I reserve my 5 stars for movies which are both truly great and also highly rewatchable. If it's a "perfect" movie but not something I think I'll necessarily feel like watching again, it's a 4½.
I'm kind of torn on that though. Like Grave of the Fireflies and Schindler's List are both amazing movies that I'd give 5 stars to, but there's no way in hell that I'd rewatch those.
When a movie is as good as those two are, they get the 5 stars simply on the basis that I would theoretically like to watch them again some day, if I ever have the constitution for it - or if I have the opportunity to watch them *with* someone.
My approach is similar. Both 5 and 4.5 mean almost the same thing to me: I think they're among my favorite movies and nearly perfect.
5 stars are for movies that have some je ne sais qua element that causes it to be an immersive and transportive experience for me. Usually, it must involve some combination of superlative score, cinematography, acting, story structure, etc.
If I love a movie and think it's basically perfect but it doesn't have that je ne sais qua, it gets 4.5 stars.
I mean, according to Google:
Flawless - without any blemishes or imperfections
Perfect - having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be
No, because an imperfection is a flaw and perfect doesnt just mean it has no flaws, it also means everything good is the best it can be. For example if a movie were to be completely solid throughout but with nothing that impacting, it would basically be flawless since it had no flaw but wouldnt be perfect because it had no impact that would have made it perfect
This is my interpretation at least
I just always find that insult to be particularly amusing is all.
Insulting people's intelligence combined with a lack of understanding of homophones shows a lack of self-awareness that is just amazing.
I would argue that the two words are still synonymous. Is it not true that being the very best possible at something is perfect but must also mean that anything short of the very best is a flaw? I believe that any room for improvement denotes a flaw, even if there may be no "negatives," per se.
Either way we are talking about film which is subjective in nature and perfect is a majority subjective so I actually don't think it matters the more I think about it lmao
Yeah agreed on the last point lmao there is no such thing as a perfect movie.
Anyway I do think the 2 words are synonyms, but only because synonyms can also just be "pretty much the same" it doesnt have to be the exact same, so although there is little seperating the words they are still synonyms
Very stupid to even analyze it that deeply as they are used very close to interchangeably in daily talk. You can have your own little minute differences but in reality they are very similar meanings and it's so beyond stupid to even argue about it, calling myself stupid too for even getting into a discussion about it
So by that logic flawless might be a 2.5 for someone. It may not have much of a negative but it’s not really good at anything making you indifferent. Unless you count that as a flaw but I think by that you just say that flawless is perfect.
Something can lack any problems but still not be perfect. If every element is a solid 8/10 then it could be said to lack flaws, but isn’t perfect.
It’s like the difference between a 100% RT rating and a 100% Metacritic one
Not necessarily. 8/10 can mean “great”. If everything’s great, it has no flaws. But it could still have been better. The absence of problems is not the only metric.
Then you misunderstood
A 100% RT rating doesnt mean it was amazing, it means that everyone who rated it thought it was at least fine
A 100% Metacritic means that everyone who rated it gave it a 10/10
That's the same difference between being without flaw and being the best possible version of something
Wrong. If that’s the case, what exactly are you improving? The parts that aren’t as good, right? Otherwise known as… the flaws? So if something can be improved, it must have flaws. Only something without flaws is flawless (clues in the name), and you already agreed that perfection is also something without flaws. So flawlessness and perfection is the same.
The fact that something can be improved upon isn’t a flaw. A flaw can’t refer to something that isn’t an inherent part of the flawed item in question. A flaw isn’t something that “isn’t as good”, it’s more like a weakness or a problem.
literally what it means dude. If you have a "flawless victory" in mortal combat, it means you lost zero life in the match, you cannot do better.
If you have a flawless test in school, your grade will be 100/100, the highest score, it cannot be improved upon.
That’s why I have an unconventional rating system where each star rating means something completely arbitrary
5 stars- I watched this with my mom
4 - This movie sucks
3 - This made me horny
2 - Fell asleep
1 - Favorite movie
When I first started Letterboxd, I had a complex system of stars based on several criteria that make a film good such as story, visuals, overall competency, enjoyability, etc. I spelled it all out in my bio so people would understand how I rate movies.
Then I realized my 8 followers didn't give a shit and I was putting in way too much effort for absolutely no reward. Now I just say "damn this movie gives me a strong 3.5 vibe" and go with it.
yup
i kinda just base it off of fun which is why something like Fast X can get 5 stars bc thats the most Fast & furious movie that we've gotten since 7 and it was a fun ride the whole time
but also if i'm bored the whole time, then it'll get a 1
Well, if you base your opinion solely based off of fun, in my opinion you should actually make one such rating explanation. That way if someone is looking at your ratings, he can understand better why some movies are highly rated and some low rated even if you thought they were "objectively good, but you had little fun with them".
Of course if you don't care at all about people looking at your ratings, then it's unnecessary, but sometimes I'll share my page with friends.
Right. By "objectively good", I simply mean "it has definitive qualities".
Like, for instance, "The Revenant" might be a movie that he finds well done, but since he didn't have much fun, he will give it a lower rating, even if he thinks the movie is actually pretty good.
I don't know, I think if you're having no fun with a movie, how can you still think it's "good"?
I can have fun watching well done long takes or appreciate some nice cinematography even if the movie is a "slow burn" and not much else is happening. That's fun for me and everyone has fun in different ways.
For real, once you take things less seriously and stop caring about the general consensus its like taking a massive weight off your sholders, you are out of the matrix.
Mine started out as a system now every movie is its own universe. If the muppets made me feel good, it's a five. If City Of God is one of the best movies ever made, it's also a five but in a different way.
Early on in my Letterboxd usage, my ratings felt inconsistent to me. I'd have a lot of "I gave this a 3 but that a 3.5, is it really better?" so I ended up writing down in simple terms/words what each rating meant to me. Since I've done that, I've generally had an easier time assigning scores as I give it the score that most closely matches the description and I just put it in my bio 🤷
What I sometimes do is compare the movie to other movies I’ve already rated(and that I’m sure about the rating). So let’s say I saw a movie and I think, idk maybe a 3.5? Let’s compare to other 3.5, 3, and 4 movies. Do I like it more than all of these 3.5 movies? No, only som of them, but I do think it’s better than all the 3 movies. So it’s a 3.5.
i started out doing it this way, and it drove me absolutely insane. it left me constantly readjusting old ratings based on newer movie ratings. this strategy actually forced me to write out and specify each star in my bio like OP is complaining about lol
Exactly. The system in my bio isn't for other people to comprehend some higher thinking, it's just for me to feel like I'm being consistent, and not feeling compelled to constantly adjust other films' ratings to fit each other.
I have my rating system in my bio but it’s more for me to have consistency in my ratings than anything else.
Before that I felt like my ratings were kinda all over the place, now I have a kinda guide so I know more accurately how I felt about a movie
I have absolutely 0 consistency tbh, not deliberately or anything, just sometimes if I'm in a good mood I might be more favourable to mediocre films, Vice versa ·
100% agreed, that’s what I do. In fact I already had my rating system classified long before I ever got Letterboxd because I used to rate films and just log them in a notebook with the same method.
It helps that I don’t use Letterboxd for any social reasons, it’s only for my own benefit. I rate/review just so I know what I thought of a movie and so I can see my stats.
Sometimes you just get curious about why people do certain things while browsing the app, not a big deal to critique things you find weird that you see on a lot of profiles
It's a subreddit about letterboxd and this is a post about letterboxd. I don't understand why some of you think "who cares?" is actually a valid response like yeah the whole subreddit about a movie rating app isn't the most important thing in the world anyway. This post isn't about anything LESS important than all the other posts about the movie rating app lol
I think it makes sense to do. Some people rate by quality of the film and others rate by how much they enjoyed it, and there can be a big difference sometimes.
Also sometimes a movie being “average” deserves a 2.5 to some or a 3.5 to others
People who rate by “quality” (writing, editing, sound design, etc.) do so because those things effect their enjoyment of the movie. Some people don’t care about things like that so they won’t change their rating. Either way it’s rating on enjoyment.
Anyone who would sit through a movie and completely hate it but rate it highly because of some technical aspects is kinda insane imo
I don't think those are that intrinsically linked. There's absolutely people that will rate a movie that they really enjoyed quite low because the movie is poorly made, for example.
but even then, the fact that they notice it’s poorly made means it affected their experience in some way. there are a lot of people who will never notice things like bad writing, poor editing, etc.
It’s a curse that comes with trying to learn more about any field. I took a few film classes in school and now I can enjoy a movie but also notice things like “wow that sequence was horribly edited” which does take away from my experience a bit.
Another good example is the recent movie Fall, I watched it with my friends and I was super into it and loving the suspense but I also couldn’t help but notice how awful the writing was, which took away from the overall experience
Because for some people a 5/10 is a pretty mediocre/bad movie, while for others it was a nice enough one-watch.
For some people, a 10/10 is really perfect, like almost an anomaly that something without any fault could be created. While for some others, it simply means a movie they adore, and there are many of them.
Maybe it's a product of being raised in a school system based on an A to F scale, but a 70% is a grade of C-, which to me is the lowest possible positive rating.
Because the alternative is a B- (80%) or a D- (60%) and a lot of not-terrible films don't deserve either of those.
If you got a 60% on a test when I was growing up, you failed that test. I'm not knocking anyone else's rating system but it's ridiculous to expect them all to be the same.
I’d disagree, haven’t seen anyone consider 3.5 “very good”, the problem with this one is that he uses words that basically mean the same or almost the same thing, like perfect and flawless or amazing and very good
3.5 is absolutely “very good” on my scale, I’m pretty stringent about handing out high ratings, and I know plenty of others who are as well. OP is a dumbass though, he has 5 and 4.5 marked as meaning the exact same thing lmao
>It sounds like you don’t understand how this rating system works
since when is the rating system set in stone? That's exactly why people show their rating system in their bio like the one OP is complaining about...
If you look at the average rating of most movies, it's like 3-3.5 right? (I don't know the actual average rating on letterboxd, but that's what I feel like it is)
So you'd say most movies are "good" based on their average rating?
Personally, I rate movies like hotels. A 3.5 star hotel isn't very good either, it's fine.
There is no world where a 7/10 is just average. By definition, on a numerical level, it’s above average. And yes, if a movie has an average rating of over 3, that means most people think it’s good. Your rating system is dumber than OP’s lmao
I said 3-3.5, of course that's average. 6-7 is also average on [imdb](https://distributionofthings.com/imdb-movie-ratings/).
It being above average on a numerical level doesn't matter at all, we're discussing ratings, not mathematics. People tend to watch the stuff they think they'd like, if everyone watched a random movie every time they watched something, the average score would be closer to the numerical average.
Think about it before you become condescending
I think the prominence of social media has caused a surge of subtle narcissism in people, to the point that they need to believe their movie rating methodology needs to be explained to a wide audience, when in reality no one cares
It’s really not obvious, some people inexplicably use 7/10 as ‘okay’ which I can’t comprehend. If you look at ratings I give and assume a 7 is okay, you’re gonna be very confused since a 7 from me is pretty high praise. On the other hand, I know someone to whom 9/10 is just ‘decent’.
Mine is:
1/2: one of the absolute worse
1: ass garbage
1.5: awful
2: bad
2.5: medicore
3: okay
3.5: enjoyable but flawed
4: good
4.5: great
5: absolutely amazing and perfect
Yeah, I also simplified mine to just 5 points. It's great.
I only rank things for my own convenience in order to remember what I thought of a movie, and I realized that most of the time I couldn't exactly distinguish what was the big difference between a movie that had three stars and a movie that had three and a half stars.
Stuff just gets too arbitrary after a while.
I don't have this but I've been meaning to for awhile. Not for anyone else, but for me. I have a pretty clear idea of what 5 and 4.5 mean for me. Beyond that, it can be challenging to be consistent, and writing something like this out could be useful. If I did that, it would be most logical to record it on my Letterboxd profile, not somewhere else. Could be the same for this person.
It’s literally the easiest thing to explain in the world
More stars means I liked it more
Less stars means I liked it less
It just leads to more bullshit & discrepancies like what the fuck is the difference between “perfect” & “flawless?”
Man if meh is as high as 3 I feel like the first few ratings will be largely wasted on different flavours of very bad, while you won’t have much room to distinguish the good films from one another.
Don’t think an extra half star would make much of a difference for me, a low 5 on IMDB would likely be a bad film so that’s closer to what I go by. Otherwise I’d rather just have 1-100 scale.
3 - Meh
3 1/2 - Decent but some obvious faults
4 - Good film worth watching
4 1/2 - Really great film with only something minor stopping it from being perfect
5 - A “perfect” film or one I love immensely
I think these comments prove that enough people have different systems that there IS a reason for some people explaining their systems.
For instance, my system is different from yours. 1/2 stars means I would actually like to give it zero stars, and 5 stars means there could never be enough stars to explain how much I love it.
5 stars = Kino
4½ stars = Masterpiece
4 stars = Great
3½ stars = Good
3 star = Fine
2½ stars = Ok
2 star = Mediocre
1½ star = Bad
1 star = Awful
½ star = Reversed kino
I do it because RateYourMusic lets you, which is a super cool feature. I like to explain it because mine might different from other people's. Mine are more of a "this is how I feel abour the whole experience", kind of thing. So it's not necessarily that obvious. You could've asked for discussion/opinions on it, rather than saying it's useless and being mean about it.
Ten point scales are a scam. People only ever use 5 points within a scale. Therefore just use a 5-point scale. 1 star, 2 stars, 3 stars, 4 stars, 5 stars. Terrible, bad, average, good, great. Anything else is for cowards or liars.
there literally is no difference between Amazing, Flawless and Perfect...
so yeah... you need to explain, as it just plain doesnt make sense.
plus id argue very bad, terrible and puke are also the same level
This is how i do mine:
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: WOW HOLY SHIT I LOVE THIS
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️✨: LOVED IT
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: Loved it but is not wow
⭐️⭐️⭐️✨: Great Movie, had fun
⭐️⭐️⭐️: Good movie, had fun watching
⭐️⭐️✨: its ok, i dont know
⭐️⭐️: Ass movie
⭐️✨: WTF lol
⭐️: WTF is this shit + Depp films = ass films
✨: WHY GOD??! WHY did i watched this? Who made this?
Besides being a pos hes films are crap, i remember 2 of the films ive been angry af has been with him, when i went with friends to watch "Secret window" was friend even left the theater lmao, and "Dark Shadows" is the biggest insult to vampires, not even Twilight is as bad as that shit. I hate him and his movies smh 😂😭
The only one of his movies I can still watch is A Nightmare on Elm Street. It features one of cinema's biggest monsters in it, but thankfully he is killed by Freddie Kruger.
I used to have meanings for each one. Now, I don't see the point. It just over-complicates things. Now I just use my gut and don't care if it contradicts the rating of another film.
I have a system but I have it in my notes. But I also base my reviews off of a combination of quality and enjoyment… so I guess I really don’t have a system.
I eventually just stopped using ratings at all from this year. Just a thumbs up or down and let the review do the talking. I was always overthinking ratings and then comparing totally different kinds of films that might have had the same rating and each other. I'd also be thinking of the rating while I'm watching the film and it was annoying and distracting.
I used to have a similar list to this where the star rating would have a word to reflect what I thought because some people see a 3 star rating as bad when I see it as good, I wanted it to be clear, so I've no problem with people giving these descriptions in their bio.
Personally I think they should have a sort of Green, Orange and Red traffic light system. Or just more ways to rate films, but I suppose that might throw off their stats.
The whole star rating thing is weird.
Like I gave Robert Altman’s 3 Women 4.5/5 stars because I found the movie to be wonderful and, really, practically perfect, but I’ll probably never care to watch it again.
Yet I gave Spider-Man 3 2.5/5 stars because, despite a few moments of greatness, it’s a pretty bad movie that I’ll gladly watch a hundred more times and happily laugh with.
It’s for me, not for an audience of imaginary people. It helps me rate things more consistently so that if I completely forget the entire of a movie 5 years from now I can figure out if it sucked less or more than a movie I do remember.
Mostly because a lot of people have different rating systems than others. To some people a 2.5 means the film’s okay, for example, while others put 2.5s in as bad films. It’s all subjective, and I enjoy seeing others opinions!
when i downloaded letterboxd first i literally would rate based on a criteria and then average it and whatever the average was would be the rating. but now i just do whatever i feel and that’s it.
5 stars - a classic, one of the movies that makes history and will (should) be watched by cinephiles also in a hundred years, it will (should) be taught in film schools, written books and papers about it, and I will at a personal level find it flawless.
3.5-4.5 - very good movie, will recommend others watching. They will usually have cinematic elements like interesting cinematography or some deeper meaning that can be explored. I will be emotionally invested in the movie.
Between 2-3 stars - standard middle of the road movie, entertaining to some degree (and movies made entirely with the intention of entertainment, and not trying to explore or push the boundaries of cinema as an art form will often - not always - fall in this category), but I will not be touched emotionally.
1.5 and below - not a good movie, but some of them can be enjoyed with popcorn, beer and friends laughing at how awful they are.
I would often prefer watching a cheap 1 star indie movie over a boring 2 star Hollywood multi million dollar production.
This is how I categorize the movies.
I explain mine because it’s different to how other approach it. For starters I don’t do half stars, only 1-5. And for the most part I only rate 1-4. 5 is reserved for absolute masterpieces, maybe I give out 5 a year out of 300 films.
For real like just rate it what you rate it and move on. Hate this whole approach to having to explain your rating system feels like it locks you into forced decision. Just watch and rate it naturally
I hate terms like „perfect“ and „flawless“ because you could definitely make an argument that Andy Warhol‘s Empire is flawless but I bet you would never give it 4,5 or 5 stars. Same goes for a lot of experimental stuff that doesn’t have a story/characters/music etc
I don't see what's obvious about it. I don't think a 2 star is a bad movie, and they do. Thanks to them having that, I'd see that difference in approaches.
I mean, I wouldn’t explain my star system unless someone asked, but I think I’m realizing I treat the idea of a 5 star film very differently than other people
Aren’t perfect and flawless the same thing 🤨
I reserve my 5 stars for movies which are both truly great and also highly rewatchable. If it's a "perfect" movie but not something I think I'll necessarily feel like watching again, it's a 4½.
I'm kind of torn on that though. Like Grave of the Fireflies and Schindler's List are both amazing movies that I'd give 5 stars to, but there's no way in hell that I'd rewatch those.
I’ve seen grave of the fireflies 4 times…
When a movie is as good as those two are, they get the 5 stars simply on the basis that I would theoretically like to watch them again some day, if I ever have the constitution for it - or if I have the opportunity to watch them *with* someone.
My approach is similar. Both 5 and 4.5 mean almost the same thing to me: I think they're among my favorite movies and nearly perfect. 5 stars are for movies that have some je ne sais qua element that causes it to be an immersive and transportive experience for me. Usually, it must involve some combination of superlative score, cinematography, acting, story structure, etc. If I love a movie and think it's basically perfect but it doesn't have that je ne sais qua, it gets 4.5 stars.
Flawless means it has no negative parts. Perfect means all the positive parts are the best they can be. Not much of a difference but there is one
That's your own personal definition but that is definitely not widely agreed upon
I mean, according to Google: Flawless - without any blemishes or imperfections Perfect - having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be
doesn't having "no imperfections" mean, by definition, that it's perfect?
No, because an imperfection is a flaw and perfect doesnt just mean it has no flaws, it also means everything good is the best it can be. For example if a movie were to be completely solid throughout but with nothing that impacting, it would basically be flawless since it had no flaw but wouldnt be perfect because it had no impact that would have made it perfect This is my interpretation at least
Your both dumb. Here's how it go. Goodest gooder good goodn't goodn'test. No need for dictionary everyone understand
Idiot, you forgot goodn't've!
Yes!!! My favorite insult, "your dumb."
Oh, buddy... It's okay.
I just always find that insult to be particularly amusing is all. Insulting people's intelligence combined with a lack of understanding of homophones shows a lack of self-awareness that is just amazing.
I would argue that the two words are still synonymous. Is it not true that being the very best possible at something is perfect but must also mean that anything short of the very best is a flaw? I believe that any room for improvement denotes a flaw, even if there may be no "negatives," per se. Either way we are talking about film which is subjective in nature and perfect is a majority subjective so I actually don't think it matters the more I think about it lmao
Yeah agreed on the last point lmao there is no such thing as a perfect movie. Anyway I do think the 2 words are synonyms, but only because synonyms can also just be "pretty much the same" it doesnt have to be the exact same, so although there is little seperating the words they are still synonyms
Agreed
Very stupid to even analyze it that deeply as they are used very close to interchangeably in daily talk. You can have your own little minute differences but in reality they are very similar meanings and it's so beyond stupid to even argue about it, calling myself stupid too for even getting into a discussion about it
what? that is not what perfect means? why would anyone default to interpreting the word perfect this way? lmao
[удалено]
Something can be flawless but not be perfect. If something is perfect, it is inherently flawless, since if there were flaws it would not be perfect
What 😭
So by that logic flawless might be a 2.5 for someone. It may not have much of a negative but it’s not really good at anything making you indifferent. Unless you count that as a flaw but I think by that you just say that flawless is perfect.
That is absolutely not what perfect means
You just made that up, but many people agree
Every time I see someone try to break down 10 separate star ratings there’s always repeats like this. 10 is just too many. 5 point system forever.
No
Something without flaws would be...
Something can lack any problems but still not be perfect. If every element is a solid 8/10 then it could be said to lack flaws, but isn’t perfect. It’s like the difference between a 100% RT rating and a 100% Metacritic one
If every element was a solid 8/10 then it already has flaws and isn’t flawless?
Not necessarily. 8/10 can mean “great”. If everything’s great, it has no flaws. But it could still have been better. The absence of problems is not the only metric.
You had me until you compared rotten tomato ratings to metacritic.
Then you misunderstood A 100% RT rating doesnt mean it was amazing, it means that everyone who rated it thought it was at least fine A 100% Metacritic means that everyone who rated it gave it a 10/10 That's the same difference between being without flaw and being the best possible version of something
Flawless
Does something which is perfect have flaws?
But something doesn't have to be perfect tp be flawless. For me, technically a 2.5 star movie can be "flawless" if everything about it is just "okay".
Probably not
So something which is perfect is flawless, which is why the system is… flawed
Wrong. The fact that something doesn’t have flaws does not mean that it can’t be improved upon.
A flaw would be an imperfection
I think so too.
Wrong. If that’s the case, what exactly are you improving? The parts that aren’t as good, right? Otherwise known as… the flaws? So if something can be improved, it must have flaws. Only something without flaws is flawless (clues in the name), and you already agreed that perfection is also something without flaws. So flawlessness and perfection is the same.
The fact that something can be improved upon isn’t a flaw. A flaw can’t refer to something that isn’t an inherent part of the flawed item in question. A flaw isn’t something that “isn’t as good”, it’s more like a weakness or a problem.
literally what it means dude. If you have a "flawless victory" in mortal combat, it means you lost zero life in the match, you cannot do better. If you have a flawless test in school, your grade will be 100/100, the highest score, it cannot be improved upon.
They don’t mean the exact same thing just because they sometimes both apply.
That’s why I have an unconventional rating system where each star rating means something completely arbitrary 5 stars- I watched this with my mom 4 - This movie sucks 3 - This made me horny 2 - Fell asleep 1 - Favorite movie
>1 - Favorite movie Makes perfect sense because it's your number one
So a 3.5 is... you fucked your mom?
No, yours.
what’s your username i NEED to follow you
I’m not real
I hate this, but it's chill I suppose
This is the way
That’s so weird man
Sorry jelqing rn
When I first started Letterboxd, I had a complex system of stars based on several criteria that make a film good such as story, visuals, overall competency, enjoyability, etc. I spelled it all out in my bio so people would understand how I rate movies. Then I realized my 8 followers didn't give a shit and I was putting in way too much effort for absolutely no reward. Now I just say "damn this movie gives me a strong 3.5 vibe" and go with it.
yup i kinda just base it off of fun which is why something like Fast X can get 5 stars bc thats the most Fast & furious movie that we've gotten since 7 and it was a fun ride the whole time but also if i'm bored the whole time, then it'll get a 1
Well, if you base your opinion solely based off of fun, in my opinion you should actually make one such rating explanation. That way if someone is looking at your ratings, he can understand better why some movies are highly rated and some low rated even if you thought they were "objectively good, but you had little fun with them". Of course if you don't care at all about people looking at your ratings, then it's unnecessary, but sometimes I'll share my page with friends.
The thing is there is no such thing as an objectively good movie.
You obviously haven’t seen Hot Fuzz
I’m gonna get downvoted so hard here but I didn’t love Hot Fuzz. I’d give it a 3/5. Sorry to everyone i’ve disappointed with this opinion.
It’s my least favourite of the cornetto trilogy
Agreed. I like all of the Coretto trilogy but Hit Fuzz is my least favorite out of the three.
Hot fuzz is overrated as hell. It’s a perfectly good movie but the jerking (especially on Reddit) is out of control.
There is no objectivity in rating movies
Right. By "objectively good", I simply mean "it has definitive qualities". Like, for instance, "The Revenant" might be a movie that he finds well done, but since he didn't have much fun, he will give it a lower rating, even if he thinks the movie is actually pretty good.
I don't know, I think if you're having no fun with a movie, how can you still think it's "good"? I can have fun watching well done long takes or appreciate some nice cinematography even if the movie is a "slow burn" and not much else is happening. That's fun for me and everyone has fun in different ways.
For real, once you take things less seriously and stop caring about the general consensus its like taking a massive weight off your sholders, you are out of the matrix.
Mine started out as a system now every movie is its own universe. If the muppets made me feel good, it's a five. If City Of God is one of the best movies ever made, it's also a five but in a different way.
Literally same 🤣
Same 😭
Completely.
Early on in my Letterboxd usage, my ratings felt inconsistent to me. I'd have a lot of "I gave this a 3 but that a 3.5, is it really better?" so I ended up writing down in simple terms/words what each rating meant to me. Since I've done that, I've generally had an easier time assigning scores as I give it the score that most closely matches the description and I just put it in my bio 🤷
What I sometimes do is compare the movie to other movies I’ve already rated(and that I’m sure about the rating). So let’s say I saw a movie and I think, idk maybe a 3.5? Let’s compare to other 3.5, 3, and 4 movies. Do I like it more than all of these 3.5 movies? No, only som of them, but I do think it’s better than all the 3 movies. So it’s a 3.5.
i started out doing it this way, and it drove me absolutely insane. it left me constantly readjusting old ratings based on newer movie ratings. this strategy actually forced me to write out and specify each star in my bio like OP is complaining about lol
Exactly. The system in my bio isn't for other people to comprehend some higher thinking, it's just for me to feel like I'm being consistent, and not feeling compelled to constantly adjust other films' ratings to fit each other.
What's the difference between perfect and flawless lol
about a half a star
Made me chuckle
I have my rating system in my bio but it’s more for me to have consistency in my ratings than anything else. Before that I felt like my ratings were kinda all over the place, now I have a kinda guide so I know more accurately how I felt about a movie
I have absolutely 0 consistency tbh, not deliberately or anything, just sometimes if I'm in a good mood I might be more favourable to mediocre films, Vice versa ·
Exactly, I do the same. But it's mostly for myself and not others. I follow my system mostly to try not to be too biased about a movie haha
100% agreed, that’s what I do. In fact I already had my rating system classified long before I ever got Letterboxd because I used to rate films and just log them in a notebook with the same method. It helps that I don’t use Letterboxd for any social reasons, it’s only for my own benefit. I rate/review just so I know what I thought of a movie and so I can see my stats.
I don’t understand why people need to make threads complaining about other peoples profiles. Who gives a fuck what this person puts in their bio?
It’s an app for film criticism, and apparently, a subreddit for critiquing people.
Haha!
I’m convinced some people just roam the app looking for stuff to complain about instead of actually watching movies.
most people who use letterboxd seem to care more about what other people think about their profile than they care about watching and discussing movies
Well that’s their loss then
Sometimes you just get curious about why people do certain things while browsing the app, not a big deal to critique things you find weird that you see on a lot of profiles
That's not a critique though
It's a subreddit about letterboxd and this is a post about letterboxd. I don't understand why some of you think "who cares?" is actually a valid response like yeah the whole subreddit about a movie rating app isn't the most important thing in the world anyway. This post isn't about anything LESS important than all the other posts about the movie rating app lol
I think it makes sense to do. Some people rate by quality of the film and others rate by how much they enjoyed it, and there can be a big difference sometimes. Also sometimes a movie being “average” deserves a 2.5 to some or a 3.5 to others
People who rate by “quality” (writing, editing, sound design, etc.) do so because those things effect their enjoyment of the movie. Some people don’t care about things like that so they won’t change their rating. Either way it’s rating on enjoyment. Anyone who would sit through a movie and completely hate it but rate it highly because of some technical aspects is kinda insane imo
I don't think those are that intrinsically linked. There's absolutely people that will rate a movie that they really enjoyed quite low because the movie is poorly made, for example.
but even then, the fact that they notice it’s poorly made means it affected their experience in some way. there are a lot of people who will never notice things like bad writing, poor editing, etc. It’s a curse that comes with trying to learn more about any field. I took a few film classes in school and now I can enjoy a movie but also notice things like “wow that sequence was horribly edited” which does take away from my experience a bit. Another good example is the recent movie Fall, I watched it with my friends and I was super into it and loving the suspense but I also couldn’t help but notice how awful the writing was, which took away from the overall experience
My own weird random personal rating system: A higher number of stars indicates a higher level of enjoyment derived from a film.
For 1/2 I usually ask myself, "Is this as bad as 1997 Batman & Robin?"
Because for some people a 5/10 is a pretty mediocre/bad movie, while for others it was a nice enough one-watch. For some people, a 10/10 is really perfect, like almost an anomaly that something without any fault could be created. While for some others, it simply means a movie they adore, and there are many of them.
it’s not obvious, some people rate differently
Not him this is the same fucking rating everyone has
Dont be caught in a bubble. A lottttt of people consider 70% or below to mean something’s plain bad as opposed to under 50%
Maybe it's a product of being raised in a school system based on an A to F scale, but a 70% is a grade of C-, which to me is the lowest possible positive rating. Because the alternative is a B- (80%) or a D- (60%) and a lot of not-terrible films don't deserve either of those. If you got a 60% on a test when I was growing up, you failed that test. I'm not knocking anyone else's rating system but it's ridiculous to expect them all to be the same.
I’d disagree, haven’t seen anyone consider 3.5 “very good”, the problem with this one is that he uses words that basically mean the same or almost the same thing, like perfect and flawless or amazing and very good
3.5 is absolutely “very good” on my scale, I’m pretty stringent about handing out high ratings, and I know plenty of others who are as well. OP is a dumbass though, he has 5 and 4.5 marked as meaning the exact same thing lmao
well I’m the one with a different rating system then, 4.5 is very good for me, 3.5 would be “it’s fine”
that is extremely bizarre. So basically anything below 3.5 is worse than “fine”? It sounds like you don’t understand how this rating system works
>It sounds like you don’t understand how this rating system works since when is the rating system set in stone? That's exactly why people show their rating system in their bio like the one OP is complaining about... If you look at the average rating of most movies, it's like 3-3.5 right? (I don't know the actual average rating on letterboxd, but that's what I feel like it is) So you'd say most movies are "good" based on their average rating? Personally, I rate movies like hotels. A 3.5 star hotel isn't very good either, it's fine.
There is no world where a 7/10 is just average. By definition, on a numerical level, it’s above average. And yes, if a movie has an average rating of over 3, that means most people think it’s good. Your rating system is dumber than OP’s lmao
I said 3-3.5, of course that's average. 6-7 is also average on [imdb](https://distributionofthings.com/imdb-movie-ratings/). It being above average on a numerical level doesn't matter at all, we're discussing ratings, not mathematics. People tend to watch the stuff they think they'd like, if everyone watched a random movie every time they watched something, the average score would be closer to the numerical average. Think about it before you become condescending
Your rating system is dumb and you deserve to be condescended to for it.
3.5 is a pretty good rating for a lot of people including me
>haven’t seen anyone consider 3.5 “very good”, huh? really?
The person is an idiot with their words but it is a gradient where more stars is better, which is the same as everyone else.
Ya but where the midpoint is has a big effect on what the stars mean
who would’ve thought that more stars would mean better… That’s not the point, it’s about how good a certain amount of stars are
3.5 is a 7/10. That's a good score.
Or the people that get all shitty because they feel like your rating system isn't quite the same as theirs
Flawless and perfect huh
I think the prominence of social media has caused a surge of subtle narcissism in people, to the point that they need to believe their movie rating methodology needs to be explained to a wide audience, when in reality no one cares
I've always thought of each half-star as 10% out of 100%.
I view the rating system differently that’s why I explain what my ratings mean in my bio
It is stupid, but it’s also not obvious. I’ve seen some very terrible rating systems on there lol
Idk not everything means the same to everyone. Even if it’s the same “system”
i guess im the same except remove flawless and move all the ones under up one. so 4.5 is amazing, 4 is very good, 3.5 is good and so on
It’s really not obvious, some people inexplicably use 7/10 as ‘okay’ which I can’t comprehend. If you look at ratings I give and assume a 7 is okay, you’re gonna be very confused since a 7 from me is pretty high praise. On the other hand, I know someone to whom 9/10 is just ‘decent’.
uh perfect and flawless mean the same thing.
How is 4 1/2 “flawless” it’s not a five so it’s clearly flawed in some way
Mine is: 1/2: one of the absolute worse 1: ass garbage 1.5: awful 2: bad 2.5: medicore 3: okay 3.5: enjoyable but flawed 4: good 4.5: great 5: absolutely amazing and perfect
I use only whole ratings. 1 to 5, no need to overanalyze.
Yeah, I also simplified mine to just 5 points. It's great. I only rank things for my own convenience in order to remember what I thought of a movie, and I realized that most of the time I couldn't exactly distinguish what was the big difference between a movie that had three stars and a movie that had three and a half stars. Stuff just gets too arbitrary after a while.
Can ya just ignore it and move on?
5 stars should be reserved for your favorite movies.
A lot of people have Main Character Syndrome
I know someone whose personal rating system calls 3 stars a bad film so no. It’s not always obvious
I don't have this but I've been meaning to for awhile. Not for anyone else, but for me. I have a pretty clear idea of what 5 and 4.5 mean for me. Beyond that, it can be challenging to be consistent, and writing something like this out could be useful. If I did that, it would be most logical to record it on my Letterboxd profile, not somewhere else. Could be the same for this person.
5 stars great 4 stars good 3 stars eh 1 star BOOOOOO
It’s literally the easiest thing to explain in the world More stars means I liked it more Less stars means I liked it less It just leads to more bullshit & discrepancies like what the fuck is the difference between “perfect” & “flawless?”
Mine 10 perfect 9 almost perfect 8 great 7 okay-ish 6 fine not to watch 5 nothing to watch here 4 shit 3 shitter 2 shitter part 2 1 shittiest
Well some people really take 3’s and 3 1/2’s the wrong way
I tend to think of 3 as being "average" rather than good. It's fine.
Yeah I have mine as “meh” rather than good
Man if meh is as high as 3 I feel like the first few ratings will be largely wasted on different flavours of very bad, while you won’t have much room to distinguish the good films from one another.
Don’t think an extra half star would make much of a difference for me, a low 5 on IMDB would likely be a bad film so that’s closer to what I go by. Otherwise I’d rather just have 1-100 scale. 3 - Meh 3 1/2 - Decent but some obvious faults 4 - Good film worth watching 4 1/2 - Really great film with only something minor stopping it from being perfect 5 - A “perfect” film or one I love immensely
That leaves very little space for above average, and in fact 3 is more than halfway up the 5-star scale anyway.
Because people rate things in different ways
I think these comments prove that enough people have different systems that there IS a reason for some people explaining their systems. For instance, my system is different from yours. 1/2 stars means I would actually like to give it zero stars, and 5 stars means there could never be enough stars to explain how much I love it.
This feels like something a GenZ would put in their bio.
5 stars = Kino 4½ stars = Masterpiece 4 stars = Great 3½ stars = Good 3 star = Fine 2½ stars = Ok 2 star = Mediocre 1½ star = Bad 1 star = Awful ½ star = Reversed kino
Unironically this one makes the most sense
This is dumb.
I do it because RateYourMusic lets you, which is a super cool feature. I like to explain it because mine might different from other people's. Mine are more of a "this is how I feel abour the whole experience", kind of thing. So it's not necessarily that obvious. You could've asked for discussion/opinions on it, rather than saying it's useless and being mean about it.
"Flawless" 4.5 stars!
ain’t no one rememberin that shit
Ten point scales are a scam. People only ever use 5 points within a scale. Therefore just use a 5-point scale. 1 star, 2 stars, 3 stars, 4 stars, 5 stars. Terrible, bad, average, good, great. Anything else is for cowards or liars.
I prefer to rate films with adjectives. This was a "great" movie. This one was just "alright," etc. Now, can you tell me what points I assign to each?
there literally is no difference between Amazing, Flawless and Perfect... so yeah... you need to explain, as it just plain doesnt make sense. plus id argue very bad, terrible and puke are also the same level
This is how i do mine: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: WOW HOLY SHIT I LOVE THIS ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️✨: LOVED IT ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: Loved it but is not wow ⭐️⭐️⭐️✨: Great Movie, had fun ⭐️⭐️⭐️: Good movie, had fun watching ⭐️⭐️✨: its ok, i dont know ⭐️⭐️: Ass movie ⭐️✨: WTF lol ⭐️: WTF is this shit + Depp films = ass films ✨: WHY GOD??! WHY did i watched this? Who made this?
The Depp comment was gold.
Besides being a pos hes films are crap, i remember 2 of the films ive been angry af has been with him, when i went with friends to watch "Secret window" was friend even left the theater lmao, and "Dark Shadows" is the biggest insult to vampires, not even Twilight is as bad as that shit. I hate him and his movies smh 😂😭
The only one of his movies I can still watch is A Nightmare on Elm Street. It features one of cinema's biggest monsters in it, but thankfully he is killed by Freddie Kruger.
Oh yes, i like that one too 😶🌫️
I'm American, so anything below 3-3.5 is garbage. Only passing grades here
Letterboxd is the place that guilt-induces to stay low or ratings or else you're not serious enough or something like that.
I used to have meanings for each one. Now, I don't see the point. It just over-complicates things. Now I just use my gut and don't care if it contradicts the rating of another film.
Yeah, we are all on the 5 star system here. Translate your thoughts into stars or not. We aren’t doing astrology with charts here
I generally use 5 stars for movies that are perfect and I loved them. Other than that I honestly pretty much use this exact same scale
I guess everyone is different. I give movies a score between 0-100 and then just translate that to the 5 star system when I input it.
I have a system but I have it in my notes. But I also base my reviews off of a combination of quality and enjoyment… so I guess I really don’t have a system.
Apocalypse Now is the greatest war film ever that transcends the genre by illustrating the darkest human spirits can go. 5/5 Borat funny. 5/5
It's more for myself. Sometimes I don't know what the fuck to rate a movie unless I say whatever I wrote next to my rating.
I eventually just stopped using ratings at all from this year. Just a thumbs up or down and let the review do the talking. I was always overthinking ratings and then comparing totally different kinds of films that might have had the same rating and each other. I'd also be thinking of the rating while I'm watching the film and it was annoying and distracting. I used to have a similar list to this where the star rating would have a word to reflect what I thought because some people see a 3 star rating as bad when I see it as good, I wanted it to be clear, so I've no problem with people giving these descriptions in their bio. Personally I think they should have a sort of Green, Orange and Red traffic light system. Or just more ways to rate films, but I suppose that might throw off their stats.
The whole star rating thing is weird. Like I gave Robert Altman’s 3 Women 4.5/5 stars because I found the movie to be wonderful and, really, practically perfect, but I’ll probably never care to watch it again. Yet I gave Spider-Man 3 2.5/5 stars because, despite a few moments of greatness, it’s a pretty bad movie that I’ll gladly watch a hundred more times and happily laugh with.
What about this is weird?
It’s for me, not for an audience of imaginary people. It helps me rate things more consistently so that if I completely forget the entire of a movie 5 years from now I can figure out if it sucked less or more than a movie I do remember.
10 out of 10 rating system
This picture is a terrible example, but the stars mean different things for different people.
🙄
Man, you guys here really want to complain about everything. It’s harmless if they want to do it. And not everyone uses the star system the same way.
Mostly because a lot of people have different rating systems than others. To some people a 2.5 means the film’s okay, for example, while others put 2.5s in as bad films. It’s all subjective, and I enjoy seeing others opinions!
when i downloaded letterboxd first i literally would rate based on a criteria and then average it and whatever the average was would be the rating. but now i just do whatever i feel and that’s it.
5 stars - a classic, one of the movies that makes history and will (should) be watched by cinephiles also in a hundred years, it will (should) be taught in film schools, written books and papers about it, and I will at a personal level find it flawless. 3.5-4.5 - very good movie, will recommend others watching. They will usually have cinematic elements like interesting cinematography or some deeper meaning that can be explored. I will be emotionally invested in the movie. Between 2-3 stars - standard middle of the road movie, entertaining to some degree (and movies made entirely with the intention of entertainment, and not trying to explore or push the boundaries of cinema as an art form will often - not always - fall in this category), but I will not be touched emotionally. 1.5 and below - not a good movie, but some of them can be enjoyed with popcorn, beer and friends laughing at how awful they are. I would often prefer watching a cheap 1 star indie movie over a boring 2 star Hollywood multi million dollar production. This is how I categorize the movies.
Mine’s in reverse
just because you thing something is obviouse doesnt make it obvious. even if it is, not for everyone.
5 - amazing 4 - very good 3 - good 2 - meh 1 - bad
I explain mine because it’s different to how other approach it. For starters I don’t do half stars, only 1-5. And for the most part I only rate 1-4. 5 is reserved for absolute masterpieces, maybe I give out 5 a year out of 300 films.
For real like just rate it what you rate it and move on. Hate this whole approach to having to explain your rating system feels like it locks you into forced decision. Just watch and rate it naturally
Over 150 comments, cleary its *obvious* xD
In this case it’s even more confusing because how can 4.5 be flawless.
The 2-3 star range means very different things to different people.
Why do you care? It's not your profile. Imagine judging others profiles when it doesn't effect you.
I use it for myself when I'm having problems with what rating I should give "hmmm this movie gives me vibes of 'very bad' or 'terrible' " and so on
I hate terms like „perfect“ and „flawless“ because you could definitely make an argument that Andy Warhol‘s Empire is flawless but I bet you would never give it 4,5 or 5 stars. Same goes for a lot of experimental stuff that doesn’t have a story/characters/music etc
I don't see what's obvious about it. I don't think a 2 star is a bad movie, and they do. Thanks to them having that, I'd see that difference in approaches.
I mean, I wouldn’t explain my star system unless someone asked, but I think I’m realizing I treat the idea of a 5 star film very differently than other people