lot for the actors to work with. On the other hand, no one was bad, either.
Cinematography - 9/10
Some beautiful shots and nice style in this.
Editing/Pacing - 8/10
This moves along fairly well, so I'll blame any drag on the writing.
Visual FX - 9/10
Some state of the art on display in this. The movie's strongest point.
Sound/Music - 7/10
Great sound effects, but I can't remember anything special or captivating about the music.
Entertainment Value - 7/30
SUCKER PUNCH is absolutely stunning to look at, but I've played many video games that had far more appeal. I thought the movie was dull and soulless and did not connect the viewer to the characters.

Technical/Creative score = 53%

 

[CamVader]

It's funny how things work out, but Scoopicman's 72% and Cracker Funk's C- is the exact same grade (in the US, anyway).

I found Hanna watchable but not really compelling or special in too many ways. The score was interesting, the story had some holes, and I wasn't in awe of the cinematography or directing. A middle of the road offering.
I rate it 2 1/2 flying monkeys.

 

[JoshL]

I like your system, Scoopic. I particularly like the "entertainment value" grade; I watch a lot of movies that are, objectively, pretty terrible. Sometimes, however, I love them. I think being able to make technical merits distinct from personal entertainment is a good way to review things. I think I'd even be tempted to keep them seperate, particularly if maintaining a blog/review site. When reading reviews, I always want to read others by the same reviewer to see if their tastes are similar to mine, or at least to understand theirs, outside of their understanding of technical merits.

So then, some examples:
Lord of the Rings 90/100 (not perfect, but really great, and I love it to death)
O Brother Where Art Thou 85/30 (really good, actually, but I didn't like it other than the music)
Troll 2 3/100 (TERRIBLE but I love it and never seem to get sick of it. The 3, by the by, is for being able to hold the camera steady...actually, sound isn't bad, just not good)
etc, etc, etc

Either way, there are still complicated outliers. Take Hobo With A Shotgun. Was it bad? Yes, but intentionally, so is that a low or a high technical score? I'm not sure I could GIVE it a technical score. Either way, my personal entertainment was much lower than I was expecting.

Good review system though! I can't comment on Hanna as that I haven't seen it yet.