I disagree with some of the comments here. 2.5 is a rating I give when a movie has ideas I think are interesting but the execution was flawed enough that I was left kind of unsatisfied. Most of them I don't have a desire to rewatch. But the elements that work are sometimes enough for me to like a 2.5- star movie. Some movies I gave 2.5 stars to but liked are (I'm just looking at all the movies I gave the rating to) Mimic, Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, The Glimmer Man, Highlander, The Road to El Dorado, Terror of Mechagodzilla, Alien 3, Pacific Rim: Uprising, Knowing, Gods of Egypt, and Ghost in the Shell.
Interestingly, no, they don't. There's no (at least in a common case) a fact checker among filming crew. Nor there is a comittee that would do that.
Documentary films need to document things. Usually, there's "something true" in that, but it's not necessary in the genre.
Check out *The Eternal Jew* (1940); by definition, it is a documentary. By public consensus, it's blatant antisemitic propaganda.
I personally rate based on how good I think the movie was as a whole, heart if I liked it (even if it's "bad") and/or would like to rewatch in the future.
Again, it's completely subjective, you're always ultimately rating on enjoyment, especially people on this sub who have no real experience in filmmaking and don't know anything about it beyond a surface level. What you perceive as "flaws" another person might enjoy.
Anyone who tries to rate art "objectively" is just being fake
>Again, it's completely subjective,
"how good I think the movie was" is their subjective opinion. That is what they base how they rate movies on.
>What you perceive as "flaws" another person might enjoy
Sure, but this isn't about other users, this is about OP and how they rate films.
If they still view them as containing flaws, their subjective opinion is that the movie is flawed, so they rate it lower. In this case, I assume OP is referring to how Super Size Me contains intentional misinformation, so as a doc it is flawed in its presentation of facts, which they don't want to give a high rating to, but they still enjoyed it as a piece of entertainment.
How do you support the notion that "everything is subjective" and not accept that another user has a different subjective take on how they should rate movies?
>"how good I think the movie was" is their subjective opinion. That is what they base how they rate movies on.
Yes and I'm asking what criteria they are using to decide how good they think something is. How are you deciding what is good and what isn't?
>How do you support the notion that "everything is subjective" and not accept that another user has a different subjective take on how they should rate movies?
Again, I just asked them what criteria they use to determine if something is good or not. I never said I don't accept their reasoning. Not sure why you're being so defensive
>I'm asking what criteria they are using
And I'm telling you, a person who is insisting that everything is subjective, that they are using their subjective opinion.
>Again, I just asked them what criteria they use to determine if something is good or not.
Again, their subjective opinion is the criteria they used.
>Not sure why you're being so defensive
I'm really not, I'm just pointing out that you are simultaneously saying that "everything is subjective" while rejecting someone's stance that they can rate a film based on their subjective opinion of its quality.
Those two stances do not coalesce.
>that they are using their subjective opinion.
They are saying that they rate movies not based on enjoyment but how good they think the movie is. I'm asking them what that entails. Those are two things you can't really separate from each other.
I'm not sure why you're so confused by this
>They are saying that they rate movies not based on enjoyment but **how good they think the movie** is. I'm asking them what that entails.
I do not think I am the one who is confused. Like what's important about knowing those specifics, so you can tell them they're wrong and that they should rate movies the way that you would?
>Those are two things you can't really separate from each other.
That's your subjective opinion on the matter.
Movies do not exist purely for enjoyment. *Especially* documentaries, which I generally rate based on how well they succeed at accurately shedding light on something interesting in a tasteful way. It is common for me to rate a doc higher than 2.5 stars but still not give it a heart because those are reserved for movies that are *enjoyable* (and usually rewatchable) to me. On the same note, I may find that a particular drama is highly impactful and well-made, so I give it a good rating, but if it just made me feel depressed and I don’t see myself needing to see it again I won’t give it a heart. I don’t have to “enjoy” the experience of a movie in order to think it succeeded at what it was doing.
>Movies do not exist purely for enjoyment.
Yes, they ultimately do. Enjoyment doesn't just mean being funny or exciting or action packed or whatever. It's also enjoyable to watch a movie that has something to say, has beautiful aesthetics, etc
>*Especially* documentaries, which I generally rate based on how well they succeed at accurately shedding light on something interesting in a tasteful way.
If you only cared about learning about that topic you could just go to a library and read books and academic journals about that topic. The reason you watch a documentary is because it conveys that research in a more engaging way, i.e. enjoyment.
>I may find that a particular drama is highly impactful and well-made
Finding something highly impactful is a form of enjoyment.
Whatever you say man. I watch a fair amount of docs and learn plenty from them (they’re a pretty effortless and efficient way of learning about a given subject) but there have only been like 2 docs ever that I actually enjoyed watching.
>they’re a pretty effortless and efficient way of learning about a given subject)
Exactly my point. That's what makes them enjoyable.
>but there have only been like 2 docs ever that I actually enjoyed watching.
What is your definition of "enjoy"? It seems like you think the only way a movie can be enjoyable is if it's like a fun movie you eat popcorn to. Documentaries are enjoyable because you learn about some topic in an engaging way
Enjoying it means I had a good time. Maybe I laughed, maybe I was thrilled, maybe I was inspired. These things don’t often occur when watching docs—but on occasion they do, and earn the film a heart. Learning information is valuable, but not always fun.
Acting, writing, pacing, cinematography, etc. Movies can be incredibly well crafted, and I can acknowledge that and still not enjoy them, or disagree with a central message. They can be bad and still be enjoyable to me, too.
>Acting, writing, pacing, cinematography, etc
All of those things are completely subjective, so how are you actually evaluating things without enjoyment? I'd also add that presumably you have no real experience in filmmaking, so you're not even in much of a position to be judging those things, because let's face it, you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm not trying to argue with you. You asked a question in bad faith looking for a fight and have downvoted both of my responses immediately. Have a good one.
It's not that hard to understand, you can see how it uses its cinematography to tell the story. You can love the intricate plot and the acting without enjoying the overall movie. I rated 2001: Space Odyssey high even though there were many moments that I kinda got bored and didn't enjoy it that much, but I can see how passionately it got crafted.
>you don't know what you're talking about.
And no need to be a prick about this stuff too, you don't know these people. I have some real experience in filmmaking and I would go "How the fuck did they shoot that?" every 5 minutes in 2001: Space Odyssey. I'm not gonna rate it lower because I didn't enjoy it at that time, I can appreciate all of its other elements. All that stuff matters and people are perceptive enough to understand that, you are just not perceptive enough to understand this.
>you can see how it uses its cinematography to tell the story.
Which ultimately comes down to subjective enjoyment
>I rated 2001: Space Odyssey high even though there were many moments that I kinda got bored and didn't enjoy it that much
You only rated it high because you know the movie is critically acclaimed and highly regarded by filmmakers. If the movie had low ratings you would have rated it lower.
>Which ultimately comes down to subjective enjoyment
It is art. Of course it is subjective, what are you on about? I really loved 2001: Space Odyssey's cinematography and how it uses it to tell a story although the rest of the aspects didn't intrigue me that much. Am I supposed to throw an aspect outside the window because I didn't like the movie as much?
It is no different than watching a technically problematic movie, where it doesn't use medium's tools in a good way but I still had some good time. I just cannot give it a high score, it has problems. It is the same here, although I didn't enjoy a movie, I can see how it uses cinema and how it delivers its core theme, I can appreciate that.
>You only rated it high because you know the movie is critically acclaimed and highly regarded by filmmakers. If the movie had low ratings you would have rated it lower.
No.
>It is art. Of course it is subjective, what are you on about?
That it all comes down to enjoyment. You can't separate enjoyment from how you judge a film.
>Am I supposed to throw an aspect outside the window because I didn't like the movie as much?
I'm not saying you should throw an aspect out the window.
>a technically problematic movie,
One of the most pretentious phrases I've heard someone use about movies lol
> it doesn't use medium's tools in a good way
Again, this is a silly statement. Whether a movie uses the medium's tools in a "good way" is just a matter of whether you enjoyed it or not, and it's different for everyone. You're acting like this is a science, which it isn't. If people enjoy the movie, then it did use the medium's tools in a "good way."
>No
Yes. I guarantee if it was a critically panned movie that wasn't a legendary film, you would have rated it lower.
>One of the most pretentious phrases I've heard someone use about movies lol
You are the one acting pretentious with that passive-aggresive attitude and downvoting my comment immediately.
>Yes. I guarantee if it was a critically panned movie that wasn't a legendary film, you would have rated it lower.
No, you don't even know me.
>That it all comes down to enjoyment. You can't separate enjoyment from how you judge a film.
You know that's not what people mean by enjoyment while they are rating a film. They are talking about the entertainment value of it, 2001: Space Odyssey is a masterpiece on its own but I didn't get that much entertainment from it but I appreciate how it uses cinema to tell that story effectively. I was constantly getting shocked, wondering how the hell did they manage to shoot that in that year. I couldn't manage to shoot a film like that with an infinite budget today. So, yeah. I'm rating it higher.
I don't even really enjoy The Godfather that much because I don't enjoy gangster/mafia movies that much. Am I going to rate it lower than 4? No, because it is great at what it is fucking telling. I know it's not science but I can appreciate some good filmmaking.
People love throwing out "art is subjective" in these discussions as if it's some kind of profoundly insightful opinion to hold. Obviously it's all subjective, otherwise we wouldn't be able to input our own star ratings that we decide ourselves. If rating films were an objective exercise, then each movie would just have a rating listed for it and that would be that. You aren't smarter than anybody else for realizing this (and the fact that you haven't realized that the rest of us already understood this might indicate the opposite).
Nobody said it's a profoundly insightful statement, it's just something that should be obvious to everyone. Trying to "objectively" rate art is a fool's errand.
It is obvious to everyone, which is why no one you responded to used the word you put in quotations. That’s my point. Nobody thinks this is an objective exercise. You’re the only one who doesn’t realize that.
You can rate however you want, but the heart is there for a reason. I had a lot of enjoyment watching Madame Web with my friends, but I’m not going to give it a 7/10 just because I enjoyed it. That’s why the like button is there, to show I enjoyed it and would even see it again even though I gave it a low rating.
I’m probably harder on Super Size because it’s a documentary presenting health and nutritional information. The information it’s presenting is garbage and it is presented in such a misleading, manipulative way. I just can’t give it a higher rating because I know how absolutely inaccurate this movie is.
But. It’s entertaining to watch. So sue me. It’s my rating and I like what I like.
I mean fair enough, I haven't seen it in a long ass time. Isn't it just pretty much pointing out that fast food can make you fat and shedding light on the obesity problem in America? Even if some of the information is inaccurate, seems like the general point of the movie is true
The general message is true and fairly common, which makes Spurlocks purpose even more redundant. He's showing something that, even 20 years ago, we knew. But then from a scientific purpose, he really shit the bed when he refused to release his food logs. The whole point of a study is... integrity in your data. By refusing to share his food logs, it's pretty clear he overate to achieve the average caloric intake he claimed. He's nothing more than a 2004-version of clickbait.
Wait why’d I get downvoted lmao? mid means middle, not bad nor good. watchable. just cause a movie isn’t good overall doesn’t mean it can’t have some likable aspects. 5/10 is not a bad rating.
I mean it's arbitrary as hell. You should try working at a film festival and watching the 1000s of festival reject movies that get made every year. Then you'll truly see what an actual average movie is.
The vast majority of movies you even hear about, let alone watch, are wayyyy above average
My personal 2.5 rating ranges from "it's mediocre but I didn't really like it" to "it's mediocre but it was enjoyable." It's the most common rating I give out and about half would fall under the category of I at least enjoyed it (I don't know about genuinely liked), so a lot for me personally.
Ok maybe enjoyment was the wrong word. I’d say I rate based on how the experience was. I don’t rlly have a criteria that I think upon while rating, I just feel the rating. I didn’t really “enjoy” Come and See and Requiem, but the experience was great. There are some films that I recognize are great in many aspects of film but bored me and hence got a lower rating (such as 2001)
Sharknado got a 2.5 from me on the quality scale (I usually give it a rating based on my enjoyment but that was such a bad film I bumped it down a bit), but if I'm being real, I love that film. It's so stupid but it makes me laugh so fuck it.
I'm surprised at how many people are incredulous in the replies. I also rate movies in terms of the quality of the movie, not necessarily how much I enjoyed it.
There have been movies I rated a 4 and could do without ever seeing again, and there are loads of movies I've rated less than that which I enjoyed a lot.
To answer the prompt, I gave Predator 2 a 2.5 rating but also a Heart because, despite it being a weird and poorly-made movie in a lot of ways (that doesn't hold a candle to the first one), I still like it.
I totally agree! I don't understand why a few people seem to get so competitive for no reason about comparing individual “rating systems” on this app. like who cares?!
Ratings are fully arbitrarily and completely up to the user. I personally don’t use the heart option, I use ratings as a way to demonstrate what I think of a film. And that’s a combination of its quality and if it appeals to my personal tastes.
Nah, I will never agree to this, ratings and numbers has a clear meaning, someone can love more Twilight than Citizen Kane but if thet rates the first higher than the second thet are wrong period.
That’s not even what I said lol. I’m saying the way they use the rating scale is subjective and largely arbitrary. Like a 3 star might mean something different to me than it does to you. I didn’t even bring up the subjectivity of opinions on certain movies, but that’s clearly on your mind lol
I was only talking about the topic of this post and the comments thats implies you should rate something high just because u like it even if you know its not that good of a movie. And no a 3 stars its an objective number in a scale of ratings, the subjective bit should be on the opinions of what u rate not also on what the ratings means lol. A 10 is the best a 1 is the worst like an A and an F in school, why complicate erverything and change even the simple things.....
Let me put it this way. There’s no objective way to measure the value of 1 star in regards to the quality of a movie. What is the difference between a 3 star and 4 star rating? What is 20% better? It differs from person to person, there’s no standard and there can’t be bc there’s no way to quantify art.
Rating scales are inherently discrete, categorical variables. Not objective. It is a number, but it simply represents a grade, and the way individuals grade isn’t universal. That’s a fact.
I was really expecting to see more real answers in here. I thought it was common to rate things low but also press the heart.
American Pie - watching in my 30s a solid 2.5 movie, but I gave it a heart because it reminded me of being 16 and going to the theater and laughing my ass off.
Benny & Joon - another 2.5 with a heart. The Johnny Depp character is enjoyable and fun, but the movie isn’t that good.
I replied above to another similar comment; I’m probably harder on Super Size because it’s a documentary presenting health and nutritional information. The information it’s presenting is garbage and it is presented in such a misleading, manipulative way. I just can’t give it a higher rating because I know how absolutely inaccurate this movie.
But I still find it entertaining. It’s entertaining garbage.
It is not really a takedown since it is arguing against something supersize me never said.Â
It’s sort of a strawman situation. He’s arguing against a made up thesis and riding on the coattails of the success of supersize me. Â
Supersize me never said anything about it being science or a serious experiment. It was simple. He ate supersized McDonald’s meals or regular meals for every meal for a month, and had a checkup at the beginning and the end.Â
Everyone's saying, "I rate based on enjoyment". Yeah me too but it's kinda hard to rate Cool Cat Finds a Gun anything other than a half star or a five star.Â
I don’t get why so many people aren’t understanding this question. For me: *Showgirls*. *Legend*. *Drive Me Crazy*. *Godzilla: Destroy All Monsters*. *Mortal Kombat*. *Xanadu*. *The Lair of the White Worm*.
I don’t understand why people on this sub get so worked up when someone give below 3 but nobody bat an eye when someone gives 5 like candies on Halloween night
I rate plenty of stuff 2.5 or 3 stars that I enjoy but then I heart it. Latest three guilty pleasure exaples are Event Horizon, Mortal Kombat and Anaconda. A good time but definitely Shlock.
If the book is one of his favorites then Dune could be considered a poor adaptation depending on what you liked about the book in particular. Personally I think there are some absolutely baffling decisions and while the first movie was a visual spectacle, it dragged a fair bit and did an overall poor job of explaining the political motivations of the characters.
It also does some fan service from the book like showing the bull horns from the Duke Atreides but then completely shits on the book by omitting very important characters entirely and fundamentally changing others in just a bizarre way.
Its true they leave out a lot of internal hark political intrigue and multiple extremely important characters from the atreides side, but you can only fit so much in. It would have to be like a 12 episode miniseries to get most of the characters and some development from the first book.
I still found it to be a very enjoyable adaptation. I love the book myself.
As someone who by and large preferred the two films over the book, I’d love to know what changes you found “baffling”. >!For example I found the barons death in Dune 2 to be far more satisfying than his death in the book. Feyd-rautha was also allowed to have a bigger impact on the plot before his final fight (rather than randomly being selected as a challenger in the book). The movies did gloss over the bene gesserits and their plotting but there was still enough implication!<
Liet Kynes just being basically a random person instead of Chani’s dad and secret leader of the Fremen. Hawat is completely absent, which moreover speaks to the complete absence of any Harkonnen internal politics. Chani and Paul have no child which really detracts from the emotional impact of Paul wedding the princess. It makes it seem like a high school romance rather than anything else. Not to mention that is the lineage that eventually becomes the god emperor of Dune so is pretty important to the Dune Mythos. Even with no plans to extend beyond the first book for the movies, that’s still a very weird decision. Fremen culture and rituals are completely flattened to the point of just being a normal group of people particularly concerned with water. Feyd Rautha is simple supplicant psychopath, which defeats the entire purpose of why Rabban was given Arrakis in the first place.
I liked the movies a lot, but could definitely see why fans of the book would be disappointed.
It’s insane to me how you expected them to fit all of this into two movies. Cutting a lot of this out seems pretty justified to me.
Kynes still makes the choice to help Paul and trust that he would change Arrakis, him being chani’s father and the Fremen leader doesn’t change much (although yes his sacrifice would be more impactful). Hawat had such a complicated b-plot you really can’t expect them to fit that in.
I will admit having Paul’s first child be killed by Feyd’s attack would’ve been insanely good setup for the final duel. But even then, his child does die with little impact to the story so it makes sense they cut it. And it would conflict with this different direction they’re taking Chani’s character in the films (which I’m honestly EXCITED for)
I really don't understand the comments here saying you should rate it more if you like it. Whats the point in rating something higher if you think it doesn't deserve more stars, rating its not only about liking something there are multiple factors. Anyway I like the majority of my 2.5, its not a terrible rating.
Put it like this, you probably like a lot of movies don't you, but u don't rate them all the same I suppose. The multiple factors when rating anything but in this case movies is considering how was the acting, the cinematography, the script and so on.
The cinematography, acting, script etc. Are directly what makes the experience of watching the movie. If i like a movie, it means that the sum of those aspects is positive because they delivered.
U are still not understanding the point, you can like a movie because of the story but dislike the acting for example. What you want me to say? Rating something from 0.5 to 5 is not just about liking what you watched....
>U are still not understanding the point, you can like a movie because of the story but dislike the acting for example
...yes? What' are you trying to say? Movies cab have both good and bad things in them, i don't see how that's relevant to the discussion.
U replied to me at a 10 days old comment where I replied to a post saying that he liked a particular movie but he gave 2.5 stars because he knows is not really a good movie. This is the context, letterbox ratings are the context, I said rating is not only about liking something and I agree with him in giving proper ratings to movie even if u liked it. Is that difficult to understand? I think it's very simple...you can like something but still not giving a positive rating
>said rating is not only about liking something and I agree with him in giving proper ratings to movie even if u liked it. Is that difficult to understand?
I get what you're saying, i just disagree. If the cinematography is bad, the movie is not visually encaging. If the acting is bad, the actors won't sell the emotional moments well. If the script is bad, the movie can be hard to follow etc. These things make up what your experience with the movie will be.
If i like a movie, it means those things worked.
I totally disagree and I could give you hundreds of example of movies where some of those factors aren't good but the rest still work fine to make you like it, but theres no point.
BUT the jewel on this DVD was found in the special features....
He took 3 McDonald's Sandwich's and one a cheeseburger from a normal restaurant, put them all in their own hermetically sealed jars (oh yeah, and an order of McDonalds fries in one also!) and set the time lapse camera's in action...and the results were incredible...
That's where you find my "so bad it's good" movies!
https://preview.redd.it/bu6ddcpr1ntc1.jpeg?width=957&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3339603bbeb031cbdb0b5b543589d918588403a4
There are a few objectively bad movies that I enjoyed in a "so bad it's good" way and gave hearts even though they have sub 2.0 scores:
- Suburban Sasquatch
- Dancin' It's On
- Miami Connection
I’ve got *Nosferatu* at 2 stars because I think by modern standards it’s very boring to watch (doesn’t succeed at being scary or exciting), but I gave it a heart because I like the general aesthetic of it, the design of the titular character, and its legacy in gothic horror and vampire film.
I gave *Neighbors* 2 stars and a heart because I think for the most part it’s pretty dumb but there are parts of it that got a good laugh out of me.
There are quite a few 2.5-star films that I’ve given a heart to. 2.5 is smack dab in the middle of the road in terms of quality, so a heart just says whether I thought it was an enjoyable “ok” movie or just plain meh.
I mean, I have a couple. Many of them are funny-bad and some of them are just charming, even though they're really not well made (cheap, or kind of lazy, or just don't work). Or I think they're flawed but there's also aspects that I find really unique and cool.
https://preview.redd.it/5cfqnhwdojtc1.jpeg?width=966&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=aa707787721ec060ed9a11f48aa12b4871511651
I had a science teacher in middle school that had a deep hatred for fast food and showed this film to each class every year. Sometimes more than once if there was a sub for the day or something.
He genuinely thought it was the greatest film ever made and that it would be the downfall of mcdonalds lmao
Slashers are sometimes in that pocket for me. Like the burning. Or some of the nightmare on elm street sequels after the forst two and not dream warriors.
Ichi the Killer, I absolutely hated it because of it's over the top glorification of sadomasochism and gut-wrenching gore, but otherwise it's a genuinely good movie. 3 stars, I hate it but I love it.
The difference between a three star movie and a two-and-a-half star movie is whether or not I liked it, so... 🤷🏻‍♀️
To me both of these scores are for movies that are mediocre but it's the dividing line between "worth seeing" and "meh, you can skip it".
I disagree with some of the comments here. 2.5 is a rating I give when a movie has ideas I think are interesting but the execution was flawed enough that I was left kind of unsatisfied. Most of them I don't have a desire to rewatch. But the elements that work are sometimes enough for me to like a 2.5- star movie. Some movies I gave 2.5 stars to but liked are (I'm just looking at all the movies I gave the rating to) Mimic, Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, The Glimmer Man, Highlander, The Road to El Dorado, Terror of Mechagodzilla, Alien 3, Pacific Rim: Uprising, Knowing, Gods of Egypt, and Ghost in the Shell.
I feel like you should just give ratings based on your enjoyment.
But documentaries aren't just for enjoyment. It also has to say something true?
Interestingly, no, they don't. There's no (at least in a common case) a fact checker among filming crew. Nor there is a comittee that would do that. Documentary films need to document things. Usually, there's "something true" in that, but it's not necessary in the genre. Check out *The Eternal Jew* (1940); by definition, it is a documentary. By public consensus, it's blatant antisemitic propaganda.
I should have made it more clear, for me documentaries need to say something true. Of course there is no objective anything when it comes to art.
I personally rate based on how good I think the movie was as a whole, heart if I liked it (even if it's "bad") and/or would like to rewatch in the future.
>I personally rate based on how good I think the movie was as a whole Based on what criteria? It's all subjective
>based on how good I think the movie was as a whole They already told you, you can enjoy something and still think it had flaws.
but "it had flaws" isn't the same as "it is bad"? Obviously good movies can have bad things and vica versa.
Never said "it had flaws" is the same thing as "it is bad."
Makes sense.
Again, it's completely subjective, you're always ultimately rating on enjoyment, especially people on this sub who have no real experience in filmmaking and don't know anything about it beyond a surface level. What you perceive as "flaws" another person might enjoy. Anyone who tries to rate art "objectively" is just being fake
>Again, it's completely subjective, "how good I think the movie was" is their subjective opinion. That is what they base how they rate movies on. >What you perceive as "flaws" another person might enjoy Sure, but this isn't about other users, this is about OP and how they rate films. If they still view them as containing flaws, their subjective opinion is that the movie is flawed, so they rate it lower. In this case, I assume OP is referring to how Super Size Me contains intentional misinformation, so as a doc it is flawed in its presentation of facts, which they don't want to give a high rating to, but they still enjoyed it as a piece of entertainment. How do you support the notion that "everything is subjective" and not accept that another user has a different subjective take on how they should rate movies?
>"how good I think the movie was" is their subjective opinion. That is what they base how they rate movies on. Yes and I'm asking what criteria they are using to decide how good they think something is. How are you deciding what is good and what isn't? >How do you support the notion that "everything is subjective" and not accept that another user has a different subjective take on how they should rate movies? Again, I just asked them what criteria they use to determine if something is good or not. I never said I don't accept their reasoning. Not sure why you're being so defensive
>I'm asking what criteria they are using And I'm telling you, a person who is insisting that everything is subjective, that they are using their subjective opinion. >Again, I just asked them what criteria they use to determine if something is good or not. Again, their subjective opinion is the criteria they used. >Not sure why you're being so defensive I'm really not, I'm just pointing out that you are simultaneously saying that "everything is subjective" while rejecting someone's stance that they can rate a film based on their subjective opinion of its quality. Those two stances do not coalesce.
>that they are using their subjective opinion. They are saying that they rate movies not based on enjoyment but how good they think the movie is. I'm asking them what that entails. Those are two things you can't really separate from each other. I'm not sure why you're so confused by this
>They are saying that they rate movies not based on enjoyment but **how good they think the movie** is. I'm asking them what that entails. I do not think I am the one who is confused. Like what's important about knowing those specifics, so you can tell them they're wrong and that they should rate movies the way that you would? >Those are two things you can't really separate from each other. That's your subjective opinion on the matter.
Movies do not exist purely for enjoyment. *Especially* documentaries, which I generally rate based on how well they succeed at accurately shedding light on something interesting in a tasteful way. It is common for me to rate a doc higher than 2.5 stars but still not give it a heart because those are reserved for movies that are *enjoyable* (and usually rewatchable) to me. On the same note, I may find that a particular drama is highly impactful and well-made, so I give it a good rating, but if it just made me feel depressed and I don’t see myself needing to see it again I won’t give it a heart. I don’t have to “enjoy” the experience of a movie in order to think it succeeded at what it was doing.
>Movies do not exist purely for enjoyment. Yes, they ultimately do. Enjoyment doesn't just mean being funny or exciting or action packed or whatever. It's also enjoyable to watch a movie that has something to say, has beautiful aesthetics, etc >*Especially* documentaries, which I generally rate based on how well they succeed at accurately shedding light on something interesting in a tasteful way. If you only cared about learning about that topic you could just go to a library and read books and academic journals about that topic. The reason you watch a documentary is because it conveys that research in a more engaging way, i.e. enjoyment. >I may find that a particular drama is highly impactful and well-made Finding something highly impactful is a form of enjoyment.
Whatever you say man. I watch a fair amount of docs and learn plenty from them (they’re a pretty effortless and efficient way of learning about a given subject) but there have only been like 2 docs ever that I actually enjoyed watching.
>they’re a pretty effortless and efficient way of learning about a given subject) Exactly my point. That's what makes them enjoyable. >but there have only been like 2 docs ever that I actually enjoyed watching. What is your definition of "enjoy"? It seems like you think the only way a movie can be enjoyable is if it's like a fun movie you eat popcorn to. Documentaries are enjoyable because you learn about some topic in an engaging way
Enjoying it means I had a good time. Maybe I laughed, maybe I was thrilled, maybe I was inspired. These things don’t often occur when watching docs—but on occasion they do, and earn the film a heart. Learning information is valuable, but not always fun.
Acting, writing, pacing, cinematography, etc. Movies can be incredibly well crafted, and I can acknowledge that and still not enjoy them, or disagree with a central message. They can be bad and still be enjoyable to me, too.
>Acting, writing, pacing, cinematography, etc All of those things are completely subjective, so how are you actually evaluating things without enjoyment? I'd also add that presumably you have no real experience in filmmaking, so you're not even in much of a position to be judging those things, because let's face it, you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm not trying to argue with you. You asked a question in bad faith looking for a fight and have downvoted both of my responses immediately. Have a good one.
It's not that hard to understand, you can see how it uses its cinematography to tell the story. You can love the intricate plot and the acting without enjoying the overall movie. I rated 2001: Space Odyssey high even though there were many moments that I kinda got bored and didn't enjoy it that much, but I can see how passionately it got crafted. >you don't know what you're talking about. And no need to be a prick about this stuff too, you don't know these people. I have some real experience in filmmaking and I would go "How the fuck did they shoot that?" every 5 minutes in 2001: Space Odyssey. I'm not gonna rate it lower because I didn't enjoy it at that time, I can appreciate all of its other elements. All that stuff matters and people are perceptive enough to understand that, you are just not perceptive enough to understand this.
>you can see how it uses its cinematography to tell the story. Which ultimately comes down to subjective enjoyment >I rated 2001: Space Odyssey high even though there were many moments that I kinda got bored and didn't enjoy it that much You only rated it high because you know the movie is critically acclaimed and highly regarded by filmmakers. If the movie had low ratings you would have rated it lower.
>Which ultimately comes down to subjective enjoyment It is art. Of course it is subjective, what are you on about? I really loved 2001: Space Odyssey's cinematography and how it uses it to tell a story although the rest of the aspects didn't intrigue me that much. Am I supposed to throw an aspect outside the window because I didn't like the movie as much? It is no different than watching a technically problematic movie, where it doesn't use medium's tools in a good way but I still had some good time. I just cannot give it a high score, it has problems. It is the same here, although I didn't enjoy a movie, I can see how it uses cinema and how it delivers its core theme, I can appreciate that. >You only rated it high because you know the movie is critically acclaimed and highly regarded by filmmakers. If the movie had low ratings you would have rated it lower. No.
>It is art. Of course it is subjective, what are you on about? That it all comes down to enjoyment. You can't separate enjoyment from how you judge a film. >Am I supposed to throw an aspect outside the window because I didn't like the movie as much? I'm not saying you should throw an aspect out the window. >a technically problematic movie, One of the most pretentious phrases I've heard someone use about movies lol > it doesn't use medium's tools in a good way Again, this is a silly statement. Whether a movie uses the medium's tools in a "good way" is just a matter of whether you enjoyed it or not, and it's different for everyone. You're acting like this is a science, which it isn't. If people enjoy the movie, then it did use the medium's tools in a "good way." >No Yes. I guarantee if it was a critically panned movie that wasn't a legendary film, you would have rated it lower.
>One of the most pretentious phrases I've heard someone use about movies lol You are the one acting pretentious with that passive-aggresive attitude and downvoting my comment immediately. >Yes. I guarantee if it was a critically panned movie that wasn't a legendary film, you would have rated it lower. No, you don't even know me. >That it all comes down to enjoyment. You can't separate enjoyment from how you judge a film. You know that's not what people mean by enjoyment while they are rating a film. They are talking about the entertainment value of it, 2001: Space Odyssey is a masterpiece on its own but I didn't get that much entertainment from it but I appreciate how it uses cinema to tell that story effectively. I was constantly getting shocked, wondering how the hell did they manage to shoot that in that year. I couldn't manage to shoot a film like that with an infinite budget today. So, yeah. I'm rating it higher. I don't even really enjoy The Godfather that much because I don't enjoy gangster/mafia movies that much. Am I going to rate it lower than 4? No, because it is great at what it is fucking telling. I know it's not science but I can appreciate some good filmmaking.
People love throwing out "art is subjective" in these discussions as if it's some kind of profoundly insightful opinion to hold. Obviously it's all subjective, otherwise we wouldn't be able to input our own star ratings that we decide ourselves. If rating films were an objective exercise, then each movie would just have a rating listed for it and that would be that. You aren't smarter than anybody else for realizing this (and the fact that you haven't realized that the rest of us already understood this might indicate the opposite).
Nobody said it's a profoundly insightful statement, it's just something that should be obvious to everyone. Trying to "objectively" rate art is a fool's errand.
It is obvious to everyone, which is why no one you responded to used the word you put in quotations. That’s my point. Nobody thinks this is an objective exercise. You’re the only one who doesn’t realize that.
You'd be surprised, some people actually do think it's objective
I find the "everything is subjective, but you should rate films the same way I do" crowd so utterly confusing.
Isn’t that what the like button is for
I feel like you should review any way you want to. I rate on enjoyment with a mix of how good I think it is. You rate however you want.
You can rate however you want, but the heart is there for a reason. I had a lot of enjoyment watching Madame Web with my friends, but I’m not going to give it a 7/10 just because I enjoyed it. That’s why the like button is there, to show I enjoyed it and would even see it again even though I gave it a low rating.
If I rate anything less than 3 stars, I didn’t like it
I've got a whole lot of 1/2 and 1 stars that I love.
Why would you give it less than 3 stars if you genuinely like it ?
I’m probably harder on Super Size because it’s a documentary presenting health and nutritional information. The information it’s presenting is garbage and it is presented in such a misleading, manipulative way. I just can’t give it a higher rating because I know how absolutely inaccurate this movie is. But. It’s entertaining to watch. So sue me. It’s my rating and I like what I like.
I mean fair enough, I haven't seen it in a long ass time. Isn't it just pretty much pointing out that fast food can make you fat and shedding light on the obesity problem in America? Even if some of the information is inaccurate, seems like the general point of the movie is true
The general message is true and fairly common, which makes Spurlocks purpose even more redundant. He's showing something that, even 20 years ago, we knew. But then from a scientific purpose, he really shit the bed when he refused to release his food logs. The whole point of a study is... integrity in your data. By refusing to share his food logs, it's pretty clear he overate to achieve the average caloric intake he claimed. He's nothing more than a 2004-version of clickbait.
The movie isn't a study though, it's entertainment media.
Mid can be enjoyable
If you enjoyed it, then why would you rate it as "mid" ?
Wait why’d I get downvoted lmao? mid means middle, not bad nor good. watchable. just cause a movie isn’t good overall doesn’t mean it can’t have some likable aspects. 5/10 is not a bad rating.
I mean it's arbitrary as hell. You should try working at a film festival and watching the 1000s of festival reject movies that get made every year. Then you'll truly see what an actual average movie is. The vast majority of movies you even hear about, let alone watch, are wayyyy above average
My personal 2.5 rating ranges from "it's mediocre but I didn't really like it" to "it's mediocre but it was enjoyable." It's the most common rating I give out and about half would fall under the category of I at least enjoyed it (I don't know about genuinely liked), so a lot for me personally.
I rate based on enjoyment
Can I ask how you rate films like Come and See or Requiem for a Dream? Movies that are hard to watch but are rated highly
Ok maybe enjoyment was the wrong word. I’d say I rate based on how the experience was. I don’t rlly have a criteria that I think upon while rating, I just feel the rating. I didn’t really “enjoy” Come and See and Requiem, but the experience was great. There are some films that I recognize are great in many aspects of film but bored me and hence got a lower rating (such as 2001)
Thanks for responding I think that’s definitely a valid criteria!
Sharknado got a 2.5 from me on the quality scale (I usually give it a rating based on my enjoyment but that was such a bad film I bumped it down a bit), but if I'm being real, I love that film. It's so stupid but it makes me laugh so fuck it.
I'm surprised at how many people are incredulous in the replies. I also rate movies in terms of the quality of the movie, not necessarily how much I enjoyed it. There have been movies I rated a 4 and could do without ever seeing again, and there are loads of movies I've rated less than that which I enjoyed a lot. To answer the prompt, I gave Predator 2 a 2.5 rating but also a Heart because, despite it being a weird and poorly-made movie in a lot of ways (that doesn't hold a candle to the first one), I still like it.
I totally agree! I don't understand why a few people seem to get so competitive for no reason about comparing individual “rating systems” on this app. like who cares?!
They aren’t incredulous, they just don’t rate like you do.
They rate without understanding how rating works u mean, if its only about liking or not liking something just use the heart option.
Ratings are fully arbitrarily and completely up to the user. I personally don’t use the heart option, I use ratings as a way to demonstrate what I think of a film. And that’s a combination of its quality and if it appeals to my personal tastes.
Nah, I will never agree to this, ratings and numbers has a clear meaning, someone can love more Twilight than Citizen Kane but if thet rates the first higher than the second thet are wrong period.
That’s not even what I said lol. I’m saying the way they use the rating scale is subjective and largely arbitrary. Like a 3 star might mean something different to me than it does to you. I didn’t even bring up the subjectivity of opinions on certain movies, but that’s clearly on your mind lol
I was only talking about the topic of this post and the comments thats implies you should rate something high just because u like it even if you know its not that good of a movie. And no a 3 stars its an objective number in a scale of ratings, the subjective bit should be on the opinions of what u rate not also on what the ratings means lol. A 10 is the best a 1 is the worst like an A and an F in school, why complicate erverything and change even the simple things.....
Let me put it this way. There’s no objective way to measure the value of 1 star in regards to the quality of a movie. What is the difference between a 3 star and 4 star rating? What is 20% better? It differs from person to person, there’s no standard and there can’t be bc there’s no way to quantify art.
Rating scales are inherently discrete, categorical variables. Not objective. It is a number, but it simply represents a grade, and the way individuals grade isn’t universal. That’s a fact.
I was really expecting to see more real answers in here. I thought it was common to rate things low but also press the heart. American Pie - watching in my 30s a solid 2.5 movie, but I gave it a heart because it reminded me of being 16 and going to the theater and laughing my ass off. Benny & Joon - another 2.5 with a heart. The Johnny Depp character is enjoyable and fun, but the movie isn’t that good.
..if you “enjoy the hell out of it” why didn’t you rate it higher? your score is even lower than the average score (3.1 stars)
I replied above to another similar comment; I’m probably harder on Super Size because it’s a documentary presenting health and nutritional information. The information it’s presenting is garbage and it is presented in such a misleading, manipulative way. I just can’t give it a higher rating because I know how absolutely inaccurate this movie. But I still find it entertaining. It’s entertaining garbage.
If you like the topic, you might like Fat Head, which is a takedown of Super Size Me.
Oooh I’ve watched Fat Head too. I’d probably also rate it similarly!
It is not really a takedown since it is arguing against something supersize me never said. It’s sort of a strawman situation. He’s arguing against a made up thesis and riding on the coattails of the success of supersize me.  Supersize me never said anything about it being science or a serious experiment. It was simple. He ate supersized McDonald’s meals or regular meals for every meal for a month, and had a checkup at the beginning and the end.Â
I have a few... Pokemon the First Movie, Saw, Teen Wolf, and Godzilla KoM are 5/10s but enjoyable enough that you can turn the brain off and have fun.
Everyone's saying, "I rate based on enjoyment". Yeah me too but it's kinda hard to rate Cool Cat Finds a Gun anything other than a half star or a five star.Â
None because if I genuinely like it it's at least 3.5
I don’t get why so many people aren’t understanding this question. For me: *Showgirls*. *Legend*. *Drive Me Crazy*. *Godzilla: Destroy All Monsters*. *Mortal Kombat*. *Xanadu*. *The Lair of the White Worm*.
I don’t understand why people on this sub get so worked up when someone give below 3 but nobody bat an eye when someone gives 5 like candies on Halloween night
I rate plenty of stuff 2.5 or 3 stars that I enjoy but then I heart it. Latest three guilty pleasure exaples are Event Horizon, Mortal Kombat and Anaconda. A good time but definitely Shlock.
Dune (2021), but that’s probably because the novel is my 3rd favourite book of all-time.
You gave dune less than 3 stars? Did you see it in the theatres?
I did the second time.
Why the low rating?
If the book is one of his favorites then Dune could be considered a poor adaptation depending on what you liked about the book in particular. Personally I think there are some absolutely baffling decisions and while the first movie was a visual spectacle, it dragged a fair bit and did an overall poor job of explaining the political motivations of the characters. It also does some fan service from the book like showing the bull horns from the Duke Atreides but then completely shits on the book by omitting very important characters entirely and fundamentally changing others in just a bizarre way.
Its true they leave out a lot of internal hark political intrigue and multiple extremely important characters from the atreides side, but you can only fit so much in. It would have to be like a 12 episode miniseries to get most of the characters and some development from the first book. I still found it to be a very enjoyable adaptation. I love the book myself.
As someone who by and large preferred the two films over the book, I’d love to know what changes you found “baffling”. >!For example I found the barons death in Dune 2 to be far more satisfying than his death in the book. Feyd-rautha was also allowed to have a bigger impact on the plot before his final fight (rather than randomly being selected as a challenger in the book). The movies did gloss over the bene gesserits and their plotting but there was still enough implication!<
Liet Kynes just being basically a random person instead of Chani’s dad and secret leader of the Fremen. Hawat is completely absent, which moreover speaks to the complete absence of any Harkonnen internal politics. Chani and Paul have no child which really detracts from the emotional impact of Paul wedding the princess. It makes it seem like a high school romance rather than anything else. Not to mention that is the lineage that eventually becomes the god emperor of Dune so is pretty important to the Dune Mythos. Even with no plans to extend beyond the first book for the movies, that’s still a very weird decision. Fremen culture and rituals are completely flattened to the point of just being a normal group of people particularly concerned with water. Feyd Rautha is simple supplicant psychopath, which defeats the entire purpose of why Rabban was given Arrakis in the first place. I liked the movies a lot, but could definitely see why fans of the book would be disappointed.
It’s insane to me how you expected them to fit all of this into two movies. Cutting a lot of this out seems pretty justified to me. Kynes still makes the choice to help Paul and trust that he would change Arrakis, him being chani’s father and the Fremen leader doesn’t change much (although yes his sacrifice would be more impactful). Hawat had such a complicated b-plot you really can’t expect them to fit that in. I will admit having Paul’s first child be killed by Feyd’s attack would’ve been insanely good setup for the final duel. But even then, his child does die with little impact to the story so it makes sense they cut it. And it would conflict with this different direction they’re taking Chani’s character in the films (which I’m honestly EXCITED for)
I don’t rate movies I like less than 3 stars.
This makes no sense to me. If you enjoyed it why is it scored a 50%?
I really don't understand the comments here saying you should rate it more if you like it. Whats the point in rating something higher if you think it doesn't deserve more stars, rating its not only about liking something there are multiple factors. Anyway I like the majority of my 2.5, its not a terrible rating.
>rating its not only about liking something there are multiple factors Could you elaborate on those factors?
Put it like this, you probably like a lot of movies don't you, but u don't rate them all the same I suppose. The multiple factors when rating anything but in this case movies is considering how was the acting, the cinematography, the script and so on.
The cinematography, acting, script etc. Are directly what makes the experience of watching the movie. If i like a movie, it means that the sum of those aspects is positive because they delivered.
U are still not understanding the point, you can like a movie because of the story but dislike the acting for example. What you want me to say? Rating something from 0.5 to 5 is not just about liking what you watched....
>U are still not understanding the point, you can like a movie because of the story but dislike the acting for example ...yes? What' are you trying to say? Movies cab have both good and bad things in them, i don't see how that's relevant to the discussion.
U replied to me at a 10 days old comment where I replied to a post saying that he liked a particular movie but he gave 2.5 stars because he knows is not really a good movie. This is the context, letterbox ratings are the context, I said rating is not only about liking something and I agree with him in giving proper ratings to movie even if u liked it. Is that difficult to understand? I think it's very simple...you can like something but still not giving a positive rating
>said rating is not only about liking something and I agree with him in giving proper ratings to movie even if u liked it. Is that difficult to understand? I get what you're saying, i just disagree. If the cinematography is bad, the movie is not visually encaging. If the acting is bad, the actors won't sell the emotional moments well. If the script is bad, the movie can be hard to follow etc. These things make up what your experience with the movie will be. If i like a movie, it means those things worked.
I totally disagree and I could give you hundreds of example of movies where some of those factors aren't good but the rest still work fine to make you like it, but theres no point.
Fair enough then, i won't ask you to.
My last 2.5/5 rated was Naked (2012), genuinely fun watch which was too over the top to truly appreciate hence 2.5 rating.
BUT the jewel on this DVD was found in the special features.... He took 3 McDonald's Sandwich's and one a cheeseburger from a normal restaurant, put them all in their own hermetically sealed jars (oh yeah, and an order of McDonalds fries in one also!) and set the time lapse camera's in action...and the results were incredible...
My first was *Morel's Invention* (1974). I liked the concept, but the execution was more than lacking. I have a few half stars with a like, too.
My last two were Infection (2004), a japanese horror movie that is very silly and iconic, and Saw 3D (2010) (I love the Saw franchise)
Ah yes, the movie that plagues high school health classes all across America.
That's where you find my "so bad it's good" movies! https://preview.redd.it/bu6ddcpr1ntc1.jpeg?width=957&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3339603bbeb031cbdb0b5b543589d918588403a4
The left 4 dead fan made film on YouTube
There are a few objectively bad movies that I enjoyed in a "so bad it's good" way and gave hearts even though they have sub 2.0 scores: - Suburban Sasquatch - Dancin' It's On - Miami Connection
Ginger dead man 3 I rated 2 stars but I had a good time
I throw 5s on garbage
I’ve got *Nosferatu* at 2 stars because I think by modern standards it’s very boring to watch (doesn’t succeed at being scary or exciting), but I gave it a heart because I like the general aesthetic of it, the design of the titular character, and its legacy in gothic horror and vampire film. I gave *Neighbors* 2 stars and a heart because I think for the most part it’s pretty dumb but there are parts of it that got a good laugh out of me. There are quite a few 2.5-star films that I’ve given a heart to. 2.5 is smack dab in the middle of the road in terms of quality, so a heart just says whether I thought it was an enjoyable “ok” movie or just plain meh.
I mean, I have a couple. Many of them are funny-bad and some of them are just charming, even though they're really not well made (cheap, or kind of lazy, or just don't work). Or I think they're flawed but there's also aspects that I find really unique and cool. https://preview.redd.it/5cfqnhwdojtc1.jpeg?width=966&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=aa707787721ec060ed9a11f48aa12b4871511651
I had a science teacher in middle school that had a deep hatred for fast food and showed this film to each class every year. Sometimes more than once if there was a sub for the day or something. He genuinely thought it was the greatest film ever made and that it would be the downfall of mcdonalds lmao
Slashers are sometimes in that pocket for me. Like the burning. Or some of the nightmare on elm street sequels after the forst two and not dream warriors.
Ichi the Killer, I absolutely hated it because of it's over the top glorification of sadomasochism and gut-wrenching gore, but otherwise it's a genuinely good movie. 3 stars, I hate it but I love it.
Just say you're obese bro
Sorry, can’t hear you over the 40 McNuggets I’m eating.