My Movie Rating System Explained!

Substack -- please subscribe to support this channel: learningaboutm...
Please follow me on Twitter for video releases and reviews: / drjoshmatthews
Letterboxd: letterboxd.com...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @learningaboutmovies
Understanding Movies 101 Course: joshmatthews.o...
The Great Movies Series: joshmatthews.o...
Comprehensive List of the Great Movies Series: joshmatthews.o...
Movie Cliches Series -- Video Playlist: • Why Pianos Transform C...
The Great Directors Series -- Playlist: • Werner Herzog's 10 Gre...
Shot for Shot Analyses: • Understanding Movies 1...
Great Science-Fiction Movie List: joshmatthews.o...
Other Movie Lists: joshmatthews.o...
Disclaimer: All reasonable comments are welcome, including reasoned disagreements. You will be banned for foolish talk, harassment, and hate speech on sight; it's a tremendous waste of life. I believe in freedom of association and, by extension, freedom of dissociation from you.

[@TheFilmAutopsy]

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

[@user-ru4yg2qp3c]

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.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

I suppose you could give a zero-star rating, though it would then be unclear if you didn't rate it on purpose or you are giving it zero stars over there. They have disallowed a "zero," whereas I think you can give a zero in other places.

[@Przemas-eb3jt]

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.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

Yes, the review can explain and nuance what a number/star cannot. This is why Rotten Tomatoes will never be very accurate.

[@snarfarfanarf]

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.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you very much. I appreciate your comments here.

[@drdavid1963]

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.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

great comment, thank you.

[@BadClamsVideos]

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

[@Dancing-Spirits]

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.

[@freddielee1831]

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

[@eriklarson5874]

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)

[@ZO6Buccaneer]

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.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

It's completely reasonable to hold back on the 5-star for sure. I look at critics historically missing on quite a few full-star ratings because of present enthusiasm for a film that doesn't hold up for most viewers over the long-term -- see Ebert's 4-star movie book, which I referenced in the video. However, the converse of that is that an immediate 5-star review gives at least historical data on contemporary viewers in the moment reacting to their fullest. Just in terms of literary scholarship, that's pretty interesting data.

[@ZO6Buccaneer]

Thanks for the reply! Agreed that the professional critics have a bit more pressure to get it right in the moment and don’t have the same flexibility to go back and change their rating in the future. Some critics, such as Ebert, certainly did revise some reviews after years of reassessment, but it’s few and far between. I personally prefer to bump a rating up in the future if the film has grown on me over time, rather than knock a movie down from 5 to 4.5 or 4 stars when years down the line I realize that I was just caught up in the moment. Sure, the immediate impression after the film ends does have value, but sometimes it’s a bit superficial.

[@kitkatzyy]

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.

[@DJHwang-yi8cc]

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-

[@movielikemoments]

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

[@laurencehubbard5240]

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

[@Optophobic]

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?

[@LearningaboutMovies]

I think I watched it within the year, but I forget! It's greatly a taste problem -- I just don't care for that trashy slasher stuff unless I perceive that it gives me a couple of intriguing frameworks to work with. the first Texas Chainsaw Massacre does that, so I'm more ambivalent on it. Anybody who's been around here awhile is likely to figure out that I don't have the tastes for the horror genres that so many others have, so I am far far pickier on that.

[@CcJjGg_]

​@@LearningaboutMovies I'm not big slasher fan either but I do enjoy Dario Argento films

[@ashrayhow5858]

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

[@LearningaboutMovies]

Any consideration of the economic aspects of a film, from any angle. Those could include: -- economics internal to the movie, i.e., within the movie world. That could be how the movie deals with class concerns, money, markets, trading, value, etc. Pretty much any story has an "economic aspect," though for some/many films it's minimal or trivial, and for others it's foregrounded as important. -- how the economics in the internal movie world relates to our world. This includes contextual information about how viewers in a specific context would see the economics in the film. -- the paratextual economics of the movie itself -- budget, production, box-office, historical changes in the movie's ownership and valuation, etc.

[@redpenink12]

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.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

Thanks, that is reasonable, and it's definitely a view that many of my students have taken when they watched the film. I did a full-length commentary on the film, which is on this channel, but I have never felt much at all from watching the film.