How do you rate movies?

0 - Straight to DVD tier, terrible acting, production flaws
1 - Below Average, outright bad in writing or acting but competently made
2 - Average, good production, no editing flaws, story and characters uncompelling
3 - Good but flawed, watchable, entertaining but forgettable
4 - Very good, well rounded
5 - Perfect movie

Shit tier
Waste of time
Waste of time but not entirely pointless(you were never really here)
Good
Great
Top notch
Interstellar

I rate 1-5, but with decimals.
1 is bad, 2 leaves a dull taste, 3 is okayish, 4 is good, 5 is perfect and only 0.01% get this.

bad - bad
ehh - ehh
good - good
great - great
◇ - sneed

Good and bad and TIMELESS

Attached: score.png (1496x508, 38K)

1 - waste of time and money and film
2 - some small things stick out but overall bad
3 - average to slightly better than average but missing that something
4 - above average and entering all the way through a mark of quality
5 - something special

No halfsies

Problem is we have liberal arts grads with no understanding of art rating movies based on their political messages when audiences just want to know if the thing is entertaining

lol, this fag relies on ratings to tell him if movies are worth watching

Yeah that's why you take it with a 2 point error margin.
if its a 7 it could very well be a 5 cause most people are retarded, but it could also be a 9 because most people are retarded.

If you ever go watch a movie with a group of people.
Watch a Comedy movie.
It's been proven to be an enjoyable watch regardless of how shit it is.

I just use a 10 point scale. Anything under 5 is not worth watching unless you're in some way interested in the director/genre etc. A 5 is watchable mediocrity, decent if you need to kill time. 6 to 7 are solid films worth seeing and 8+ is a strong recommendation.

Although rating stuff and/or putting it on lists is fun, no one should really take that too seriously. Ultimately you are trying to fit every movie ever made into about 10 boxes with numbers on them, sometimes even less, but even if you use more, it's still going to produce weird or unsatisfactory results every so often. There is a bunch of movies that defy being put into this or that box. Like where do you place Eraserhead? Or The Room? Even someone like Roger Ebert had his moments where he just didn't know how many stars to award, like for The Human Centipede. Rather than obsessing over numbers, I look at short summaries to see whether something sounds interesting enough and maybe use the score as rough indicator for how well the craftsmanship of the movie might be. If I'm asked to recommend something, I try taking the persons tastes and preferences into account. Giving a number out of 10 is the last resort for grading subjective personal enjoyment which isn't likely to be useful to anyone.

I follow the path of the great Joe Bob Briggs and just give every movie four stars

>93%
Unplayable trash (fallout 76, kingdom come D)
>6%
Play once cuz it's cool (prey, crash bandicoot)
>1%
Replay for the rest of my fucking life (witcher 3, mario kart)

They make sense in a print age with crappy tvs, but it seems like it's pretty easy to dig in to information for anything you might be interested in now. Star ratings are just a part of the marketing campaign at this point.

Pretty much anything between 4-7 is boring and not worth the watch imo. 1-3 can be entertainingly bad, and 8-10 is just good.

FFS, even PA managed to find the humour in this.

Attached: pa the fobidden numbers.jpg (950x476, 348K)

>hyperbole is a modern construct
fuck off zoomer

i rate out of 5 stars because a scale of 10 is too much

5-0 flaws. literally a perfect movie. goat
4- exceptionally good. near perfect but has some minor flaws
3- average. hit or miss unironically.
2- below average. don't waste your time unless you really want to
1- don't bother

PERFECT
GREAT
GOOD
MEH
BAD
HORRIBLE
SO BAD IT'S GOOD

I thought people jizzed their pants over skyrim... is this some Yea Forums copy pasta?

I don't rate movies I just watch them

>rating art
You wouldn't rate a sunset, please go back to Yea Forums

Attached: 1460437237215.gif (250x220, 1.58M)

i rate your post 2/10

Why are comedy tv/movies so much funnier when you watch them with other people? I’ve always wondered..

Nice. I get it, but I think the numbers help not to understand the movies. Rather, you understand better yourself.

Attached: theskyisthelimit.webm (720x404, 756K)

I use 1-10 with halfs, pic related

Attached: ratin.jpg (1725x99, 46K)

Ive also tried to estimate my ratins for the population of films based on there being 500k films made. pic related.
As some anons already said, I think the correct assumption is that around of 98-99% isn't good, which should mean that basically at least half of the films you see in your life aren't worth a rating of 6 assuming you're seeing a total of 5000 films.

Attached: estimation.jpg (1681x89, 93K)

I don't think this is entirely fair. If im going to watch a movie I want it to be worth my time. 4.5/10 might be average mathematically but why would I bother watching it when theres at least some.6/10 movies.

Put another way even if the movies were rated completely perfectly and objectively by God himself, anything less than 7/10 would still be shit.

The distiction between 3 and 4 might exist but its not relevant.

anything with brie larson in it is a 10/10 in my books and I'm only paid a barely livable wage to say so

I have an extensive rating system descriptions on my rateyourmusic profile page. It really showcases my true self that is a sickening trans hoe and a furry pervert. I also put on my bitch socks when I post there.

What you're saying is that a movie is either good or bad. Or that you don't find it meaningfull to say that a movie you watched stunk but had a few scenes that was watchable or fascinating. If you have a hard time differating between a 3 and 4, you should consider using another scale, like 1-5, 1-4 or even thumbs up/down. Using an up/down scale is perhaps what the general public should use, but when you see lot of films and talk about them enough, you like to make distinction between those that are better than good and those that are worse than bad, resulting in you widening your scale in such a way that it becomes easier for you to talk about them.
Ebert, for instance, has two scales - his 1-4 stars rating and his great movie list.

The problem is when a site like IMDB forces people to use a scale they don't understand or aren't comfortable with. It is evident that people haven't taken the time to make a distinction between the mid numbers, thereby making the whole rating-system rather useless for almost everyone.

what films have u rated a 10?

Other people laugh at stuff that you might not. They might have a story sort of related to it and it's generally pretty nice to be around laughing people. Plus exchanging knowing glances for teasing and all that sort of thing. Movies are too slow for this now though and people giggle over 15 second clips.

>I'm only paid a barely livable wage to say so

wtf you're getting paid? DM me Andy's new number.

0 - Don't bother
1 - Not good
2 - Mediocre
3 - Decent
4 - Good

Personally I don;t rate movies, however I will rate movie criticism as "shit sux". interpret that however you want because I am sure you are a human being able to come to their own conclusions about movies and don't need somebody else to tell you what you liked.

1-6 = watch at your own discretion
7+ = worth watching
8 = gr8
9 = almost perfect
10 = flawless

Without numbers it would be much harder to find good films. How else would you determine if a film was bad or good without some sort of scale?
That doesn't mean it's perfect. Like you said, it's basically a summary, a translation of a full page review into 10 words (bad, better, good, worse, awesome...). Using a number instead of a word makes it easier to find an aggregation of many peoples opinion. Instead of sifting through ten or hundreds of good/bad opinions, you just look at an average to easier get a grasp of what people in general thought about it.

The problem with ratings is three-folded:
1. film is a subjective art
2. the scale people use to rate aren't uniform or the same for each person and film
3. A rating is a summary/crude translation of an opinion

But the third problem isn't much of a problem as the first and second.

10's are for films that are flawlessly executed with some level of ambition to the premise. Goodfellas, Boogie Nights, Aliens, Gladiator, Terminator 2, etc.

Obviously the list will be subjective but that's the criteria.

how many tens do your reckon you'll give in your life/have you given out so far?

review scales were never like they are at the bottom and you know it
>inb4 hurr zoomie or some dumb shit

Probably more than 10 but less than 20.

Attached: my review scale.png (1833x382, 28K)

I used to read actual newspapers and sub-2 stars were doled out regularly not that long ago. That shrank away as the internet became more prevalent though, a lot of the metareview sites starting as video game charts skewed everything also. It could only keep inflating until Dark Knight is the 4th best movie of all time on imdb. They're rated for functionality the same way some dick widget from Amazon is. Now we get the pleasure of "discussing" the intellectual merit of capeshit until the heat death of the universe.

Attached: 1548402099682.jpg (1000x784, 506K)

shit
meh
ok
good
great

This is the correct choice.

10 is a impossible score

fucking pleb. highest rating should be mediocre at best

Anything other than 1 to 4 stars is zoomer shit!

1 - Broken
2 - Extremely bad
3 - Bad
4 - Pretty bad
5 - Average/underwhelming

---the liking the film line---

6 - Alright/solid
7 - Good
8 - Great
9 - Amazing
10 - Masterpiece/personal favorite

The top scale is common because who the fuck watches something they know they're not going to like. Trailers and reviews are easily accessible. The few movies I've seen I would rate a 5 or below is what happens when you have friend with shit taste pick out what to watch for movie night.

Unpopular opinion, but a 10-star system is absolutely necessary. You will agree with me after reading my explanations (if you bother). Each score is more than a quantification of quality, but rather different categories of experience altogether.

10/10: "Affecting" - Reserved for films that deeply affected me in a way that is more important than any criticism.
9/10: "Quality" - A film without any significant flaws. Genuinely great, just didn't pass the subjective, personal threshold that makes a movie a 10.
8/10: "Fun" - A really thoroughly enjoyable film, just lacking in complex substance.
7/10: "Respectable" - An impressive movie from a technical or historical perspective, but not a particularly enjoyable or visceral experience.
6/10: "Disappointing" - A film that has genuine potential and a few good qualities, but doesn't quite get to where it should be.
5/10: "Forgettable" - A film that is unremarkable in every facet, to the point that it is difficult to remember anything good or bad.
4/10: "Painful" - A thoroughly unpleasant experience, a waste of your time.
3/10: "Infuriating" - Difficult to watch without becoming angry.
2/10: "Unwatchable" - A film that no one should ever see, and should never have been made to begin with.
1/10: "I want to decrease the IMDB score"

Curious what people think and how they might tweak this paradigm. Nuance is important, and less than 10 tiers completely undermines the entire point of devising a ranking system in the first place. The point is not "bad thing or good thing", it's a shorthand tool that can be useful during a discussion.

youtube.com/watch?v=V90vdClMs3U

You seem to aim to judge films on an emotional, personal level instead of an objective, quality-reviewing, guiding one.

Contrast your choice of words with , yours seems very personal, and therefor of little use for others. Is that your intention?
It's also kind of messy, is a forgetable movie better than a painful or infuriating one (one evokes feelings/something, while the other doesn't leave a mark)

You're devoting 60%-70% of your ratings system to things that aren't worth watching. has it more or less right, something more like this:

1 - Utterly unwatchable
2 - Bad
3 - Poor
4 - Mediocre
5 - Satisfactory
6 - Good
7 - Great
8 - Amazing
9 - One of the all-time greats
10 - Absolute perfection, highly subjective

>7
>amazing
7/10 is a C
Common core aside, and pretending it was a course you cared about with an instructor you respected, if you got a C in a class, would you say you did amazing?

Rating movies is retarded. I love movies. I love the craft and technique and the stories behind every one. My letterboxd ratings are almost exclusively 5 star ratings and I don't see any reason to give a movie a low rating or whatever.

As someone who would like to be a filmmaker in the future I see absolutely no merit in rating or ranking films, though I can understand rating the technical skills of directors, DPs etc.

Attached: 1437566878937.png (970x646, 83K)

That color scale is pretty bad. Average should be yellow, with positive reviews in shades of green and bad reviews orange and red.
It doesn't seem reasonable to me to use a 10 degree scale with something so complex and subjective, and my taste.
My scale is just 0 to 5, and just integer numbers. Zero being awful with little or nothing redeemable, and five being great or near perfect.

Attached: 63.png (677x720, 433K)

Granted, there are some elements that can be very well done in even terrible things that make me like them in a hipster scum sort of way, but I don't truly enjoy them. It's more of a hate fuck experience.

Attached: 1552962478814.jpg (1731x401, 58K)

There are three pillars to a movie

>1- Is it interesting
Is this film different enough? Does it engage me with it's story, characters and plot? Or is it a visual marvel? Is it exciting action or just bland trite?

>2- Does it say something worth saying
Is there a message or theme to the movie? Is it trying to persuade me or change how I view the world?

>3- does it accomplish what it set out to do
If it's just a big dumb action movie, did it make it's money? Did it win Oscars it wanted? Did it make me laugh or cry or tell my friends to watch it?

If a movie gets all three, it's great. If it gets two, it's pretty good and I'd recommend it. If it got one, then chances are I'll never watch it again, or I'll forget it within a month. If it didn't get any, it's shit and not worth time

OP pic is related to vidya, and in the case of vidya average or simply decent games aren't good enough when incredible games exist because games are a massive time and money commitment. That's why anything below an 8 may as well be shit sucks, it's not worth playing. But movies are only 2 hours long and practically free so you can watch average movies.

Twice as many resources went into creating the latest capeshit movie than your AAA game, for 2 hours of mindless entertainment as opposed to how many hours of (semi)mindless entertainment you get out of a game?

This is the correct answer:

Attached: 1552988159618.jpg (1731x401, 546K)

Just disconnect from your home wifi to post on Yea Forums.

Saved

>Is it trying to persuade me or change how I view the world?
This is a dumb metric to use to judge a movie.

>10/10: "Affecting" - Reserved for films that deeply affected me in a way that is more important than any criticism.
Interesting, I have this way of reasoning with music. Not so much with films though.

>it's
opinion discarded

5.0/5 masterpieces
4.5/5 near-masterpieces
4.0/5 basically every really really good movie
3.5/5 regular good movies. not "special."
3.0/5 solid movies worth watching
2.5/5 movies that left a bad taste in my mouth, but have some redeeming qualities. Wouldn't normally recommend watching. I may even personally like them
2.0/5 I don't like these movies but they are still technically movies. might contain a single good idea.
1.5/5 Objectively bad movies
1.0/5 The absolute worst movies.
0.5/5 Not a movie. A bad student film or something.
0.0/5 LACKING ANY SORT OF MOVING PICTURE

Numerical score are bad because it makes very polarizing films (where people either give the film an extremely high score or an extremely low score) merely result in average scores, with the film being everything but average.

This can easily be solved by dividing the average scores in 10 parts where the top 10 % become 10s, the next 10 % become 9s and so on.

>people either give the film an extremely high score or an extremely low score
The true answer is there is no such thing as a good or bad film. One either likes it or they don't.

So you love every movie you watch?

There have been plenty of films I've been super hyped for but sucked when I actually sat down and watched them. You can't always predict you'll like the movie ahead of time even if you aren't setting out to purposefully watch something you think is going to be bad.

What's the bottom image at 10 from?

No, I just divide movies into two categories: Those I liked and those I didn't. There's no need for a scale.

Sympathy For Mr Vengeance

Attached: 220px-Sfmvposter2.jpg (220x313, 30K)

>Does it say something worth saying
This line of thinking inevitably brings you to the current Oscarbait shit, where a movie can be completely boring but be rated well because the message is "good".

It should be packaged into your first point. The message itself needs to also be interesting, different, or at least be able to be interpreted in a number of unique ways.

In marketing, 7 rating for a product is often considered borderline satisfied, and anything but that is considered as dissatisfaction. It is a very human thing to have this skew, as watching an average film is still not a bad way to spend time.
Modern "critics" not being able to offset this effect is cancerous though.

Personaly I stick to 1-5 with some additional markers (for example, Dazed and Confused is not an amazing movie as such, but I really like the feels)

Why do I have to conform to a grading system used to assess students? My system is to catalog my subjective ratings for movies. I give all movies that aren't worth my time a 1/10, and that allows me to use 2-10 on movies that I actually enjoy and care about. It's very practical for personal ratings, which I use mostly for deciding what to rewatch and for finding similar movies.

>goty
Go back to Yea Forums

I didn't mind Maltin's scale. He went up to 4 stars including half stars, but anything below 1.5 stars he just labeled BOMB and shit on.
It was also really obvious that 2.5 was the default he gave to movies he didn't have strong feelings about one way or the other, and he gave 2.5 liberally.

5 or less is bad, with lesser numbers meaning worse and worse
6 or plus means i liked it with varying degrees of how much i really liked it

This why I prefer letter grade system there is no major confusion on value. if C is average, D, F below average. A, B above average. I understand this essentially the same as 5 point rating. Its about preference. But everyone uses the shitty 10 point rating system even though no one can agree what they actually means.

Whoops, forgot to turn my joke name off.

a fellow chem eng here.
Shit sucks

This is bat shit crazy

>Decimals
NO

Pretty good post, 3/10

3 Star System
> = Bad
> * = OK
> ** = Good
> *** = Very Good

Give me an example of a movie that you would give a 1/10, and a movie that you would give a 3/10.
Now explain to me why it's important to distinguish between the quality of these two shitty movies.
What I'm doing is condensing all movies that ARE NOT GOOD to one tenth of my rating scale, so that the rest of the scale can be used for more finely rating the quality of movies that ARE ACTUALLY GOOD.

Skyrim is a bad example but he's right that game """ journalists""" won't give less than an 8 to a AAA game, unless it's so bad that there's public outcry about it. If they do they might not be sent review copies of the company's next game or get invited to press confrences.
From what I understand it's not much different with movie critics, if they shit on too many movies they won't be invited to early screenings.

good - bad

1-10
Why do most IMDB Users either rate movies a 1 or a 10 most of the times i fucking hate that shit a movie can be mediocre or good reviewing isn't just black and white

5/7

how can you really objectively review art?

perfect score

with your eyes

have sex

>won't give less than an 8 to a AAA game
That's understandable because big budget games demonstrate the newest tech in gaming which is an integral part of gaming evolution. Indie or lower budget games just refine older tech and should be judged harsher.

Nothing wrong in a binary system, you either like it or don't. Worse are the people who use many shades of brown to classify a turd.

>demonstrate new tech in gaming
Are you serious? Sure some of them use better physics engines or whatever, but 95% of it is just graphics. How long did Bethesda and whoever make CoD use their old engines? What great new technologies have the last 50 copy-pasted Ubisoft games brought?
Indie games are the ones that actually do new shit. Sure it's not flashy and doesn't usually overheat your CPU, but it's different and innovative. Dwarf Fortress still has the most autistically complex world generation. Miasmata has one of the best enemy AI's out there.

best one so far

by not being personal and biased

Those big budget games still have the highest technological standards, even if changes seem small, it's a risky business and their effort shouldn't be punished when they push out derivative mechanics to play it safe, they can't constantly revolutionize gaming but they are the frontier of what is possible on a technical level. Video gaming is a theme park and the engineer comes before the artist.

Literally the truth. There are well made and poorly made, there are affecting and unaffecting, but no good or bad.

Their effort shouldn't be rewarded either, unless they do something revolutionary. But since some games from 10 years ago could pass for games made today if you retextured them I don't see that happening. Just throwing money and employees at a game doesn't make it the highest technological standard. Face it, videogames have come to almost a standstill as far as technology goes. That's why companies don't market consoles as being able to run a new game, but as being able to run it better than the previous console.

The criticism is fair. Better question would be:
How do you find the movies you want to see?
The answer is Yea Forums

At the end of the movie I ask myself if I would rather watch it again or never have seen it at all

So it's a pass or fail

>0
Hate-vote, movies whose existence is morally or aesthetically repulsive on every level
Or: The first video your dad made with his new HD camcorder
Or: Have personal beef with the creator
>1
Those group project videos that your high school teacher forced your class to make
>2
Really really bad and badly made, boring film. Don't bother.
>3
Lowest score to be able to even sit through the movie completely if based on something you're a fan of or if resonates with you by pure chance
>4
Bad movie. Good enough to run in the background while you're doing some work or smoking weed with your friends, but that's it.
>5
A bad movie, but possibly redeemed a bit by a handful of small positive factors. Or, an okay movie that gets really ruined by some unforgivable mistakes.
>6
This is the quintessential "meh" movie. Aggressively mediocre and "okay I guess". Won't watch it a second time though.
>7
Decent movie. Nothing overly special, but you can reasonably enjoy yourself. You'll probably forget about it in a few weeks/months tho.
>8
A good movie. This is the golden spot for a "good movie". There's nothing wrong with an 8/10 movie, it's good and it's satisfying. You might watch it a second or even third time, and there's a chance that you may become a bit of a fan if it hits the right nerve with you.
>9
Epic movie. Has "special something" that makes it unforgettable and even years later you can very likely still recall it by name and it will bring up fond memories and nostalgia. You will be positively hyped about the prospect of even a mediocre sequel and you will be regularly recommending this to your friends.
>10
Perfect, doesn't exist. Really just reserved for good-epic movie you have sentimental attachment to. Maybe a good one you watched with ur first hot gf that got you laid or one that saved your life somehow.
Or: To defend decent movie from SJW trolls
Or: Good movie made by a very good personal friend of yours.

Attached: 0e9.jpg (499x499, 26K)

I rate them by elements and group them by mood.

Take Plan 9 for example.

It gets grouped into the stupid party movies we can all heckle at. Groupings are arbitrary, although I do try to group them in clusters, trying to tie back to my original top ten.

But elements are carefully defined as I can get without too much work, and referenced to my original top ten as origin values. In this case it gets high points for being a labor of love and mindlessly fun. But does poorly with action speed and a notable personal reduction given the remarks about how females should act, although that was smaller for party groups given many don't notice or get as offended.

Attached: Plan 9.png (622x369, 40K)

>How does Yea Forums rate movies?
For me it's (in descending order):
>GOAT
>MOTY
>Kinographique
>A tour de force
>*kino (e.g. capekino, incestkino)
>A P O L O G I Z E
>FOTM
>pictures moved me
>Cinematically sound
>pictures moved
>shit (e.g. capeshit)

Kinoisseur detected

>tfw never seen a truly perfect, 10/10 film
Best I've ever given a movie is a 9.

Attached: 1552187570571_0.jpg (1200x800, 164K)

Not that guy, but a 1/10 really needs to be the worst of the worst. It really needs to be worth it. You probably will remember the worst movie experience more than an average OK movie. Sometimes really bad movies also can be entertaining because they are so bad. Discerning the really bad from the weak or mediocre has some value.

Me neither. Even the 9s are rare.

I start at 5/10 and then add or subtract points accordingly.

I completely ignore them. Never looked at a movie review in my life. 3 hours of experience at best and it's over. How about getting into a real medium that needs reviews like video games?

Attached: v was here.gif (640x360, 1.68M)

in my experience, if something isn't close to the best, it's not worth partaking

most music isn't "average", it's not worth listening to
most movies, most games, most people, etc

What's the rubric here? How autistic do you have to be to say a movie is a 7.5/10 or an 8.3??

Sometimes I want to grab Yea Forums by the shoulders and scream "stop buying games at full price" at them. If you don't want to be a guinea pig, don't buy a ticket to the premiere.