How Do You Describe Your Ranking Scale?

I'm hesitant to rate a film. Why? Because what criteria am I using?

Do I rate it on how much I personally like it?

Do I rate it on how close the film comes to delivering what it intended to do?

Do I rate it against some scale where the greatest movies of all time are a 5...and so a perfect score is darn near impossible?

On my movie review thread
http://www.movieforums.com/community...t=37050&page=3

I rated Inglorious Bastards a low
But that's a personal reaction to the choice of the music score which I hated.
If it wasn't for some post production stuff I might have scored it
and if I was a fan of that type of movie I might have gave it a

So who's to say what criteria we compare films too.

: Spongeworthy
: Brilliant
: Great
: Solid
: Unspectacular
: Ok
: Bad
: Really bad
: Near unwatchable
" Sweet Jesus

__________________
"George, this is a little too much for me. Escaped convicts, fugitive sex... I've got a cockfight to focus on."

2 ratings - I'd watch it again or I wouldn't watch it again

It's a decent point you are making actually...

Maybe people who post their ranking scale should also post their rating criteria as well. It is just as important to understand one's opinion and ratings.

Personally, to me a rating is always personal, obviously, and I hardly ever rate a movie in comparison to other movies. So if The Godfather is a 10 then another movie that doesn't reach that film on the same criterias can easily reach that score as well - just because of other elements...

If you think about it 1-10 is way too small a scale and ratings is kind of stupid since you just throw a number on a movie anyways. A lot of movies will receive the same score but never in the same way. I'll rate a personal favourite a 10 and a technical amazing movie a 10. It is whatever. Everything is up to you in the end.

It is YOUR rating for a reason. It's all about how YOU like to rate films, some do from a neutral point of view based on the storyline and how good it is shown on the screen, others on flaws, other on emotions, other on likes and actors.

You hardly can compare one film to another unless it's a remake but then again this topic is about your rating and ranks, not about comparing one other.

A person like you who can see a movie in many perspectives and give it different ratings depending on one or another thing usually base their rating on a general point of view, and as the example you've given you were unable to enjoy the movie to its full because of the soundtrack, that would be a flaw subjectively chosen by you. It's all about perspective.

__________________

I rarely rate a film without giving some kind of opinion on it. Therefore, if I've said it's a 3/5 and that seems average or low to you, but I've said some really nice things about it or sounded as if I've enjoyed it, then it's likely we don't rate the same way.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

9-10: absolutely brilliant, masterpieces or near masterpieces

7-8.5: Varying degrees of good and great

5-6.5: Overall average-quality

3-4.5: varying degrees of bad

0-2.5: Irredeemably bad. Cinematic dreck.

__________________
Filmquisition: Raking Modern Entertainment Over the Coals Daily
Unrealitymag.com: New Articles Contributed Every Friday
Arcanis' 100 Favorite Films: 2015 Edition

On our silly review site we rate 1-5 stars, but because we are rating bad films as well as good, it can be a little confusing.

4-5 stars: the viewer will be greatly entertained. This can be either because the film is legitimately exceptional, or its bad but something about it we found immensely entertaining. Often this is a series of things in the film that we end up 'wtf' ing about and laughing.
3 stars: its ok, but you wouldn't want to watch it more than once. Its mostly weak but maybe has some redeeming qualities.
2 stars: junk. Hard to watch.
0-2 stars: horrible and torturous to watch. 0-1 star films usually anger us, to the point of shouting at the TV.

: Hardcore super-sex!
: Close to spectacular
: Very good
: Good
: Watchable but nothing special
: Poo with sugar on top
: Fairly poo
: Horrendous but watchable when drunk
: Very nearly watchable
: Don't even bother

: One of my all time favorites
: Mind-blowingly good
: Amazing
: Great
: Good
: OK
Below gets iffy. There are a lot of situational things that come into play.

__________________
"Oh, so you'd be General, huh? If you were General, I'd be Emperor, and you'd STILL get the sake! So shut up and get the sake!" -Hattori Hanzo

"#GAMEOVER420BLAZIT" -bluedeed

At the end of the day, I'd say my rating scale is mostly based on subjective enjoyment. Naturally, a certain fraction of that is rooted in appreciating its objective quality, but that's not a major influence. Case in point: I'd give movies like The Room or Troll 2 a because while they are objectively badly-made films, they still provide so-bad-it's-good entertainment that more than makes up for it. Conversely, I also gave to films like Godard's Breathless and The Wizard of Oz because while they're well-crafted I personally don't find them that subjectively entertaining. I also avoid rating anything higher than on a first viewing to maintain some sense of fair ranking - if a movie wants to get a great rating, it has to earn it over time. Rank-by-rank, it'd go like this:

- Not perfect by any means but definitely an all-time favourite.
- More distinguished than a but not quite as beloved as a .
- All-around great film.
- Has at least one major flaw (or a lot of minor ones - or both) that stop me really liking it it but it's still a good film.
- Too flawed to be a favourite but otherwise a decent movie.
- The flaws outweigh the strengths but only slightly.
- Significantly flawed but I still think, "Eh, it's not that bad."
- Generally reserved for films that are just boring as opposed to downright horrible.
- All-around awful but doesn't even deserve the infamy associated with a .
- No redeemable features whatsoever.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0