u know who u are :O)
Because the 5 stars rating system is too vague, and 3 stars is the middle.
If we could rate at half stars it would be easier and there would be fewer 3 star ratings.
isn’t 3 stars a bit average 4 a favorite film
I don’t think so, personally I save 5 stars for only the films I think are remarkable.
I love Flash Gordon (I didn’t even know it was in the database), but I know it’s bad, but that’s what makes it great, but I have to be honest, my affection for the film makes it a 3 when it’s really a 2.
so if flash gordon is great give it 5 STARS!!!!! :O)
Some people’s favourite films aren’t always, to use the term loosely ‘cinematic masterpieces’ and in recognising this are not deserving of 4 or 5 star ratings but nevertheless they still hold the film dear for reasons of nostalgia etc..
Uli is quite right. Just because a film is our favorite, if we are being honest, doesn’t mean the film is actually very good.
5- Great films, masterpieces, in one’s personal canon (For me, Apocalypse Now, Ice Storm, Miller’s Crossing, Godfather, Mean Streets, Medium Cool, a think a couple others)
4- Still great, could be masterpieces, but personally missing something (Citizen Kane, the melodramatic acting gets to me, Full Metal Jacket, to me it’s biggest problem is the basic training is brilliant, vietnam is damn good)
3- Where many films reside
2- Movies I don’t really care for, but I know there was skill involved in the project (Pulp Fiction)
1- Crap (Death to Smoochy, Even Cowgirls Get the Blues, Kiss of Death, Night and the City, American Psycho, etc.)
I rather the like the 1——10 system we seem to be using in the thread LAST FILM YOU SAW AND RATE IT.
That allows for some more subtlety, I think.
Rating can be hard. For example, TITYCUT FOLLIES is actually quite plodding and slow, and its “entertainment” value is a bit questionable. The same movie essentially could’ve been made in 12 minutes. That said, the purpose of the filmmakers was laudable… it really did unmask a milieu that people needed to know about. So the movie’s purpose gives it status, its craft, not so much.
1967’s HOT RODS TO HELL! is really an abysmal, execrable grade-C movie. But I adore it. How do you rate such a thing?
You get a movie like ZABRISKIE POINT. It’s kinda like a “really bad” movie…………….. that nonetheless has images which are forever burned into your memory! Can a movie be truly bad if you find yourself often thinking about it??
MOMMIE DEAREST has been lampooned and excoriated. Yet I’ve never met one person who could turn his eyes away from it when it crops up on TV. Can a movie be thorougly bad… if it arrests everyone’s attention?
Roger Ebert says he rates movies by asking himself one question: HOW WELL DID THE FILMMAKERS SUCCEED AT DOING WHAT THEY SET OUT TO DO?
……and with this criterion, he gives his highest Four Stars to both CITIZEN KANE and NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968 original). Both films do a bang-up job, he reckons, at achieving what it is they set out to do.
Well it’s fairly easy people can love films that they don’t think are actually all that good, it’s fairly common. I’m not really into Genre cinema or films of the ‘so bad they’re good’ variety so I’m not into that but many are.
I have the same rating system as Uli!
For example, Chaplin would be in the 5 stars category.
And also share the same opinion on Full Metal Jacket!
5 stars is no way to assess every film you’ve ever seen film. Unless you’ve only seen about 5 films.
But I like to keep track of what I’ve seen so I play along.
I rate everything I enjoyed a lot 5 stars. ‘Could have been better’ 4 or maybe 3 stars.
Everything which I don’t like gets 2 stars, unless it’s really offended me which isn’t very often.
You can spend so much time contemplating if something is a genuine masterpiece, or if it’s ‘just good entertainment’ or if it ‘was only trying to be just good entertainment’ or whatever. But in the end there’s only five stars.
A good number of movies have admirable qualities, while being generally flawed, which is what I use the 3 star rating for. So frequently have I seen movies with enjoyable direction that are weighed down with an atrocious script. (Born on the Fourth of July, American Pop, the Inner Life of Martin Frost).
It’s the general ‘it could’ve been better’ rating.
1 star (Grade F to D+) = not worth my time
First example a lousy film from a trash director (Kill Bill, Epic Movie)
Second example a lousy film from a great director (Eyes Wide Shut, Paint Your Wagon)
2 stars (Grade C- to C+) not terrible but not good
First example a bad movie with a curiosity factor that keeps it interesting (Mandingo, Antichrist)
Second example a well intentioned movie that just should be better (The Man There Was, Mr Death)
3 stars (Grade B-) marginal recommendation, the film is worth seeing
First example a film that is good but should be better (The Wrestler, The Fountain)
Second example a film that should be bad but is suprisingly entertaining (Moonraker, Bullseye)
4 stars (Grade B to B+) a good film
First example a bit of a lesser film from a consistently wonderful director (Hollywood Ending) Grade B
Second example a film that could have been great but has a few glaring flaws (Children of Hiroshima) Grade B+
5 stars (Grade A- to A+) a very good to great to masterpiece film
First example a perfectly entertaining star vehicle (Teachers Pet, Entrapment) Grade A-
Second example a memorable well done explotation piece (The Immoral Mr Teas) Grade A
Third example a true classic one could watch everyday (Horse Feathers) Grade A+
My five star rating is expansive. It mostly just means movies I would buy and it leaves room for some of the best of the year (Babies) as well as some of the best of all time (Dont Look Back).
In my system like2sleep fav movies get 5 stars!!
I don’t really like the 5 star system and agree that half stars should be an option. Then again I never made a big science out of rating movies, I just go with my gut reaction (however I often change my ratings later on accordingly) for me it’s just a quick way of letting others know how much someone liked or disliked a movie.
3 stars is the annoying middle, since it can mean both average and good.
I use the 5 star system to show how much i like the film, not how good the film is. because, for some cases, i love bad films and i don’t really enjoy some good films (although i know they are good)
I favorited Smiles of a Summer Night, which I gave 4 stars. I gave Ordet 5 stars, didn’t make it a favorite.
i do “Netflix” style rating:
1 – hated it, 2 – didn’t like it, 3 – liked it, 4 – really liked it, 5 – loved it
I disregard classics and watch every film like its a crappy one to begin with. It needs to win my respect, and not by a reputation. That being said, I tend to rate highly. I recently averaged my total ratings and came up with 4.07. So basically my mean rating is a close to spot-on 4, which makes sense because I really like cinema.
I get tripped up the most when I start to compare films. Like two films I rate 5 may not even be in the same league in terms of intellect and a metaphysical connection I feel with them: for instance, Reservoir Dogs and The Sacrifice. I loved both, though, so I try to reduce it to that. I DO wish there was a red five stars you could give to films that you love love, maybe.
i always thought people who rate like this are being pretentious in that they think they’re an authority to say what is a “good film” even if they themselves do not like it. it’s like they have two different rating systems within them, and instead of rating a film based on their likes/dislikes, they try to follow some code, and guess at a consensus or assume responsibility for such a vote of “greatness”.
I personally don’t understand how some people have 100+ “favorite” films. Narrow it down will you? My 12 favorites say a lot about me.
5 – Elite personal favorite.
4 – I recommend it.
3 – I like it.
2 – I don’t like it.
1 – The Room by Tommy Wiseau.
For me, there is only comedy and tragedy. All the blockbuster bullshit in between is usually garbage or 3 stars at best. The greatest films ever tend to have an unhappy ending. That being said, I give comedies 3 stars if they are funny, 2 if they aren’t. Exceptions come with style, like Spinal Tap, which for me is 5 stars.
Y did sandra bulloc name the kid louie?
I can relate to films the way I do albums. Put on what I’m in the mood for, or I really want to see right now.
I have a lot of “favourite” films.
To rate them I humbly recognise films are peculiar to the individual.
I really enjoy and love ‘Razor Blade Smile’, but I’d only give it 5 in a sub category of ‘Love the concept, nice try, hammy acting, if you wern’t a vampire movie….’
There’s films you like and there’s cinema.
Back to music analogy. Kylie makes me smile and feel warm. But I’m a serious muso. even ’Can’t get you out of my head’ gets a 5
Den, in my mind if you are going to use a grading system like A+, B-, C, etc it should be more like how they actually grade things in school.
5 stars = 80% – 100% = A and B
4 stars = 60% – 80% = C and D
3 stars = 40% – 60% = E and F
2 stars = 20% – 40% = F
1 star = 0% – 20% = F
Most of the movies I end up seeing are between 3 – 5 stars. If you are consistantly watching as many 1 or 2 star movies as you are 4 or 5 star movies you need to start discerning better how you pick the movies out there. There is no time to be wasting on all the shit films out there when there are so many good ones.
Three stars is the middle of the road.
3 stars is an insult ha ha really if u were a director and your film got a 3 star rating u would be mad :O)
^ not in my ratings. I like the movies I give three stars to. I just don’t don’t consider them greats or classics. Better than middle of the road though (a 2 1/2 star option is needed for that.)
The Room is a five-star film, you jerk! :)
the third star is so in the middle with 2 stars 2 it’s left and 2 stars 2 it’s right
I very much like Kim Packard’s rating system. I don’t know if it’s still on her page.