For those who like to rate their movies: What Type Of System Do You Use? (1 Viewer)

[Edwin Pereyra]

Joe, I've always interpreted fair and average to be the same. As such, :star: :star: for me, would mean below average. In that regard, if 2 stars for you means average, it would be easily misinterpreted by some as that would be 2-1/2 stars on someone else's rating system.

~Edwin

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Right, Edwin. That's exactly what I mean. One person's two and a half may actually mean the same as another's two.
It's why star ratings become confusing to different people -- unless, of course, you always have an explanatory guide of your personal meanings handy along with the stars themselves.

 

[Jason Seaver]

:star::star::star::star: - Superlative
:star::star::star:½ - Outstanding
:star::star::star: - Quite Good
:star::star:½ - Decent
:star::star: - Below average
:star:½ - Not Good
:star: - Repugnant
½ - Disastrous

... with quarter stars in between. There have been times when I'm tempted to go to eighths, but there's no ANSI characters for those.

One thing that is currently driving me nuts is that Whyte & Weinberg have gotten me to start posting reviews on a site that uses a five star system stated thusly:

5 - Awesome
4 - Worth A Look
3 - Just Average
2 - Pretty Crappy
1 - Sucks

This gives me fits because I find "Worth A Look" and "Average" to be roughly equivelent, but at the same time think a movie can be below average without being "Crappy". And no half-stars allowed.

Do you use a zero? For me, that's the key; if it's basically a 1-4 system, then 2.5 is "average" (I've got the option for ½ in there, but I can't recall the last time I used it); if it's 0-4, then 2 is "average".

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Yes, I go Zero to 4

 

[Brook K]

Well to my mind an average film is not necessarily "bad" in a steaming pile sense, but is bad to me because I want to watch good films, ie. better than average and an average film wastes time that could have been spent watching a good film. I don't really agree with the "you can only learn what's good by watching what's bad" theory.

I use the grade system but the definitions within the category can allow for a pretty wide variety.

A : masterpiece or great or a film I completely love
A-: outstanding and/or a film I love but has a nagging problem or one or two dead scenes
B+: very good but never inspires a "love" response
B : good
B-: a film I wanted to like or really liked pieces of, but has too many problems to fully embrace. (The Village)
C+: a generally average film but may have 1 or 2 redeeming features
C : average as grits (and I don't like grits)
C-: drifting towards bad
D+: bad but doesn't quite make me hate it
D : bad enough to hate as I count the seconds of my life tick away
D-: even worse
F : so bad I begin to question whether I ever want to watch another movie

 

[Lew Crippen]

Not only do people assign different meaning to the same numerical rating, many of us mean very different things when we use the same term. And some of us also start rating from very different perspectives.

For example, ‘average’ is often used by Australians in the same context as they use ‘ordinary’—which means ‘bad’ or ‘below average’ in most contexts. As in, ‘that was a pretty ordinary performance’ when discussing an individual’s or a team’s effort in a sporting event.

Not only that, but since, ‘average’ is a relative term, one has to consider how the term applies to the whole spectrum of films. And for me, since I think that bad films mostly don’t get made, an ‘average’ film would get a grade rating of around a ‘B’. Since I think that there are almost no ‘F’ films and only a few ‘D’, ones, it stands to reason that an average film (in my view) would be a ‘good’ movie.

And since I think most films that get funding and actually manage to get made and distributed are pretty good, my rating system caters to that.

Which is why :star::star: means (for me), ‘worth seeing’. And why :star: actually has some postive features.

While I am not opposed (in theory) to a zero rating, in practice I manage to avoid films that I expect will be that bad.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Ah, so this is where Amazon.com rankings come from.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I've gone back and forth about half star increments as long as I've been rating the films I see, Lew.

I sometimes think it'd be much easier keeping it basic: Either a film is Poor (1), Fair (2), Good (3), or Excellent (4). No need there for "halves". But what happens whenever I attempt this is that I always view :star: :star: as appearing far less flattering in print than I intend it to be (in those cases, a :star: :star: 1/2 seems to cut a more favorable impression , even though it's saying the same exact thing as two!)

Take something like A NIGHT AT THE OPERA. I really liked it, but some of the singing tarnished it a tad for me, hence my final rating of :star: :star: :star: 1/2 .
Now, if I were not using "half stars" I'd have to take it down to :star: :star: :star: -- which, ultimately, gives a lesser impression for the uninitiated than I intended!

 

[Lew Crippen]

I gave it a rating of :star::star::star:, which I consider a ‘must see’ and don’t look back.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Which may be the key phrase to the whole thing!

 

[Michael Elliott]

A :star::star::star::star: movie.

:star::star: has always meant "fair" to me but I would give this a "thumbs down" or "not recommended". I mean, there are so many three-star "good" films out there that I would never recommend anyone watch a "fair" movie. Take LAWS OF ATTRACTION for example. Fair from a bad movie and far from a good movie. It was just average but why waste your time on something average? Why not watch a three-star or four-star film? To me, that's why a fair :star::star: film wouldn't get a recommendation from me.

 

[Justin1]

I just ask myself,"What would Brian Boitano think of this movie?". It's so much simpler than using other systems.

 

[Tim Glover]

I used to use the 4 Star rating scale but lately have gone to a 5 Star rating. Seems to give me more flexibility in rating.

I like the letter grades too.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I don't agree that a :star: :star: film necessarily means it's not recommended. In my book, two stars still mean "fair" and "worth one view". Anything under the "fair" rating I wouldn't recommend. 2, 3, and 4 stars are all positives, but just varying degrees.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

I like a 5-star scale, with half-stars enabled. 1/2 star is as low as I'll go.

It's basically 1-10, I guess.

The 4-star system works quite well, but I like a little more flexibility. Letter grading works well too, I spose.

Bar graphs are a pain in the ass, though.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Actually, Rosenbaum's system is on a 5-point scale. No stars = Worthless, which he recently used for Alien vs. Predator.


Sure but in Rotten Tomatoes terms, a 2-star probably equates to a 40% - 50% rating. I sometimes go to RT to see what the consensus is and like Michael said, with so many more movies rated higher, for me, a film rated at this level will have to take a back seat to so many more other films that maybe worth more of my time.

~Edwin

 

[Dan Rudolph]

I use 1-10, since when I'm rating a movie, it's usually on the IMDB and that's what they use.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Interesting approach—I never look at Rotten Tomatoes, preferring to consider what selected critics have written. After a while you kind of get used to individual critics and their likes and dislikes and can adjust accordingly.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Actually, there are so many 3-star films these days that that rating itself is fast becoming to be average. I concentrate now on the 3 1/2 - 4 star films to determine which ones I'll see in the theaters vs. DVD.


Even some of the trusted critics I follow I have major disagreements with. With the RT approach, I can at least have some type of consensus. But lately, it appears its the opposite - the wider the consensus, the more it becomes suspect. So, I'm back to square one.

~Edwin

 

[Chad A Wright]

5 Star System
:star: - Bad
:star: :star: - Mediocre
:star: :star: :star: - Good
:star: :star: :star: :star: - Great
:star: :star: :star: :star: - Perfect (or close to it)