My Movie Rating System Explained!

Since I've followed you on Letterboxd, I wondered about your rational behind was giving Evil Dead II a 1 star rating. I've noticed about 50% of the time I have a similar rating on Letterboxd to you and then the other half is opposite ends of the spectrum. And I usually enjoy reading your thoughts and reviews on those specifically because even if I disagree, you always have an extremely well thought out "defense" of your opinion on a film. It usually gives me something to think about if I re-watch one of those movies. But you don't have an sort of rationale written for you 1 star of Evil Dead II. Taste is taste, and that's an extremely graphic and violent film, so maybe that's it. And that's sufficient. But if it's beyond that, what are your thoughts on that film?

As usual, Josh, you've pretty much covered it. I, too, was used to the 4 star rating system where 2½ would be quite good whereas in a 5 star system, 2½ stars is mediocre.

The 5-star system is useful for me in distinguishing between, say, excellent movies of which there might be 20 or so every year and truly exceptional, great or transcendent movies (4.5-5 stars) of which there may be only a handful every year.

In addition to the various reasons you cite for rating movies, I would add two criteria that I use - degree of difficulty and does a movie successfully achieve what it sets out to do. This is quite difficult to judge and, as you say, none of us are free from our personal biases but, as an avid and enthusiastic film viewer, I can, at least, TRY to be objective. So, for example, some films may have such a degree of complexity technically, aesthetically, emotional impact, etc...and we can be truly amazed as to how it was achieved. On the other hand, there are movies that don't set out to do anything too complex that I would judge as being great because they carry it out to perfection. Some degree of originality, though, would generally be required for me to rate something 5 stars. Some people like to rate 5 stars to any movie they like whereas I am loathe to give something 5 stars unless it truly earns it. Otherwise, how can you distinguish between all the movies you rate 5 stars? Are they all at the same level or are some better than others?

At the lower end, as I try not to watch any movies rated below 2 stars intentionally, I tend to be generous with ratings and rate something either 2 or 2½ stars. Others may be harsher. On my letterboxd profile, I don't have too many ratings between ½ or 1½ stars because, to be honest, I don't think I could make it through the entire movie if it's that bad.

A quick tally of my watched movies on Letterboxd goes as follows: -
5 stars (13%)
4.5 stars (11%)
4 stars (17%)
3.5 stars (24%)
3 stars (21%)
2.5 stars (10%)
2 stars (3%)
under 2 stars (only 1%)

Stimulating and relevant as usual. Looking forward to the next one.

I'm pretty generous with giving a movie 5 star. Makes me feel good 😅

My letterboxd system is
.5 horrid
1 bad
1.5 bad but at least they tried
2 a lower-class film not very good
2.5 since it is as close to the median as we get; average, alright, but I most likely have a criticism about it
3 a solid film "good"

3.5 good, but elevated. there is something unique or interesting about it
4 great, rewatchable
4.5 special
5 the best, my favorites, and I emotionally connected to it in some way

Letterboxd, for me, is a platform for personal opinions and rankings, as film as an art form is about personal connections and reactions to the art itself, not mass accolades

I really like the observation that critics can be conscious about the rating functioning as a sort of price they put on a movie. Sometimes a review can seem like it doesn’t match the rating and your explanation could possibly fit a lot of those cases.

My Personal Rating Scale:

.5 = Disgraceful

1.0 = Terrible

1.5 = Bad

2.0 = Not Good Enough

2.5 = Not for Me, Could Be for You

3.0 = Found Some Value

3.5 = Enjoyed It

4.0 = Highly Recommend

4.5 = Impeccable

5.0 = Masterwork

When I rate a movie I try to balance its “objective” qualities (cinematography, script, music, acting) with my own personal bias towards the film. For example, a good movie that’s objectively 4 stars might become 3 stars if I personally don’t care for it or 5 stars if I really like it.

I don’t think anyone can truly be 100% objective when dealing with a subjective art form, so that’s why I purposefully incorporate subjectivity into my rating system.

Plus I rate different types of movies by different criteria. If a movie is trying to be a work of high art I will probably scrutinize it a bit more than a movie that’s obviously just trying to be entertaining.

One of the most important elements I look for in a critic is the ability to explain why they value what they do, or quite similarly the lens they are looking through to judge a work of art. Too many individuals argue for a movie being good without defining what “good” means, and reply to such arguments by saying “the point of the work was” or “it was intended that” or something like that without seeing the critic is looking through a different lens. It's very possible to judge something as morally corrupt but see value in say acting, but altogether rating the work 1/10.
I have seen too many commenters on reviews like this making pointless arguments about how the acting makes the film better than a half star…..But all they are really doing is assuming the individual they are criticizing is thinking about the movie like they are, or that their lens is superior for some unexplained reason.
Some of your videos in particular have garnered such attention, such as the Tenet one where some people were talking about how the point of the movie was that the story was not understandable, that it was all about the “vibes.” You were not saying this was not the case, but rather that you were not able to garner how to appreciate in the work a filmic state of hypnosis standing substituting common sense. And none of these commenters cared to explain how you could do so, or how they do.
Here an essential effect of a critic explaining their thoughts well comes up–helping others appreciate different types of art. I am eternally grateful for your excellent ability at doing this, as I am constantly curious about how our species can be so psychologically diverse, so taken by such a variety of experiences, so uniquely passionate.
Tackling this type of search is perhaps what is missing the most from schooling–almost every humanities class I have taken or heard about is hyper focused on a specific lens without demonstrating why the lens is important and how it relates to other ways of viewing the world. Never did my high school English classes even try to explain why I should care about century old literature. But you do this, for many types of films, and that is why I continue to watch your videos and learn from them.

My system: 1 - i dont even want to finish it. 2 - its watchable, but i dont like it. 3 - i like it, but wouldnt bother watching again. 4 - i like it and will warch again. 5- needs to be in my collection

My personal rating scale=
1= An Affront To Humanity (reprehensible in some egregious way)
2= Garbage (A poorly made film)
3= Slightly Tolerable Garbage (competently made film with SIGNIFICANT issues)
4= Below Average
5= Average (I feel no emotion from watching the film)
6= Above Average (a competently made film)
7= Good (would begin to consider rewatching)
8= Pretty Good (well made film that does not excel in any one aspect)
9= Truly Excellent (to excel in at least 1 aspect, love)
10= The Sublime (to excel in many aspects, love)

I always disagreed with Fritz Lang’s Sunrise as being a great movie. To me it seemed a little all over the place tonally, which didn’t work for me.

what do you mean when you say the economics of a movie?

Yes, yes, yes! With letterboxd 5-star system, the average is NOT 2.5 stars, it is 2.75 stars, and I'm really delighted that someone has the courage to talk about it out loud.

Generally agreed with your overall rating scale, where anything from a 4 to a 5 is a “great” movie and the demarcations within that range are generally personal and subjective re how the movie affected me.

One point is that I almost never give a 5/5 on first watch. These are typically movies that I can’t stop thinking about and usually watch multiple times. Over time, they rise from a 4 or 4.5 up to the coveted 5 star rating.

Curious, do you always finish every movie? If you DNF a movie, does it automatically get a 0.5 star?

5 - masterpiece
4.5 - A+, A near perfect personal fav
4 - A, A-
3.5 - B+ really good
3 - B, B- solid
2.5 - C+ meh, i finished it somehow, entertained
2 - C-

If we're paying to have and watch movies, those that take up hours of our time, unlike other quick and easy to digest forms of art, I think it deserves and requires a rating, if at the very least—to help others better use their time and money.