MovieChat Forums > La règle du jeu (1950) Discussion > Rating Question

Rating Question

posted 9 years ago by jonhopper217
4 replies | jump to latest

I don't normally seek advice on how to rate movies, because I find the number 7-8-9 & 10's given to be laughable on this site and I have zero problem with anyone giving a 1 to a movie they didn't like. But here's where this movie gets tricky for me. I was amazed by the camera work. I was amazed by some of the acting. I was blown away by how many movies this film inspired. I mean, everything from deep explorations into class differences to slapstick comedy has taken from this movie and that alone is impressive, but at the end of the film, I was relieved. I was bored throughout and wanted it to end, because I realized it was just going to be more of the same and then become a frantic tizzy where something drastic would happen to cause it to end. It happened exactly the way I assumed, with a different death , but close enough. So how would one rate a movie that is deemed one of the top 10 films of all-time, when they think the camerawork was a 9, the acting was an 8, the script/plot was about a 3-4 and the result was a 1-2? But what if I think it's lasting impression on the history of cinema is a 10? Please also note that I believe Renior's Grand Illusion is one of the 20 greatest films of all-time, so please understand that I get film and I didn't just watch this, because I heard it was good.

[–] frantruff 9 years ago

Either rate it purely from the enjoyment you get (tricky, since it depends on so many external circumstances and could change on every rewatch) or find something more or less objective that you think is the most important thing in a movie (plot, acting, camerawork, innovation, etc) and stick with it. Works for me.

I gave it a 10, BTW. Loved every second. Funnily enough, Grand Illusion bored me to near death. The River was slightly better(although that one was at least somewhat intriguing, and I'm pretty sure I'll like it better next once I rewatch it). And La bête humaine was a perfectly average good movie.

[–] jonhopper217 9 years ago

Not that it matters in the grand scheme of things, but I ended up giving it a six, but four of those "points" are for the incredible imprint it left on cinema. I can't stop thinking of how many movies took from it. Most better, in my opinion, but this will always be the problem with it.

I spoke with four others who had seen it and the consensus was dull, but impressive. All said 7-8, which to me borders on a great film and while I appreciate it, I didn't find it great. I read some of your other comments and while I think we differ in opinion on movies of the past, I think we both find great appreciation in those liked and not liked. We also both view comparisons to modern day films laughable.

Now seeing your avi, I have a question for you (if you don't mind). Citizen Kane vs Touch of Evil?

[–] frantruff 9 years ago

"Citizen Kane" is my favourite film, so I'll go with that one. I love "Touch of Evil" too, though. Probably my fourth favourite from Welles after Kane, "The Trial" and "F For Fake".

[–] udippel 9 years ago

Interesting perspective!
I have at times problems with adjectives like 'dated' or in this case 'dull'. What does that really mean? A movie can be dull in many ways (at least two): it *is* dull (alas, most are), or it reflects the dullness of a situation. In this case, The Rules of The Game, to me it reflects just that: a never-ending stream of (early) fun-seeking, whatever happens. Everyone with everyone, in dull hunting scenes, in even worse 'playing theatre' to the other bored people. Maybe cheating on a partner simply to get rid of the dullness? Killing became part of the dull lives, and yet, (almost) everyone decides to go on. 'Fin'.
That's minimum a 9, spot on, correct choice of actors.