I own it. It’s great.

Oh…

Nice review, Monsieur Harrington.

A great review Luke. I haven’t seen Laura for some time, and while I won’t buy into the ratings debate, on the whole the film was only OK for me – an albeit sophisticated who-dun-it with a twist, but a bit flat.

Though it is worth seeing just to immerse yourself in the luminous beauty of a young Gene Tierney as Laura. There is another still (or frame – I am not sure) of her interrogation, where here face literally shimmers with an aching beauty – you can see it here at this track-back:
Film Noir Month at Movie Zeal

By the way, I think you mixed up your characterizations of Waldo and Shelby: Waldo is the sugar-daddy and Shelby the fiance.

I would say to Sam: don’t forget that the individual critic’s voice, 70 years later, does matter. Films come in and out of fashion all the time as people continue to re-evaluate. Remember, The Searchers wasn’t nominated for Academy Awards, was held up in the 70s as the greatest film ever made by the film school generation, had fallen down to #84 on the AFI list by the late 90s, and then jumped back up last year into the top 15.

I haven’t seen you guys do polls before, but have you considered a daily poll on each of these films? You could ask everybody to rate the film of the day on a scale of 1-5, and then we’ll see what happens. I think that’d be fascinating.

…but now we’re all just arguing in circles, right?

Clifton Webb’s performance is a winner, though, and like Edward G. Robinson in Double Indemnity I wish he and his role had been given a little more description. (Three cheers for constructive criticism.) Nonetheless, nice review.

Christian: I love that shot. As you say, pure, unmitigated Preminger.

That is most fair enough as long as you are consistent in your allocation of stars. To give SPEED RACER and THE MIST five stars is well within the independent, first-amendment framework of any rating system. In essence, this kind of thinking would allow anyone to rate a third-grader’s abstract art as superior to anything by Rembrandt. It is valid, and at the crux of objective thinking. But understand that to embrace this thinking (as you admirably have no qualms admitting at the outset) is to disavow any kind of time-tested scholarly discourse by intellectuals going back many decades. As as art form, film has progressed to the level that it no longer acceptable within the pantheon of critical thinking to make statements like “well, DOUBLE INDEMNITY was very good, but there was just something that didn’t hit me to allow to award it four stars.” The odds are that if DOUBLE INDEMNITY, one of the greatest of all American films in any genre, didn’t hit the bulls-eye, many many other masterworks won’t either. If DOUBLE INDMNITY isn’y five stars, well then this entire Movie Zeel Film Noir month will go without a five-star movie, and that is very very sad and grossly unfair. I suggest to you that film is more than impulsive, arbitrary art, and that judgements of it has been tweaked through years of re-visitation and study by scholars and film lovers. This can’t simply by undone by this kind of contemporary disclaimer.
Again, these are my own views, and while I will stick by them to the end, and fully believe them to be right, I fully belive your own views are just as validated within this discussion.

When I’m reviewing, I’ll hand a 4 or 4.5 out pretty easily. But to get a 5, it’s got to get a sheer visceral reaction out of me, something beyond just being excellently made. I think that’s what you were saying, Evan, and Phillip said that Double Indemnity didn’t give him ” giddy feeling of cinematic fulfillment” that he likes if he’s going to give a 5.

Or outraged. Either one works. The star ratings, if nothing else, are an effective lightning rod for discussion.

But I certainly understand Sam’s case. They Shoot Pictures rates Laura is one of the best few hundred movies ever made. I would have probably given it 3 or 2.5 stars – I just didn’t care for it much. And I understand how it would be weird to look down this list of classic films on the right side of MovieZeal and see, say, DOA get 5 stars (which I would have given it) and then Laura get 2.5.

We’re just calling ‘em like we see ‘em. That’s what you have to do when you’re a reviewer. But in a big retrospective like this, I can understand Sam thinking all the reviewers are taking crazy pills, denying such universally admired films their rightful 5 stars.

I’m with you Evan (like I said, I was writing a near identical post), but I also understand how weird it must seem.

Impassioned opinions are always welcome here, especially when they are delivered in such an even handed manner.

I think the issue is how we define ’star ratings.’ Your position, Sam, appears to be that a star rating is an indication of overall worth within the world of film at large. Films that have had an obvious effect on the history of cinema, its ‘giants,’ obviously deserve the absolute highest rating. The films you mentioned (Citizen Kane, Battleship Potempkin) are veritable classics. You cannot argue with them as masterpieces of cinema. You simply cannot. Time and the combined weight of film criticism and history has solidified these films. They are, regardless of what you might think of them, 5 star films. The ratings of other films are evaluated in light of these. For example, if one were to give WALL-E 5 stars, you are essentially saying that this film rivals Citizen Kane in terms of quality. 70 years from now it will still be remembered, just as Citizen Kane has been remembered for 70 years. The ratings system is, in effect, a curve.

Tell me if I’m wrong at any point there, Sam. I don’t want to put words in your mouth.

My definition of a star rating is different (I won’t speak for the others). I view it as a marker for my personal experience with the film. When I say such and such film is a 5 star film, I’m saying that it was a 5 star film to me personally. It actually might be a piece of crap, but I fell in love with it (see my review of The Mist, which I gave 5 stars to…hard to believe, isn’t it?). I also grade on a curve, but my curve is one of personal experience, not cinematic history. So my star ratings are an indication of personal experience and opinion, not meant to be an grand declaration of a film’s overall worth and quality to all people everywhere.

I gave Speed Racer 5 stars, but I only gave The Maltese Falcon 4.5 stars. Am I going to say that Speed Racer is a better film than The Maltese Falcon? Heck no! Of course it isn’t! Ask me that question again in 70 years! But I stumbled, dazed, awestruck, starcrossed, and giddy from the theater after Speed Racer. I enjoyed The Maltese Falcon very, very much, and greatly admired it’s artistry and skill. But I didn’t have the same kind of reaction to it. For me, Speed Racer gets 5 stars and Falcon gets 4.5, because that is an accurate reflection of my personal experience with both films.

To me, a 5 star rating says, “If you have similar tastes to me, you have to see this film. Immediately.” It does not say, “This film is one of the greatest cinematic accomplishments of all time. An instant classic.”

So, it really comes down to how one defines a star rating and what it’s purpose is. I still stand by my ratings, but I stand by them in light of my definition of how the ratings should work. If I were to adopt your definition, Sam, then Maltese Falcon would get 5 stars and Speed Racer would get, at most, 3.

Different strokes for different folks, eh?

As for Sam’s point about rating the films, I’ve never seen stars or thumbs up or smiley faces in movie reviews as an indicator of anything. It doesn’t tell me much nor does it make sense to me. I prefer in-depth reviews. Like these.