What general film/series have you just seen.. marks out of 5

[HungFist]

So if I'd wrote 2.5/5 you'd have understood me?

No, because that wouldn't have made sense either.

because 2.5/5 is somewhere near average... you know, it's half of the maximum score... far from the bottom of the scale. And you you're talking about a movie "so bad it's hard to score"...

[bradavon]

You must see lots of dross for 50% to be your average . Average doesn't mean half-way btw.

[HungFist]

You must see lots of dross for 50% to be your average . Average doesn't mean half-way btw.

According to my book keepping my average does fall pretty close to half way. Of course I try to watch good movies, so I actually manage to keep it a bit above the halfway (my average rating last year was 2.85).

Mainly, though, I think the difference is in how people define their ratings. People like Lucky Stars give a piece of shit movie 2.5/5, a dissappointing movie 3.5/5, and a movie that has a couple of merits 4/5.

I don't see the point in having a rating scale with 5 different ratings if the first three all mean the same thing (1= bad, 2 is bad, 3 is bad, 4 is good, 5 is great).

I never give movies free points. I film without merits is always 1/5 on my scale. If the film wants a higher rating, say 1.5/5, it needs to deserve it in some way.

I do know some people have this kind of rating scale



While my scale is like this.



(the picture is a bit crappy with less than accurate dimensions but you get the idea)

If 1/5 is garbage and 5/5 is godly masterpiece, then it seems only logical to me that 2.5/5 isn't all that bad, if not that great either.

[bradavon]

2 out of 5 isn't as bad as 1 out of 5 and 3 out of 5 is better again. They're basically different levels of disappointment, as are your ratings. For me only 1 out of 5 or maybe 2 out of 5 I'd actually call a bad movie.

I dislike like ratings out of 5 though, 5 isn't enough numbers to accurately differentiate. A rating out of 10 is better.

[romerojpg]

Who cares what a film scores, you either like it or you dont

Some 1 star films are worth owning, some 4 start films are not.

[grim_tales]

Not if a "1 star" is your own rating

[romerojpg]

Thats exactly what I mean, I own many films I rated 1 star and dont own many I thought were 4 star.

[grim_tales]

Why not? If you think its a crap film why would you buy/own it? (I thought you were talking about film critics when you said that)

[luckystars]

You guys and your ratings

10/10 masterpiece

9.5 near perfect movie, a work of art like Akira

9 an excellent movie, depth, good filmaking etc (lots of world cinema falls here or better)

8.5 what I'd call a standout movie, example would be The Dark Knight (most classics tend to be this good or better)

8 a solid credible movie

7.5 strong popcorn movie

7 popcorn movie

6.5 partly enjoyable, doesn't get you going as such.

6 an ok movie - neither that good or particularly bad (equivalent to a '3 Stars Movie')

5.5 see above, just a bit bad, flat scenes or a disappointing ending

5 my controversial vote for Book of Eli, right between a 6 and a 4 (ok to flat)

4.5 see below, just with a few touches (scenes, performances, cgi anything) that elevate the film .

4 flat movie that never gets anywhere - just is what it is. you could easily turn of half way (think a lot of b-movie stuff, tv movies)

3.5 as above but with some shit thrown in (embarrassing scenes, plot twists whatever)

3 crap - that straight to video film that shouldn't have even been released

2.5 Awful movie, but with some merit, like Battlecreek Brawl

2 Awful movie (Cannonball Run 2, Son of the Pink Panther etc.)

1.5 Beyond bad, so bad you want to walk out the cinema (Guy Richies Revolver)

1 unwatchable




Btw I've usually picked up the laptop and gone on the fourms if it's worse than a 7

EDIT: I've just watched Zombieland and thought it was a 7.5

[romerojpg]

Why not? If you think its a crap film why would you buy/own it? (I thought you were talking about film critics when you said that)

Because some films while amazingly well made etc.. just are not films you will ever really want to watch over and over again for many reasons. So no need to even own it.

Some others while shitter, are worth watching again for many reasons, so worth owning

You do not only have to own great films, or even good films, as long as you get something from a film then so be it.

[luckystars]

Why not? If you think its a crap film why would you buy/own it? (I thought you were talking about film critics when you said that)

Because some films while amazingly well made etc.. just are not films you will ever really want to watch over and over again for many reasons. So no need to even own it.

Some others while shitter, are worth watching again for many reasons, so worth owning

You do not only have to own great films, or even good films, as long as you get something from a film then so be it.

Totally agree

[bradavon]

A "Because some films while amazingly well made" cannot only get 1 out of 5 in my book.

Lucky Stairs: You rate out of 20!

[grim_tales]

Why not? If you think its a crap film why would you buy/own it? (I thought you were talking about film critics when you said that)

Because some films while amazingly well made etc.. just are not films you will ever really want to watch over and over again for many reasons. So no need to even own it.

Some others while shitter, are worth watching again for many reasons, so worth owning

You do not only have to own great films, or even good films, as long as you get something from a film then so be it.

Fair enough

[luckystars]

Lucky Stairs: You rate out of 20!

In effect yes.

I've seen so many films to feel if one falls between 2 ratings.

[romerojpg]

A "Because some films while amazingly well made" cannot only get 1 out of 5 in my book.

I never said that, you are reading and quoting nothing like I said it

[Markgway]

5 my controversial vote for Book of Eli, right between a 6 and a 4 (ok to flat)

I thought it was crap beyond words?

[HungFist]

Who cares what a film scores, you either like it or you dont

Some 1 star films are worth owning, some 4 start films are not.

I hear that often. It's called "I'm afraid to give my favorite movie a high rating because it might hurt my reputation"

I always give an honest rating according to how much I liked to movie.

5 my controversial vote for Book of Eli, right between a 6 and a 4 (ok to flat)

I thought it was crap beyond words?

So bad the rating scale could hardly do it justice

[gasteropod]

I hear that often. It's called "I'm afraid to give my favorite movie a high rating because it might hurt my reputation"

I always give an honest rating according to how much I liked to movie.

It's not as simple as that though, films need to be rated in context. If I'm going to give a film like 2001: A Space Odyssey 5/5 because it's a cinematic masterpiece, I don't feel I can give a film I also love (and have watched many more times) like The 'burbs a 5/5 too because it clearly doesn't deserve the same score.

[HungFist]

I hear that often. It's called "I'm afraid to give my favorite movie a high rating because it might hurt my reputation"

I always give an honest rating according to how much I liked to movie.

It's not as simple as that though, films need to be rated in context. If I'm going to give a film like 2001: A Space Odyssey 5/5 because it's a cinematic masterpiece, I don't feel I can give a film I also love (and have watched many more times) like The 'burbs a 5/5 too because it clearly doesn't deserve the same score.

That's the thing people always misunderstand.

The sad truth is, half of the people are giving 2001: A Space Odyssey 5/5 just because someone told them it's a masterpiece. These people have no idea why. It's a very scary thought... that someone has already decided which movies are masterpieces, and you are not allowed to question that. Even worse is when these people adapt it as universal truth... A lot of bad has happened in the world because of these kind of believes. Look back in the history back when we were burning witches. Those devils had to dies cause no one ever dared to question the old believes. The same stuff is going on with movies nowadays... people don't dare to criticize classics.

Also, being a technical masterpiece doesn't mean its a practical masterpiece. The Koreeda films I rated 1/5 recently are technically wonderful films. But how could I ever give them a high rating when I had to take three breaks during the movie and fast forward some parts just to make it till the end? That would be pure hypocrisy. I sometimes see these people... "I hated this film. I give it 4/5". I don't trust those jokers. They've got no idea what they're talking about. They're just checking from IMDb what is the appropriate rating that allows you to keep your face and pretend you know something about movies.

Then they saw the coolest movie in the world and don't dare to give it more than 3/5 cause it's no high art. But what is the idea of movies? To provide experiences, right? I score accordingly, which makes my rating easy to interpret (shut up, Brad ). Someone else scores a film 5/5 and you still have no idea if it's actually a good movie, or just a theoretically accomplished pile of film.

[bradavon]

I don't get your rating system and thinking at all .

The sad truth is, half of the people are giving 2001: A Space Odyssey 5/5 just because someone told them it's a masterpiece. These people have no idea why. It's a very scary thought... that someone has already decided which movies are masterpieces, and you are not allowed to question that.

Who actually does that? No one whose seen one of "those masterpieces" and thinks it's rubbish still gives it's 5 out of 5.

The Koreeda films I rated 1/5 recently are technically wonderful films. But how could I ever give them a high rating when I had to take three breaks during the movie and fast forward some parts just to make it till the end?

I'd have given it 2 out of 5 or maybe 3 out of 5 (depending how technically wonderful it is) because for me 3 out of 5 is an okay/average film. I'd also have not bothered and turned it off. If I have to fast forward (as I did with Drunken Master), it's completely failed for me.

which makes my rating easy to interpret

Only to you . I've no what you think of many films based "on their rating alone", as your rating system is completely illogical to me.

[HungFist]

In all honesty, I do think it takes quite a bit of talent not to be able to understand such a simple rating scale as mine. There's only two differences as compared to "the others"
1) My rating equals to how much I liked the film. Very simple. No pretentious bullshit involved.
2) I'm a harsh critic, meaning every film will get a lower rating from me than from the others.

[gasteropod]

Yeah but what I'm saying is shouldn't films also get marked up for being excellent all-round, like with cinematography and effects etc? So if you love a film that is shoddily made then I find it unfair to give it the same mark as another I love which excels in every area.

[HungFist]

I don't see the point in giving a lesser rating for a film you like more.

If we try to calculate the mathemathical quality of a film, then who do these ratings serve? These ratings don't tell you how good the movie is in practice, only how good it is in theory. And who wants to watch theorethically fine pieces of crap?

And other way round, who would like to miss the most enjoyable movie in the world just because it's missing theorethical merits that serve no one?

[grim_tales]

I think I gave 2001 3.5/5, it was good - I just dont think I "got it".

[romerojpg]

I would give
2001 - 1 out of 5, it is total and utter shit (nice effects for its time, thats about it) and I wouldnt buy it for 10p on Blu Ray even (unless I was buying to sell haha). The Burbs pisses all over the over thought "Masterpiece" 2001.

On the other hand a piece of crap like
House of the Dead - which is maybe a 1 star film as well, I own and have watched it a few times

You like what you like, end of.