My rating system for movies/games/music goes like this: 5: Personal favorite 4: I will actively seek it out 3: I wont avoid it, but I wont actively seek it out 2: I will avoid it 1: Personal least favorite
Sounds pretty water tight, so would you say 1s and 5s are pretty rare for you because "personal least favorite" and "personal favorite" sound like they wouldn't be seen all that often
@@BenEleven1127 All of my personal favorites are the movies i grew up with/have nostalgia for, the movies that are special to me. And there are actually quite a few. At least, compared to the amount of movies I've reviewed that aren't personal favorites. But the personal least favorites aren't common at all. Those are only movies that actually offend me or something. I can only think of one movie that I would consider a 1, which is a low budget horror movie I saw on Netflix that I can't even remember the name of.
My relationship with film, anime, and manga could pretty much be summed up as: As long as it wasn't a 3 or lower, I probably thought of it positively to some extent.
@@BenEleven1127 Oh yeah, two examples could be Venom 2 and/or Holes. I am not a fan of the plot and directing of the Venom movies, but the mental hijinks that ensue between Venom and Eddie Brock, always leave me wanting more from that relationship. I acknowledge the (imo) shoddy writing while accepting that there is a progression for these characters that I do like, making it into a feature that I somewhat do enjoy despite considering it below average. Same thing with Holes sort of. I'm not all too hyped for that movie but it is still a pretty good story in my book. Tbh, my favorite ratings are probably 4/10s and 6/10s because I have the most nuanced conflicts when rating those movies.
I usually take any of the ratings I see on letterboxd (regardless of the user) with a grain of salt and wait time truly judge something until I actually see it. But that’s just my system I guess. Great video, glad you like yms too.
I think I need more than a grain while browsing Letterboxd sometimes... And I appreciate it man. Also I just checked out some of your stuff and I'm really digging it. You just got yourself another subscriber.
I’m the type that if a movie entertained me even with flaws I just rate it 5 stars. My ratings are all over the place ha ha. I just love movies to much... which is why I would be a terrible critic.
That's great, I'm glad your able to look past the issues you see in a film and enjoy it anyways. And like I said in the video, I don't think there's such thing as a terrible critic, just some people who like to convey their opinions a little differently than others. Thanks for sharing!
Thank you so much for the kind words! Yeah this video has managed to attract a decent amount of attention so it makes me so happy that people are enjoying it. Hope you enjoy the rest of my content!
Good video! I usually give a 3.5 stars to most stuff and if don't like something i give it a 2.5 or 2 stars, and if i really like something i give it 4 stars. 1 stars are for the worst of the worst and 5 stars are for the Best of the best
Sounds like a pretty seamless way of looking at it, it's interesting cause 3.5 is around the average for me too. Maybe a combination of us seeking out movies we know we'd like and the fact that movies made nowadays are just overall pretty good? Who knows
i've found a perfect way for me to rate movies - I give a movie 2 categories a star rating and then average it out. The two categories are called "Cinema" and "Enjoyment", a little self-explanatory but basically "Cinema" means the artistic quality behind the film so editing, cinematography, script etc, and "Enjoyment" is how I felt watching the movie so like "that was so fucking fun" or "I was so fucking bored". For example - Clueless (1995) - 'Cinema' 2 stars, 'Enjoyment' 4 stars = 2 and a half star average, or 12 Years a Slave (2013) - 'Cinema' 4 stars, 'Enjoyment' 1 star = 3 star average. I wished more people would do this so that I could really gauge what I'm in for with a movie. Some people want to watch heavy artistic films and others just want a good time
Wow that's a pretty interesting technique. I find it most interesting how you chose to rate 12 years a slave with a 1 in enjoyment, did you rate it this lowly because of how heavy the subject matter was or was it just not your cup of tea overall?
This is one I actually use, but I call them objective and subjective respectively, and I also use subjective rankings for my lists. Mortal Kombat: Annhilation is an easy 0/10, but I find it really funny and give it a 10/10.
I’m literally the 2nd guy at rating movies. Basically how I rate is “bad” which is 1 star, good which is 3 stars, and great which is straight up 5 stars lol.
I think I have found a really good system that basically works like tier lists. As in, I might personally dislike a two and a half star movie more than a half star, but that doesn't mean that the half star is objectively a better movie. It basically goes like this (keep in mind, the movies I'm going to mention are only examples of movies I consider fit that category to help illustrate my point, you don't have to agree with me): Starting of, we have the half stars, which means a truly awful film with zero redeeming qualities. That would be a film like Crimes of Grindelwald. The one star is a movie that is pretty terrible, but there are at least one or two redeeming qualities that stop it from being a half star. So, I hate Joker, but I can't help but concede that the music, cinematography, and acting in that movie are all really strong. Therefore, one star it is. The defining trait of the one and a half star movie is boredom. Unlike the previous two categories, which are mainly motivated by rage or frustration, a one and a half star is a film that, no matter how many good or even great qualities it has, the main thing that always sticks out about is how unbearably exhausting it was to watch. The 2014 Godzilla, for example, has impeccable cinematography and sound design, but you couldn't pay me to care even slightly about the plot. The two star is interesting, because technically the one and a half stars are probably "better". But I have it this way because, for me, two stars stands in for a film with a lot of enjoyable or great elements that you can legitimately adore, but it lacks competence for it to be placed any higher. So, Matrix Reloaded is a truly spectacular action film with unbelievable visuals, editing, choreography, and even themes and ideas, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a movie with a messier screenplay. The two and a half stars movie is the worst type of movie to me, because it means that it's the one that provokes no emotional reaction, neither positive nor negative, and that to me is worse than a film sucking. The two and a half stars is an absolutely functional and inoffensive film that you're going to forget the moment you finish it, because it's that bland. A lot of Netflix Originals fit this category, but for easiness' sake, let's use the film Belfast as an example. The three star is where we start getting into a bit more personal territory. It's an above average film that is A) functional and B) features something extra to avoid being a two and a half star. That little something extra is usually an aesthetic style, or a neat story choice. Both this and the two stars can qualify as "guilty pleasure movies", with the main difference that the three star functions as a whole. What you classify as a three star can vary for you depending on your tastes, but for me, this is where a film like Flash Gordon would land. Is it a masterfully crafted narrative? No, but the corny aesthetic makes it incredibly entertaining. Three and a half stars means we can finally start talking about narrative and themes. These are films with actually engaging stories or other such qualities, except there are still some flaws that prevent them from being ranked any higher. This is where I place most films I watch, and it takes a film that can truly knock my socks off to consider placing it higher. So, I absolutely adore the third Pirates movie, and consider it to be a woefully underrated modern masterpiece, but its way too convoluted plot and several structure and pacing issues prevent me from saying it's truly flawless. Four stars is a good, or even great movie, that fully achieves what it sets out to do, and whatever flaws it might have are so miniscule and insignificant that they're not enough to drop it. This doesn't mean that it has to be a serious drama to get in here. For example, Scott Pilgrim vs the World is an over-the-top action comedy masterpiece, and it deserves to land here. For the last two categories, I'm incredibly stingy, because these are the films I consider to be absolutely perfect, and the thing that separates the four and a half from the five star are incredibly minor, downright nitpicky things. So, even an absolutely towering cinematic achievement like Apocalypse Now doesn't crack the five stars for me because it can drag at times and the Extended Cut adds a few unnecessary scenes. Finally, the five stars are reserved for the highest of high hitters, the films so unequivocally perfect that I could very easily defend them as the greatest of all time. They're incredibly few and far between, but they're these rare landmarks that truly redefine the medium. Films like Lawrence of Arabia, Vertigo, and the Prince of Egypt don't deserve anything lower than five stars. So, yeah, that's the system. I think it's pretty good and fair, all things considered
What's the difference between the 1.5 and 2.5 star ratings? You said 1.5 stars mean boredom, and 2.5 means "provoking no positive/negative reaction", which is pretty much the same thing?
@@abeke5523 Boredom is an emotion, it's that dread you're feeling when a boring movie drags on for seemingly forever and you keep checking your watch or your phone. A bland 2.5 star movie can be perfectly serviceable and decently paced and never evoke that frustration you're feeling when stuck on a boring movie, but you forget about it the minute it's over, whereas you remember that boring movie because you remember how unpleasant it was to sit through.
I ended up having to discover my rating system. When i first made a letterboxd, i was rating things pretty intuitively, without much active comparison. From there, after a couple months, I teased out what it was my natural rating system was from what I had already rated. Now I try to stick to that consistently. 1/10 through 4/10 are just varying degrees of below average. 5/10 is standard fare, the film is no better or worse than the majority of what's on offer in theatres. 6/10 means the film had something of note, it's somehow better than average, whether that be technically or even contextually (like in the case of something like Roar). 7/10 means the film had roughly equal parts good qualities and flaws that actively drag it down. And for me an 8/10 is as high as it goes without subjective considerations. An 8/10 means if the film had any flaws, none that I think are big enough that they make it worse. 9s and 10s represent whether an 8 emotionally and/or intellectually engaged me. If we're talking about a film that has no particularly glaring issues AND it connected with me emotionally AND got me thinking about things beyond the film itself, that's a 10. What more could I ask for from a movie than that.
Love this video as a way to open a dialogue, it's so interesting reading all the different thoughts here. I use 2.5 as an "it's fine" rating where I don't really like or dislike it. I find I have less degrees of disliking something versus liking it, and I also try not to watch bad movies most of the time, so this is something that works for me. It also makes it easy to give a 3/5 as a more "basic" movie that I like or thought was generally good, but maybe had some problems with or wasn't too excited by. 1.5's and 2's are still movies but I didn't think they were good or didn't love them, and 0.5's or 1's are not worth watching. As with the rest of my star ratings it's kind of like a tier list here. For my graph the highest bar is for 3.5 stars. I think if you know your own taste, a lot of movies if they're good can be a 7/10. 4's should be something that stand out in some way above the 3.5's to me. It may not be perfect but It's more iconic, interesting, memorable, and better executed than most of the good movies I've seen. For me a 4.5 is pretty close to a perfect movie. Recently I pulled a couple movies out of my 5's down to 4.5 so that my 5's could really be more special and personal. I want a 5 to be something that I really think about fondly, where it wasn't just amazing but it was powerful, moving, or exciting. The kind of film where you're just stunned by the experience and sit through all the credits processing it. I don't think a perfect score means much if it's more than like 10-15% of your ratings. I think you should probably rethink how you're assigning scores if that's the case. There's 10 options for ratings, so to me if you find more than 1/10th of the films you've seen perfect it says you're not thinking much about the films you watch, you're so easy to please that anything is perfect, or you haven't seen enough stuff. All are reasons why I probably would be less interested in following. At the end of the day though, this is just my own thoughts and suggestions. Art is subjective, and so are ratings. If you want to give every movie you watch a 1 or 5 and just rotten tomatoes it, go for it and enjoy yourself. I just wouldn't be interested because it's not a system I respect.
Personally I prefer the simplest system of Negative vs Positive. The number systems of rating is too specific and more often than not, people's ratings change on subsequent viewings but rarely change on the binary system Steam does this perfectly
When I want to find out opinions from someone who really watched the movie closely, I always read 2-star and 3-star ratings first because they give the most well-rounded picture of what to expect and are often more well-thought-out (two-stars give balanced critiques that aren't emotion-driven and three-stars give praise and highlight accomplishments without overly gushing while also acknowledging flaws), one-star ratings are often trolls and emotionally-driven spite-ratings, while five-star ratings are often fanboys and people being paid to boost the rating, four-star reviews are tricky, many are legit but some are just fanboys or paid raters not wanting to seem too obvious.
My rating system, I calculate adding the stars for different aspects: 0-½ stars for cinematography/0-½ stars for cinematography (sound&music) 1 star for actors (0-½-1) was the acting good? Was the actor charismatic? 1 star for the script (0-½-1) 1 star for engagement (0-½-1) is the movie boring? 1 star for the personal relation (0-½-1) did i cry? Did i find comparing myself to the characters? Is it touching me personally? It's very convenient for me to use and I've worked a couple of years on it. I tend to watch some mediocre or shitty movies too to know the difference if I see too many high ratings in the last period of time.
My problem with this is that whether it "is boring" or "touches you emotionally" is the direct result of the aspects you already took into consideration above. So you're effectively rating the cinematography/script/acting/etc twice.
@@kuusakat1308 not really. It can be deathly boring for me and still be a classic masterpiece (Ran). Or it can be a trashy tubi movie and i would still feel it in my heart (Sharkanado).
@@kuusakat1308 My own personal feeling. And nothing else. This is exactly what prevents me from rating classics too low and junk too high. Because everyone feels different about the same element of a movie. E.g. I absolutely acknowledge the brilliance of the cinematography and storytelling of the movie Ran, but that movie just doesn't speak to me at all, at least in this period of my life.
So what makes the cinematography and storytelling good then if it doesn't speak to you? The "own personal feeling" is still a feeling towards what you're seeing. The feeling comes from within the movie.@@태이씨
Damn I’ve been called out I’m the guy who rates a lot of 5 stars but I don’t call a 5 star a 10/10 movie though. It’s weird how is rate movies but I’m comfortable with how I do it.
Haha, didn't mean to shine a spotlight on you like that, but yeah that's awesome how you're comfortable in it cause there's really no reason you shouldn't be
Appreciate it vetlemd! Glad you managed to enjoy the video even though it's disagreeing with your wrong opinion :D But for real though that's very sweet of you to say, hope you enjoy the rest of the channel
No offense but I think the idea of consistency in criticizing art shows a lack of understanding in art's biggest component: subjectivity. There are objective things that make movies good or bad, but there's a plethora of reasons to rate something in the polar opposite direction for you personally as well. Unfortunately some people put down scores because their bigots or something, but I don't think most people that use this app consistently subscribe to that idea. But there's nothing wrong with rating a movie poorly just because you didn't connect with it as much as other people, or rating it higher because you did. And as much as I love looking at people's little rating chart as well, it's really not a good method of judging someone's consistency or whether they're "good" at rating stuff just because that can look different for different people. I think the best rating system is to get out of your own head and just rate a movie how you want and not how you think you should for some arbitrary reason.
@kuusakat1308 take pacing for example. Let's say a film is made with a slower pace intentionally. It fits the film in terms of story as well as it's themes. However, some people would probably be turned off by the slower pace. So, even though the pacing is done well in a film and it fits, someone would probably not like it just because it's slow to begin with. Whether it's done well or not. And that's fine, everyone has their own taste.
@@fromgreattobrilliant922 I get what you're trying to say but I would still push back on them using the word objectively. I don't believe there is objectivity when it comes to art. We can come together and collectively say we mostly all like The Godfather for example because of analysis of X, Y, and Z, reasons, but it's still our subjective experiences and collective reasoning coming to that conclusion. It doesn't make that strategy objectively good, just good for the majority in that specific instance.
Having watched the video, here are comments that I'd like to make. I do agree strongly that whatever your rating system is, you need to be consistent. I also agree with YMS having one of the best rating systems. Not just because its consistent, but also because he posts thorough reviews. Having those thorough reviews, combined with the ratings he gives, makes it more likely for one to guess what you might give a movie comparing your score to his. And if he posts a score that seems inconsistent, he's likely to post a review depending on the type of movie he posted a score on. Another example for finding movies to looks for is not just what ratings people give, but what ratings people give to certain genres. For example, I don't care too much for horror films. They rarely have themes (at least, not those that feel thought-provoking), and I generally don't enjoy gore, so an 8+/10 for me is more likely to excite a horror fan than someone that gives an 8+ to 90% of horror movies. I'm planning on making reviews on Letterboxd at the very least (which is Accountnamehere in case anyone's curious, but I feel like me posting it here is like advertising), and hopefully have an opinion that people can respect at the very least. I can also think of movies that seem inconsistent or surprising to the average person. I gave a 4/10 to Coco for example, and I don't think that I'm the most enthusiastic about Tarantino films. Another example i can think of is how I rate old movies. I've noticed/felt like movies pre 70's have monotone acting, pretty stiff cinematography, limited editing, more frequent white noise, etc, so the average rating that I give a movie pre 70's is a 3/10. I don't like to hate them, but I find them boring to watch.
I find the apex of YMS curve too high, and the bulk of his ratings falling within one star of each other doesn't utilize the entire spectrum too well. Having a rating curve that's weighted towards the 3-4-5 area devalues the good movies, while a curve weighted towards the negative end really lets the best of the best shine.
My criteria for watching a film is a concept i find interesting and if the film is meant to be good or i know ill enjoy it, so most movies ive seen id give 4 or 5 stars
0:56 I’m not sure if that was sarcasm or a genuine opinion but for a moment I felt heard 😂 The whole movie was agonizing for me 😭every time they started singing I wanted to flee.
I don’t generally like to operate on the like scholastic/academia grading system ideology, where a 60% (or like 6/10, aka 3/5) is bad. For me it’s like, a 2.5 is totally the middle. I was indifferent to it. Didn’t love it didn’t hate it, kinda like “meh”. From there we can work both ways hahaha. If a movie is a 3/5, for me, that means I liked it, and it was good. 3.5 really good, 4 is awesome, 4.5 incredible, and 5 is like an absolute masterpiece or one of my person faves - whatever adjectives you wanna use, but you get the idea I assume ahahahaha. I also stole something from Anthony Fantano that I love, which is giving each individual rating either a “Light”, “Decent”, or “Strong” - so I’ll end up with scores like LIGHT 3*, or STRONG 3*, DECENT 4* etc . Kinda lets me have a little bit more specificity because I could have 2 things at a 3* but like one more than the other obviously. Everyone’s systems are different tho and it’s fascinating to see - great video man! Thanks !
Yeah I'm definitely gonna have to inform Fantano about this theivery... Haha, yeah I completely agree though that's a great way of looking at it. I've heard some people talk about how they basically start movies at a 10/10 and lower the score based off of any criticisms they have, but that just seems like a pretty weird way of looking at it for me. Anyways yeah thanks a ton! Glad you enjoyed!
My thing with the rating system is... a 5 star rating for Home Alone is very different from a 5 star rating for There Will Be Blood. I may think within their respective genres that each is a 5 star, but put them next to each other and my rating would have to change, but if I lower Home Alone a star or 2 to reflect how I feel about them compared, then I'm diminishing it's value to a 3 star rating, which I don't believe it is
@@kuusakat1308 because as far as movies go I feel (imo) that There Will Be Blood is an objectively better film and better cinema, but Home Alone is not a bad movie because of that. It's a near perfect movie for what it is, so I rate it high. When I rate Home Alone, it's generally not in the same category at films like There Will Be Blood, so I can still rate them the same without them necessarily being the same if that makes sense
I think you're just viewing it a bit narrowly. Movies can have the same score for different reasons. I tend to do this by genre. Some genres you might like more or less than others, or some styles more or less than others. I have Schindler's List and Monty Python and the Holy Grail both as a 5. Neither are comparable in any way whatsoever, but Schindler's List is one of the most powerful films I've ever seen and Monty Python and the Holy Grail one of the funniest to me personally. Doesn't mean I think Monty Python has the same importance or relevance as Schindler's, I just appreciate them within their genre to that degree. I'm slightly less interested in "guy with gun" films because they often feel a bit more generic to me. Die Hard is a 4.5 for me even though it's one of the best of that style that I've seen. Meanwhile, 12 Years a Slave is at a 4 because I'm even less drawn to American history. I think you have to bring the entire style of movie up or down to how much you personally appreciate it, so that each film mostly fits with how you see the majority of other films at that rating. There's also different ways that everyone thinks about even the same genre. My buddy mostly rates horror movies on how scared he was, particularly jump scares, while I tend to rate them more on story/dread. There's no right or wrong answer.
bro simultaniously says everyone should have their own opinion while shitting on people for their opinion. What does it mean to have consistency with rating movies that are simular if every movie is its own thing? If I love 1 movie and hate another but their both about horses that doesn't mean I'm inconsistent it means I didn't like one as much as the other this vid feels like the amalgamation of all the annoying things letterboxd users do and say while also pretending that their ratings mean anything whatsoever
It’s so hard to rate movie out of 5. Like is it how much I enjoyed it? Is t how good it is respective to genre? In that case does a romcom deserve the same rating as movie who dives deep into psychology of human nature
Filmaffinity has been out there for the past 20 years. Much better than IMDB, Letterboxd, and your grandma on wheels (combined), but the Anglo World doesn´t know about it. Its "soulmates" feature is precisely what makes it better than any other site: the algorithm automatically finds people you agree with (rating wise) so it doesn´t even need to find people with good criteria, but with YOUR criteria, which pretty much guarantees YOU are going to like a certain movie... or not. Try it out, thank me later.
Huh, guess I'm a filthy Anglo cause I don't think I've ever heard of this site. I'd be interested in checking something like that out perhaps but I'm not sure if I would be willing to make the switch from letterboxd. That feature does sound pretty neato though, letterboxd is probably going to copy it at some point like they always do though lol.
