How do you review movies on a scale of 1 to 10?
 

For example:
1- complete ****,waste of time
2-terrible
3-bad
4-
5-
6-
7-could have been better
8-okay
9-pretty good
10-amazing piece of citizen kane goodness

you get the point, how would you describe the scale? sorry if this makes no sense, there's no other way to word what i'm trying to say

10- love it
9- almost love it, but there is a flaw or some theme that prevents me from giving perfect score
8- all around good movie
7- still a good movie, just not among my very favorites
6- average, not too impressed but passable
5- average, but starting to struggle
4- I'm not really interested, but still average
3- bad with few saving aspects
2- just bad
1- hate it

Re: How do you review movies on a scale of 1 to 10?
 

i do 1-5

1 awful
2 bad with a redeeming quality
3 average
4 above average
5 really special

Re: How do you review movies on a scale of 1 to 10?
 

1 - Unbearable
2 - Really, Really Bad
3 - Annoying
4 - Quite Boring/Problematic
5 - Not Very Good
6 - Could Be Better/Had Some Issues
7 - Pretty Good
8 - Very Enjoyable
9 - Extremely Well Made/Amazing
10 - Flawless/Perfect

Re: How do you review movies on a scale of 1 to 10?
 

1 - Unwatchable
2. - Terrible
3. - Really Bad
4. - Bad
5. Mediocre to Decent
6. Good
7. Really Good
8. Great
9. Amazing
10. Masterpiece

Re: How do you review movies on a scale of 1 to 10?
 

I do a 1-10 as well...

5= I broke even

Anything under a 5, means I regret seeing it, and anything about a 5 means I'm glad I saw it. I've been using halves because I don't want to give the same rating for one movie that's better than the other.

A lot easier than from 1–5. I always thought that was a total waste of time.

I'd say the scale would go from 10–1 with 10 being perfect.

So:

10 – Flawless
9 – Nearly perfect
8 – Excellent
7 – Very Good
6 – Good
5 – Average
4 – Below Average
3 – Well Below Average
2 – Poor
1 – Disastrous

I'd be unlikely to go for 0 unless it was really appalling.

This is a great question...let's see...

10- The movie is perfect, I loved every single minute of it and can't think of a thing bad to say

9- Excellent movie, but there is one element (plotline, performance, dialogue exchange) that just didn't work for me.

8- Solid movie but probably goes on a little longer than it needs to

7- Good movie that runs out of steam; doesn't sustain interest until the end

6- One or two elements of the film makes the rest of it worth sitting through

5- I can sit through it, but the movie asks me to swallow a lot of unbelievable stuff in order to do so

4- The movie seems like it goes on forever even if it isn't long; I find myself checking the running time to see how much more movie there is

3- The movie is slow and dull and I find myself tempting to fast forward a lot

2- Have never rated a movie this low, but suspect that it is probably going to be a genre that I don't like.

1- Have never rated a movie this low either, but I suspect it would be a movie I couldn't even get through the entire film.

Re: How do you review movies on a scale of 1 to 10?
 

I usually don't use a ten point review, but when I am forced to by site mechanics I go-


1. Abysmal wast of celluloid
2. Terrible
3. Bad
4. Mediocre
5. Mixed
6. Okay
7. Good Solid movie
8. Great
9. Amazing
10. Cinematic Gold

Re: How do you review movies on a scale of 1 to 10?
 

1. I want my money back!
2. I've seen better stuff on Youtube
3. Not another lame movie
4. Dumb, but at least the girl was hot
5. Still dumb, but with more girls!
6. I should have downloaded it for free (public domain movies only of course)
7. Alright finally a film I don't hate
8. I hate it but everyone else likes it so it must be good;)
9. Yup this one rocks!
10. Citizen Kane

1 Worthless
2 Awful
3 Bad
4 Mediocre
5 Average
6 Good
7 Very good
8 Excellent
9 A big new favorite
10 Top 50 material*

There's always variables though. A 5 could be a very well made movie that I didn't enjoy, or a poorly made movie I did enjoy. You can only express that with words.

What if you rate Citizen Kane as a 7?

Probably that your rating system could have been better.

Re: How do you review movies on a scale of 1 to 10?
 

1 - reprehensible, irredeemable, and completely without merit
2 - painful to watch
3 - aggressively uninteresting
4 - significantly flawed
5 - the good kind of whatever
6 - pretty decent
7 - generally solid
8 - all-around great
9 - second-tier favourite
10 - all-time favourite

Re: How do you review movies on a scale of 1 to 10?
 

I made this thread already :D

http://www.movieforums.com/community...d.php?&t=37427

Re: How do you review movies on a scale of 1 to 10?
 

My scale is pretty much the same as it was before, but the adjectives could bleed over very easily with near by numbers. I kind of perfer a 1-5 scale but I only use it for books as thats what goodreads does instead of a 1-10 like IMDB

5 Great
4 Good
3 Okay
2 Bad
1 Terrible

Re: How do you review movies on a scale of 1 to 10?
 

10 - Masterful
9 - Superb
8 - Great
7 - Good
6 - Decent
5 - Mixed
4 - Subpar
3 - Bad
2 - Very Bad
1 - Abysmal

To me, a 7 is a movie that should be celebrated and enjoyed. A 7/10 movie has some meaningful flaws, but I'm still fully engrossed in it when I watch it. I still think about it a lot for the next day or 2. I still am eager to walk to my friends about it.

And even a 6 movie I can still overall like and enjoy.

Re: How do you review movies on a scale of 1 to 10?
 

In terms of a call to action:

8/9/10 - Anyone who is a remotely fan of the genre should check it out

7: Fans of that niche will love it, but the general population will still like it.

5-6: depends on how hardcore a fan you are of the genre, series or premise. You wouldn't recommend it to most people, but if someone has a burning passion for that niche, they could enjoy it.

Re: How do you review movies on a scale of 1 to 10?
 

I don't have a holds-in-all-situations rule for anything, really. But I do have one somewhat idiosyncratic guideline that I think about a lot:

When I came out of Cloverfield I was wondering what rating to give it, from 0-5. I think it was my brother who asked me "well, would you change anything about it?" I realized I wouldn't, and figured that meant I "had" to give it .

There are literally dozens if not hundreds of films that I have not given to that I like way, way more than Cloverfield, which I think about almost exclusively in the context of this anecdote, and rarely otherwise. It would not sniff a personal Top 100. But I feel like I have to give it that rating simply because it is pretty much the best version of itself, the best incarnation of what it wants to be.

If something is the best version of what it wants to be, and I don't find "what it wants to be" inherently objectionable in some way (admittedly a significant caveat), then I usually give it a perfect rating. And I'll give films I don't love pretty high ratings under that same logic.

In other words, whatever my rating system is, it often involves judging a film on a curve containing not all other films, but all other versions of itself that it could've have chosen to be.

Nobody else uses 0?
I don't like to rate movies and only do it to submit reviews here, but I feel like I have seen movies to which I cannot even give 1 point.

I can understand that. I just checked and I haven't ever given a movie a 0 but that doesn't mean I won't someday!

*I noticed I've given three movies a .5 rating which means I must have really hated them:mad: These are them:cool:

https://www.movieforums.com/communit...]=usm|60|0.5|3
The Beast of Yucca Flats 4/27/18
by Citizen Rules
The Beast of Yucca Flats is so bad that the monster, played by Tor Johnson the Swedish wrestler who made films with Ed Wood, kills his first victim BEFORE he turns into a monster.



https://www.movieforums.com/communit...]=usm|60|0.5|3
Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring 2/11/18
by Citizen Rules
Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring (2003) Bom yeoreum gaeul gyeoul geurigo bom (original title) Director: Ki-duk Kim Writer: Ki-duk Kim Cast: Ki-duk Kim, Yeong-su Oh, Jong-ho Kim Genre: Drama Language: Korean



https://www.movieforums.com/communit...]=usm|60|0.5|3
1941 1/06/18
by Citizen Rules
Ugh....Steven Spielberg made a lot of great movies, but 1941 has got to be the biggest pile of film wasted he ever made.

Re: How do you review movies on a scale of 1 to 10?
 

10 - Superb work / Favourite
9 - Very Good / Highly Recommended
8 - Good / Recommended
7 - OK, can be seen
6 - can be skipped
5 - somehow not good, skip it
4 - rather bad, avoid it
3 - terrible
2 - terrible
1 - terrible

Re: How do you review movies on a scale of 1 to 10?
 

Seat of the pants judgement. 0 - 5 - ranging from not so good to abysmal, based on how PO'd I was when it was over. 0, 1,2,3 would mean that many technical aspects of the production were inept. 4 or 5 would mean that it's at least competently produced, acted and shot. I've never seen a 0, since I think that would require that the film caught fire and burned down the building.

6 - Worth watching but not interesting or compelling

7 - Good story line and production

8 - Enjoyably above average

9 - Terrific

10 - Never seen one of those, so I don't have an example but it would have to be better than my 9's. I reserve 10 for a movie that's better than all of my 9's, which include a lot of war horses, but so far it has not happened.

Re: How do you review movies on a scale of 1 to 10?
 

Like Wooley, I also don't believe in ratings, strictly speaking. But I only use them to give my future self some idea what I thought of a film, if my future self should find himself wanting to watch it. It doesn't actually have anything to do with the relative quality of the film.


So, 5 stars (or 10) means "You loved this. Watch it again or better yet, buy the BluRay."
3 stars means "You've already seen this. It was only fine. Find something else to do."
And so on.

This explains why I rated Dark Night of the Scarecrow 5 stars while Seven Samurai only has 4. It only has to make sense to me.

Re: How do you review movies on a scale of 1 to 10?
 

Having once lived in the world of psychology research, ratings are important to me, but also clearly, unless they have specific "operational definitions". Movie ratings generally also lack what's referred to as "reliability and validity".

10 - Chinese (Pure)
9 - Japanese (Cute)
8 - Korean (Pretty)
7 - R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶n̶ Ukrainian (Proud)
6 - French (Intelligent)
5 - Polish (Homely)
4 - Italian (Generous)
3 - German (Firm)
2 - British (Posh)
1 - American (Vulgar)

Exactly.

Not sure if this is true or not, but I think some publications avoided use of 0 because it looked like it may have not been rated by accident. And the tradition kinda stuck.

Also, a 0 wouldn't really accomplish anything a 1 wouldn't. A 1 already means don't watch this film under any circumstance. How worse can you get than that?

Cats vs. Dogs 2 versus Lust for Frankenstein. You're welcome.

Re: How do you review movies on a scale of 1 to 10?
 

Another point I'd like to add:
Movies add up to a 10. They don't start automatically start at a 10 and get deductions for each flaws.

A movie could be an 8 or 9 out of 10 - not because its flawed, but rather maybe you thought there were other movies that were just a bit better or more revolutionary.

Well, that's what a 1 means to you.
To me, it means I awarded it 20 out of 100 points. Did the movie earn 20 points? Did it earn any? When I take an exam, if I don't get a single thing right, they don't just give me 20 points. They give me zero. And some films get nothing right. It's rare but every once in a while a movie actually gets zero points from me. Like there is not a moment during the film where I thought anything was added to looking at a blank screen and it may actually have been worse.
For example, I nearly did (and would still consider) "awarding" The Rise Of Skywalker zero stars. I couldn't even milk points out of the performances of Driver or Ridley as we had seen these exact performances before in the previous two films and, with brutally bad scripting and dialogue, the characters and performances actually got worse. And there was nothing else in the film worth the time it was on screen versus if I was just listening to an electrical hum from somewhere and was frequently actually aggressively off-putting. I couldn't find anything to award it a point for. Absolutely nothing. There was nothing on the screen that wasn't better in every previous Star Wars film and everything that was new was as bad as I could have imagined it being. I saw Cats right before it, the very same day in the very same theater, and Cats is Citizen Kane compared to tRoS. So what am I to give it? Am I to tell people, "there might be a 20% chance you'll think it's good"? Or 20% of this film was actually good (when it clearly wasn't)?
I just can't do that. It would be dishonest. And it would be giving the film too much credit when it actually took from me. And sometimes you just see movies like that. Where you almost want to give it less than zero.
I feel like giving a film a 1 says you at least acknowledge that a film at least deserved to be rated and sometimes that is simply not the case.

Re: How do you review movies on a scale of 1 to 10?
 

You don't have to be dishonest if you give ratings, but you do have to be consistent and have a scale with benchmarks. Nevertheless, a numerical rating always contains subjective factors, like, how do you rate a western if you hate westerns. I'd just not give it a rating, especially since I haven't sat through a western for a long time.

The important thing is to just acknowledge your subjectivity.....hate westerns, think Citizen Kane is just "pretty good", don't like dubbed movies (prefer subtitles), etc.

Re: How do you review movies on a scale of 1 to 10?
 

Here's my rating scale:
5 it must be great because the AFI says so
4 really good just small complaints
3 enjoyable but not perfect
2 not quite a 3 movie
1 so bad it has to be a 1
0 don't know I've not seen a 0 movie

The idea of genre hatred is contradictory to the idea of being a movie buff, IMO. To understand why a genre works, one must understand what it is that the fans like. That's what got me into Tim Hecker, and I hate drone music most times. Basically, you have to be willing to subject yourself beyond your "typical" preferences for a lengthy period of time in order to expand your horizons, as long as that's important to you. But the best trick to use is to connect aspects of whatever new horizon you explore to the aspects of things you already like, and then let those common factors drive the exploration and potential enjoyment.

I don't have genre hatred, but it's been a long, long time since a western hit the theaters. As I recollect, it's been even longer since a good western arrived. As a genre, my suspicion is that it's just worn out. Between the "closing of the west", culture change, the marketing problems in westerns (violence, racism, gender, etc), it's just hard to think of what you'd do there that would avoid the problems and still BE a western, since violence, racism and toxic masculinity seem to be baked into the old versions of the genre. I'm open to almost any possibility, but some types of movies have just aged out.

I never said YOU hated westerns. However, your use of the word hate was obviously in context so I replied towards that context. But it is true that incredible westerns are hard to come by these days. The first "western" I ever went to the theaters for was the remake of Magnificent Seven, which I was happy to pay for in respect for the late James Horner, my favorite film composer in terms of personal history. But it was certainly not legendary (still better than most people say).

1 - so bad I'm concerned about anyone who likes it. Needs to be outright psychopathic (e.g. ghost in the shell)
2 - so bad it's offensive (e.g. the parade)
3 - just bad (e.g. infinity war)
4 - more bad than good (e.g. birdman)
5 - *cricket noises* (e.g. the marathon family)
6 - more good than bad (e.g. doctor strange)
7 - just good (e.g. smokey and the bandit)
8 - really good, I'd recommend it to someone (e.g. the bad guys)
9 - literally fantastic, i.e. the kind of film you fantasized about but never thought would be made (e.g. The World's End, The Taste of Cherry)
10 - so good it raises standards (e.g. Apocalypto, An Event)