I don't think it's fair to attach a star rating to SBIG. It all depends on your sense of humor and who you watched it with. I know people that might have actually been mildly scared watching this, but they neither like nor watch horror.
The fact that you didn't pick a star rating is totally freaking me out Catfreeek! I think that even so bad it's good movies should be rated because some are obviously better than others.
my take on the SBIG rating — when roger ebert reviews a movie, he gives it a star rating based on its merits as a movie. is it a good movie? if it is, it gets 4 stars. is it a bad movie? if it is, it gets 0 stars.
generally, if something gets 0 stars, i tend to like reading the review, because that's when ebert is at his most hilarious. (if you haven't read his review of Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo get on that right away. great read.) sometimes, if it's a really funny review, it'll make me want to see the movie more
point is, i say give the movie what it's earned. if it's unintentionally funny, that's where the review comes in.
Agreed. I'm sure if someone looked at all the flicks I gave four stars to they'd find some ridiculous comparisons and embarrass me by asking in what way two given movies are exactly the same level of good.
As 50 says, that's where the review comes in. As you may have noticed, I like going into my personal reasons for liking a movie even if it's something ridiculously specific like "it reminded me of that time JPX threw a wad of fish eggs at our friend Gary."
Cat, I think your split rating system is exactly the right move in this case. You could synthesize it into a single rating (if you share Johnny's OCD tendencies) or just slap that whole thing at the top of the review.
I'm still laughing at Chica Chica Wow and JPX throwing fish eggs.
Nice review! I'm on board to check it out.
October 26, 2011 11:53 AM
[Image]"I won't brush my teeth! You can't make me!"(2006) SBIG (*1/2 for the actual intended film ***1/2 for being unintentionally funny) After being reassured that this is based on a true story, the film opens with a demonic pig telling a girl what to do. Pure gold! After Katherine McMurter finds her daughter doing fucked up stuff in the barn and acting all possessed, she call in Father Michael San Chica (Tony took to calling him Chica Chica Wow Wow), a rogue exorcist to save her daughters soul. Tony and I spent the first 15 minutes of the film trying to figure out if it was supposed to be intentionally funny or if they were actually trying to be serious. We decided on the latter, which made the film that much better. Lots of spewing blood, satanic voices and a Latin speaking possessed pig. I almost felt bad for laughing when I saw at the end that the film had been dedicated to a young woman who was stabbed to death. Then I thought, at least I enjoyed the film, that’s a good homage, right. [Image]Roddy nooooo, don't listen to the pig, he's eeeeeevil [Image]Father Chica Chica Wow Wow [Image]"Boogie Fever! Ya got-ta boogie down...get on down"
"Legion: The Last Exorcism"
10 Comments -
Hmm. I only want there to be a crappy movie dedicated to my memory if you guys make it.
No star rating? So Bad It's Good trumps all? It must be bad. And good. I like Father Chica Chica Wow Wow.
October 25, 2011 8:25 AM
I don't think it's fair to attach a star rating to SBIG. It all depends on your sense of humor and who you watched it with. I know people that might have actually been mildly scared watching this, but they neither like nor watch horror.
October 25, 2011 9:03 AM
The fact that you didn't pick a star rating is totally freaking me out Catfreeek! I think that even so bad it's good movies should be rated because some are obviously better than others.
October 25, 2011 9:23 AM
Oh for cryin' out loud, I give it *1/2 for what it was trying to be and ***1/2 for how unintentionally funny it was.
October 25, 2011 10:07 AM
So then... **1/2?
October 25, 2011 10:12 AM
So be it!
October 25, 2011 10:15 AM
my take on the SBIG rating — when roger ebert reviews a movie, he gives it a star rating based on its merits as a movie. is it a good movie? if it is, it gets 4 stars. is it a bad movie? if it is, it gets 0 stars.
generally, if something gets 0 stars, i tend to like reading the review, because that's when ebert is at his most hilarious. (if you haven't read his review of Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo get on that right away. great read.) sometimes, if it's a really funny review, it'll make me want to see the movie more
point is, i say give the movie what it's earned. if it's unintentionally funny, that's where the review comes in.
October 26, 2011 12:29 AM
Agreed. I'm sure if someone looked at all the flicks I gave four stars to they'd find some ridiculous comparisons and embarrass me by asking in what way two given movies are exactly the same level of good.
As 50 says, that's where the review comes in. As you may have noticed, I like going into my personal reasons for liking a movie even if it's something ridiculously specific like "it reminded me of that time JPX threw a wad of fish eggs at our friend Gary."
Cat, I think your split rating system is exactly the right move in this case. You could synthesize it into a single rating (if you share Johnny's OCD tendencies) or just slap that whole thing at the top of the review.
October 26, 2011 12:50 AM
Done!
October 26, 2011 5:57 AM
I'm still laughing at Chica Chica Wow and JPX throwing fish eggs.
Nice review! I'm on board to check it out.
October 26, 2011 11:53 AM