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

[Michael Elliott]

We can disagree until the cows come home but I think the bottom line is people aren't going to waste their time with a "fair" movie. If someone reads your review of something, if you say it's only fair and give it :star::star:, more than likely they aren't going to watch it and instead they are going to go for something you'd give a higher rating to. In your review, if you said the film was fair but an earlier version was better, people would probably go for that earlier version.

There are way too many good and great films to recommend someone a fair one. Especially when it comes to DVDs and telling people if they should buy or rent a film. Anything fair and below is a rental while something good or great will be a keeper. You might watch a fair movie once but it's unlikely too many will go back and give it a second viewing. That's why a fair movie wouldn't be recommended.

Again, if you and I are in a store and you're wanting to buy ten movies and you ask my opinion on which ones, do you want me to have you buy ten "fair" movies?

 

[RyanAn]

I had an idea of having a 1 to 10 scale but with buckets of popcorn... like Man on Fire gets 10 buckets... Obviously it did not catch on as well as I would of hoped.

A-F, 1-4, etc all work as well. But good old Great, Good, Ehhh, Bad, Terrible do so too.
Ryan

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I wouldn't want you to buy me anything, as when it comes to buying DVDs I'll only buy favorites I already know I want. I just watched a poor :star: film last night -- Boris Karloff in JUGGERNAUT (1936). I own it for Karloff and enjoy watching him in it; so even though its a 1, I can watch this on occasion; yet there are some 3 and 4 star films I have no desire to own!

 

[Jason Seaver]

Well, it's not like movies are homogenous, quality-wise. I've seen any number of two-star movies that had four-star moments, the most recent being a character describing Anne of Green Gables as an "erotic classic" in the otherwise-subpar Code 46. Or any number of Hong Kong action movies that have dreadful connective tissue between astounding action sequences.

The problem with rating systems - and this applies to pretty much all of them - is that they substitute a single word/letter/number/cartoon man for a detailed description of the rated work's strengths and weaknesses. That's their purpose. It's important to remember that ":star::star:½" is not my opinion of a movie, but a crude approximation for the purposes of quick comparisons/aggregations. If you were to ask me what I thought of a :star::star:½ movie, I'd probably go on for ten minutes.

 

[Holadem]

:star::star::star::star: Outstanding movie / An experience / Instant Classic ==> Perhaps 1-3 movies a year fit in this rating. Many classics do.
:star::star::star:1/2 Excellent - Above the fray of good movies
:star::star::star: - Good all around movie ==> Most movies I see and enjoyed land here.
:star::star:1/2 - Good, with some serious flaws / Somewhat uninvolving / Marginal recommendation ==> They screwed up quite a bit.
:star::star: - Very average / Very uninvolving / Yet another one of those... ==> They didn't even try
:star:1/2 and below - Waste of time

I am with Edwin (and Michael?) on this one, no :star::star: recommendation for me, as it means extremely average. I want to watch good movies (:star::star::star: ) at least, not average ones. Good movies are not rare, there are plenty of them. I have seen perhaps 16 theatrical releases this year, but most of them were 3 or 3 1/2 stars.

And I do not care one bit about the different degrees of badness below 2 stars as you can see...

--
H

 

[Michael Elliott]

Well, I hope you don't recommend JUGGERNAUT to someone over a four star film.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

If someone specifically asked for a recommendation, No, I would not recommend that film (and please realize that this doesn't unquestionably guarantee they wouldn't enjoy it themselves if they tried it anyway). But this is not what we're talking about. The whole point is, a two star rating is not a terrible thing - it's just not super-good, that's all.

And please, Michael -- address one issue you are glossing over: I keep suggesting that people might also seek out a four star film over a three, too. So doesn't your theory hold true there, too? If you think a "good" film is better to watch than a "fair" one (and it's kind of obvious that it probably is) can't you take it one more step up to the extreme and say "why mess around with :star: :star: :star: films, when you can concentrate solely on those flawless :star: :star: :star: :star: movies?

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Well said, Jason. Which is why it always helps to have some notes under your rating too. To explain your rating.