Should a movie EVER be rated 10/10?

This is really a philosophical question rather than a practical one; I recognize that there are good reasons for giving a movie the highest possible rating which may have nothing to do with how we really feel about it. But, philosophically—

A rating of 10/10 (or the equivalent) leaves no room for improvement; it says, this film is not only among the best of films, it is perfect in every significant way. Is there any movie which, really, is that good? Shouldn’t the best ratings actually be 9.9 (or 9.5) out of 10, thus signalling that, however good the film is there is some aspect which could be better? Or are there truly films which are so good they could not be improved or surpassed?

yes

I disagree with your definition of 10/10. I often give the highest rating possible if I truly love the film. It doesn’t mean I think the film is perfect or the best ever but I still think it deserves that rating. I know I am a lot more lenient with my ratings than most people though.

I think 10/10 is suitable for many films. Does that mean it’s a “perfect” film – no. Take The 400 Blows for example – Truffaut said that while viewing the film he notices the flaws, things he could have done differently, and has difficulty understanding why it was viewed as a “masterpiece”. In my opinion a rating system of numbers or stars is designed to gauge people’s opinions so collectively it can measure a film’s merit. I also wish that it were possible to give a 0/10 rating – does that mean that the film could not have been any worse – no.

movies are gay.

just thought I’d put that out there.

Nice use of the worst slang word ever.

Unless of course you actually mean homosexual in which case yes some movies do have homosexuality in them.

um, i’m pretty sure the worst slang word ever is “nizzle”

I don’t think he really meant worst. But “most ignorant slang word”, that’s sufficient.

The most ignorant swear word is “fuck-a-luck-a-ding-dong” because that implies ignorance of the English language.

While 10/10 doesn’t necessarily imply perfection, perfection exists.

why did we let this fuck-a-luck-a-ding-dong get us off subject?
lets answer the question :)

Think about the best film you’ve ever seen or just a film you’ve seen that stands out as a favorite. Is there anything you’d improve about it? If not, it deserves a 10/10. I could probably think of about 5 to 10 films that I would rate as 10’s, not necessarily my top 5-10 favorites.

Philosophical questions about quantitative ratings are a little silly…Does quality exist in relation to art? Yes. But it varies with perspective. So there is no film, nor poem, nor rock and roll LP which is unequivocally perfect. There are works that are perfect (10 out of 10, you might say) to certain individuals, however.

Lawrence of Arabia is an ELEVEN

Yes if the movie is Hot Rod.

Or Elf.

10/10 for Brian’s post!

…why don’t you just make Ten worth more, that way Lawrence of Arabia could just be Ten and that’d be the highest.

But this one goes to 11.

haha Drew. I think the whole 10/10 thing is really weird.

I tried to look at this whole thing in a review I did of High Fidelity a while ago: http://filmvisuality.blogspot.com/2009/03/review-high-fidelity.html

There used to be an add for Ivory soap saying it was 99.97% pure – or words to that effect. How about, instead of 10/10, we say that a film we really like is .999978/10 or the like – since Spidergod has precluded perfection by us giving anything a ‘perfect’ 10? OK, some of my own favourites:

Stalker – .999998/10
2001 – 999987/10
Third Man – .999977/10
Casablanca – .99658/10

Is this any better? It seems to me more like trying to figure out pi to a zillion places. Sometimes 10/10 works, unless it is the movie ‘10’ itself – which was about .86789/10 – mostly for Bo Derek herself who was .999997/10.

I agree with much said previous.
unless that .5 is really need, I personally opt for solid numbers, without fractions.
A 10 is a movie that has a certain level of overall quality and greatness that it does not deserve any number less. Its the fitting number, not the numerical level of quality minus every-little-thing-that-irks-you-or-every-little-thing-that-could-have-been-even-better.

If a movie couldn’t be rated 10/10 could a movie be rated 1/10?

Mind explosion.

I just go by a scale of hated/didn’t like/liked/really liked/loved

I don’t use the 1-10 rating system to organize my favorite movies. I use a solid 1-5, one being the worst, five being the best. That way I can easily separate BAD, FLAWED, AVERAGE, GOOD, and GREAT.

I don’t use the 1-10 rating system to organize my favorite movies. I use a solid 1-5, one being the worst, five being the best. That way I can easily separate BAD, FLAWED, AVERAGE, GOOD, and GREAT.

Out of 10? Never. Out of 5? Yes, more decisiveness when rating something out of 5.

Definitely there can be films that earn the maximum number of points or stars — it’s not like Highlander, there can be more than one. :)

I would prefer to read reasonings behind the positive and negative aspects of a film over a straight up number rating.

there are hundreds of movies made every year

at least a few of them a year should be somehow perfect

A rating of 10/10 (or the equivalent) leaves no room for improvement; it says, this film is not only among the best of films, it is perfect in every significant way.—-

Yeah, wouldn’t it be great to read long arguments about whether Citizen Kane is a 9.8 or a 9.6? Seriously, though, ratings are just approximate value standing in for an aesthetic judgement that’s much for complex. I think of it sort of like a headline in a newpaper.

This is ridiculous.