My Rating System For Movies And TV Shows

[Bartmanhomer]

I'm going to tell you how I rate movies and TV shows. I used a five-star system to rate how good, bad or neutral based on my own opinion. I also used a .5 to include some potential of my rating (1.5-4.5). So here goes my rating

1-Very Bad: If a movie or TV show is very bad it's because it's very boring or just plain horrible which not even a watchable entertainment for my taste.

2-Bad: If a movie or TV show is bad it's because it's has a lot of terrible flaws in it. May be as boring or just as bad but as bad as a 1 star but it still bad in this rating.

3-Average: If a movie or TV show is average then It has some improvement to make it decent. It's not as bad as 1 and 2 stars but not as good as 4 and 5 stars

4-Good: If a movie or TV show is good then it makes a lot of improvement to make a good movie or TV show. It may not be an award-winning movie or TV show but it deserved to have an above-average rating.

5-Very Good: If a movie or TV show is very good then it's a perfect movie or TV show. Definitely award-winning with no problems and flaws. The highest rating of the star system.

I hope I explain really clearly about my version of ratings. It's makes me a better movie and TV critic. The reason why I post this thread to explain how I rate the movies and TV shows. If anybody have any questions or comments about my rating system please free feel to post.

[KillianHawkeye]

This may be the least informative post I've ever seen you make.

Other than saying that low numbers go to things which are boring or go against your tastes in entertainment, you've not explained any of your criteria for how you judge things. "Shows improvement" (compared to what? ) and "award-worthy" don't really mean anything. "Perfect" is also rather suspect, as nothing is ever really perfect no matter how much we love it.

Also, you don't need to explain that a 3 on a scale of 1 to 5 is average or that it's "not as bad as 1 and 2 stars but not as good as 4 and 5 stars", or that a 4 is "above average". Just assume that anyone reading this already knows how numbers work.

Instead, talk about what specific things you value in entertainment. Story, acting, dialogue/writing, timing/pacing, special effects? Something else? I've seen a lot of these threads of yours, but you hardly explain what you actually like about anything.

[Bartmanhomer]

This may be the least informative post I've ever seen you make.

Other than saying that low numbers go to things which are boring or go against your tastes in entertainment, you've not explained any of your criteria for how you judge things. "Shows improvement" (compared to what? ) and "award-worthy" don't really mean anything. "Perfect" is also rather suspect, as nothing is ever really perfect no matter how much we love it.

Also, you don't need to explain that a 3 on a scale of 1 to 5 is average or that it's "not as bad as 1 and 2 stars but not as good as 4 and 5 stars", or that a 4 is "above average". Just assume that anyone reading this already knows how numbers work.

Instead, talk about what specific things you value in entertainment. Story, acting, dialogue/writing, timing/pacing, special effects? Something else? I've seen a lot of these threads of yours, but you hardly explain what you actually like about anything.

I've have explain what I like and dislike when it comes to TV show and movies.

[Peelee]

Bartmanhomer, I think your reviews could benefit from reading other, famous reviewers and doing critical reading of them; don't just look at what they're talking about, but why they're talking about it. You often say things like "This move was good because it had action, romance, and comedy," but most movies have that, so it's not really telling us anything. For example, look at this excerpt from Roger Ebert's review for Star Wars:

The movie relies on the strength of pure narrative, in the most basic storytelling form known to man, the Journey. All of the best tales we remember from our childhoods had to do with heroes setting out to travel down roads filled with danger, and hoping to find treasure or heroism at the journey's end. In "Star Wars," George Lucas takes this simple and powerful framework into outer space, and that is an inspired thing to do, because we no longer have maps on Earth that warn, "Here there be dragons." We can't fall off the edge of the map, as Columbus could, and we can't hope to find new continents of prehistoric monsters or lost tribes ruled by immortal goddesses. Not on Earth, anyway, but anything is possible in space, and Lucas goes right ahead and shows us very nearly everything. We get involved quickly, because the characters in "Star Wars" are so strongly and simply drawn and have so many small foibles and large, futile hopes for us to identify with. And then Lucas does an interesting thing. As he sends his heroes off to cross the universe and do battle with the Forces of Darth Vader, the evil Empire, and the awesome Death Star, he gives us lots of special effects, yes -- ships passing into hyperspace, alien planets, an infinity of stars -- but we also get a wealth of strange living creatures, and Lucas correctly guesses that they'll be more interesting for us than all the intergalactic hardware.

The most fascinating single scene, for me, was the one set in the bizarre saloon on the planet Tatooine. As that incredible collection of extraterrestrial alcoholics and bug-eyed martini drinkers lined up at the bar, and as Lucas so slyly let them exhibit characteristics that were universally human, I found myself feeling a combination of admiration and delight. "Star Wars" had placed me in the presence of really magical movie invention: Here, all mixed together, were whimsy and fantasy, simple wonderment and quietly sophisticated storytelling.

You can sum that up as "The characters go on an adventure, it's got action and romance," but Ebert doesn't do that. He tells you how the movie made him feel. He does not say "this is an award-worthy movie," he tells you why the elements worked as they did. Saying "this movie is award-worthy" is not very informative, because there's nothing backing it up, and whether or not a movie should win an award shouldn't really matter for reviews; a good review is the award. When you review movies, you shouldn't just recap the plot and say you liked it; you should say what, specifically, you liked about it, why you liked that, what you didn't like and why you didn't like it, how you think the whole thing came together. There are various parts that make up the whole: acting, directing, writing, costuming, etc. etc. If a movie is very well written but has terrible acting, then saying "I give it two out of five stars, it is not award winning" doesn't convey that. You want your own review to paint a picture of the movie, not just say how many stars you'd give it.

[Bartmanhomer]

Bartmanhomer, I think your reviews could benefit from reading other, famous reviewers and doing critical reading of them; don't just look at what they're talking about, but why they're talking about it. You often say things like "This move was good because it had action, romance, and comedy," but most movies have that, so it's not really telling us anything. For example, look at tihs exerpt from Roger Ebert's review for Star Wars:



You can sum that up as "The characters go on an adventure, it's got action and romance," but Ebert doesn't do that. He tells you how the movie made him feel. He does not say "this is an award-worthy movie," he tells you why the elements worked as they did. Saying "this movie is award-worthy" is not very informative, because there's nothing backing it up, and whether or not a movie should win an award shouldn't really matter for reviews; a good review is the award. When you review movies, you shouldn't just recap the plot and say you liked it; you should say what, specifically, you liked about it, why you liked that, what you didn't like and why you didn't like it, how you think the whole thing came together. There are various parts that make up the whole: acting, directing, writing, costuming, etc. etc. If a movie is very well written but as terrible writing, then saying "I give it two out of five stars, it is not award winning" doesn't convey that. You want your own review to paint a picture of the movie, not just say how many stars you'd give it.

Ok. Thank you Peelee.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

My rating system for movies and TV shows:

Every movie gets between zero and four points in each of the following categories: setting (multiple interesting sets), story (pacing, twists), extras (comedy, gore) and monster (awesomeness, kill power). These points are added together, for a perfect score of 16 points. 9-12 points is considered great, 5-8 points is a decent, still entertaining achievement.

The system works particularly well when rating movies that do not contain a monster, since they need to score an average of 3/4 on the remaining categories to make it into the great section.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm going to tell you how I rate movies and TV shows. I used a five-star system to rate how good, bad or neutral based on my own opinion. I also used a .5 to include some potential of my rating (1.5-4.5). So here goes my rating

1-Very Bad: If a movie or TV show is very bad it's because it's very boring or just plain horrible which not even a watchable entertainment for my taste.

2-Bad: If a movie or TV show is bad it's because it's has a lot of terrible flaws in it. May be as boring or just as bad but as bad as a 1 star but it still bad in this rating.

3-Average: If a movie or TV show is average then It has some improvement to make it decent. It's not as bad as 1 and 2 stars but not as good as 4 and 5 stars

4-Good: If a movie or TV show is good then it makes a lot of improvement to make a good movie or TV show. It may not be an award-winning movie or TV show but it deserved to have an above-average rating.

5-Very Good: If a movie or TV show is very good then it's a perfect movie or TV show. Definitely award-winning with no problems and flaws. The highest rating of the star system.

I hope I explain really clearly about my version of ratings. It's makes me a better movie and TV critic. The reason why I post this thread to explain how I rate the movies and TV shows. If anybody have any questions or comments about my rating system please free feel to post.

5/10, while functional the rating system is functional but does not have the additional features that viewers expect these days.

For instance, I suggest appending 'i' to a score to indicate that it's imaginary: either you have now seen the media in question or the media does not exist. 'j' is, of course, the engineer's imaginary, in that it does exist but is so poorly made it doesn't for all practical purposes (a good example being Fantastic Four films).

This is, of course, just one example of many features that may be included in a scoring system that days.

[robsworld]

I'm going to tell you how I rate movies and TV shows. I used a five-star system to rate how good, bad or neutral based on my own opinion. I also used a .5 to include some potential of my rating (1.5-4.5).

Given that this is a 'Rating System', and not an explanation for why a specific rating is applied, I'd say it's fine. My own 'Rating System' is similar. All such rating systems are fairly objective. The rating you apply will always be subjective to the viewer - and I don't see a problem with that.

No one (as far as I know) has developed an algorithm that 'measures' the movie in order to come up with an 'accurate' rating. Netflix and other movie streaming sites are constantly tweaking their algorithms in order to get a more accurate reflection of what constitutes a '5 Star' movie (regardless of the 'rating system' - it could be 1-10, it could be percentage, etc).

Some of these take user reviews and average those. Apply the ratings (your ratings) as you feel is best. Most people read reviews with a 'skeptical' eye. It bothers me when I add a movie to queue (Amazon, Netflix, what-have-you) based upon a 'rating' of 4.5 stars, only to find that it's a horrible movie.

If I have time, I read the review(s) before adding a movie to my queue. One can never assume that the 'advertised' rating is 'accurate' in any way to what the viewer will experience.

As you said - It's your opinion. And it should be. If people read your reviews (I've been writing reviews since the late 90s) and they have the same tastes as you, then your ratings will be relevant to them. Learn from the reviews of others, and do your best to convey your feelings about a movie.

When I have time, I write well considered and descriptive reviews. When rushed, tired or bored, my reviews will likewise 'suck' - Thanks for your sharing your rating system.

[Bartmanhomer]

Given that this is a 'Rating System', and not an explanation for why a specific rating is applied, I'd say it's fine. My own 'Rating System' is similar. All such rating systems are fairly objective. The rating you apply will always be subjective to the viewer - and I don't see a problem with that.

No one (as far as I know) has developed an algorithm that 'measures' the movie in order to come up with an 'accurate' rating. Netflix and other movie streaming sites are constantly tweaking their algorithms in order to get a more accurate reflection of what constitutes a '5 Star' movie (regardless of the 'rating system' - it could be 1-10, it could be a percentage, etc).

Some of these take user reviews and average those. Apply the ratings (your ratings) as you feel is best. Most people read reviews with a 'sceptical' eye. It bothers me when I add a movie to queue (Amazon, Netflix, what-have-you) based upon a 'rating' of 4.5 stars, only to find that it's a horrible movie.

If I have time, I read the review(s) before adding a movie to my queue. One can never assume that the 'advertised' rating is 'accurate' in any way to what the viewer will experience.

As you said - It's your opinion. And it should be. If people read your reviews (I've been writing reviews since the late 90s) and they have the same tastes as you, then your ratings will be relevant to them. Learn from the reviews of others, and do your best to convey your feelings about a movie.

When I have time, I write well-considered and descriptive reviews. When rushed, tired or bored, my reviews will likewise 'suck' - Thanks for your sharing your rating system.

Thank you. I appreciate your comments. Yes people use different rating systems for movies and other things for evaluating their feeling about with is relevant to them.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Given that this is a 'Rating System', and not an explanation for why a specific rating is applied, I'd say it's fine.

But it doesn't need a thread to explain it. "I give it five stars if I like it a bunch" is a pretty universal rating system, and reading any of his reviews will tell you that's what he uses. That's why it's a good choice for semi-random reviews that anyone should be able to understand. This thread doesn't work because the others did.

And that's why we're sillying it up in here.

[Cockroach King]

I've have explain what I like and dislike when it comes to TV show and movies.

{scrubbed}

[Bartmanhomer]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{scrubbed}

[BannedInSchool]

Heh, back when weekly TV listings were printed in a booklet that came with the paper I looked for the "good two-star movies", the category into which many SF/F movies fell.

[Algeh]

Heh, back when weekly TV listings were printed in a booklet that came with the paper I looked for the "good two-star movies", the category into which many SF/F movies fell.

When my grandmother first learned how to use her VCR, she'd tape any movie on a channel she got with 3 or more stars listed in the TV schedule (which was sent as part of the printed newspaper at time, for you youngins). We have MANY VHS tapes with random movies on them now...

[Kid Jake]

It's an innovative system; but personally I prefer my way of scoring movies and tv shows. Like most I give it a number between 1 and 10. 1 means I hated it, 10 means I loved it.

8 or 9 means that I liked it, but it could use some improvement. 7 means I absolutely hated it, but it's too popular to admit that. 6 means that I didn't actually watch it, but don't want to be left out of the conversation. A 2 means that I've been kidnapped and am being held against my will, please send help. 3 is not yet implemented. 4 means I liked it, but it's too unpopular to admit that I liked it in front of strangers. 5 means that I watched the whole damned thing and still couldn't tell you what it's about.


So, let's take a classic like the Terminator for example. Innovative special effects, a solid premise, nonstop action. I'd rate it a 2. A solid 2. Definitely a 2.

[Peelee]

It's an innovative system; but personally I prefer my way of scoring movies and tv shows. Like most I give it a number between 1 and 10. 1 means I hated it, 10 means I loved it.

8 or 9 means that I liked it, but it could use some improvement. 7 means I absolutely hated it, but it's too popular to admit that. 6 means that I didn't actually watch it, but don't want to be left out of the conversation. A 2 means that I've been kidnapped and am being held against my will, please send help. 3 is not yet implemented. 4 means I liked it, but it's too unpopular to admit that I liked it in front of strangers. 5 means that I watched the whole damned thing and still couldn't tell you what it's about.


So, let's take a classic like the Terminator for example. Innovative special effects, a solid premise, nonstop action. I'd rate it a 2. A solid 2. Definitely a 2.

Sending help, but you didn't specify where, so I took a guess. Here's hoping you're being held captive in coastal Greece.

[Iruka]

Sending help, but you didn't specify where, so I took a guess. Here's hoping you're being held captive in coastal Greece.

I will take it upon myself to check the local candy store.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

He's not in any of the local warehouses.



Except if he's kind of tall with a dark goatee, but there are too many armed guards near that one.

[Algeh]

I just checked both my swimming pool AND where I keep my booze, and he's not either of those places.

[Peelee]

I just checked both my swimming pool AND where I keep my booze, and he's not either of those places.

...you don't keep your booze in your swimming pool? Kinda weird, but hey, I ain't judging.

[Knaight]

I've seen pool based cooling techniques before, albeit for water bottles. I can confirm that they work wonders.

[Ninja_Prawn]

It makes me a better movie and TV critic.

If you're serious about becoming a better critic, please listen to the advice Peelee is offering. At the moment, there is a lot of room for improvement in your writing...

As well as reading reviews written by professionals, there are some other things you can do. You could gain some more understanding about how and why films and TV shows work (or don't work). Think about the message a director is trying to convey, and how good of a job they did. Reflect on what makes an actor's performance powerful. Read up on the context that a film was released within, especially for older works.

Studying theory isn't fun, but it's important for this sort of thing.

[Anonymouswizard]

...you don't keep your booze in your swimming pool? Kinda weird, but hey, I ain't judging.

Look, some of us don't have enough booze to justify it. Taking a bath cam be difficult with all the bottles and kegs , but it frees up more of the pool for storing dried meat.

[truemane]

The thing is, Bartmanhomer, and understand I mean this in the most respectful, most loving way, no one cares about your opinion. Or mine. Or anyone's. Opinions, in and of themselves, not only don't matter, but they don't MEAN anything. I can say "Godfather is the best movie" or "Godfather is the worst movie" but either opinion, all on its own, can only really ever generate agreement or disagreement. An unsupported opinion is the end of useful conversation, not the start.

What you want to try to do is present a point of view. What's it like to see this movie? What's the experience of it? What does it seem to be trying to do? How is it succeeding or failing? How does it match with your own personal taste in films, your principles, your values, what you want to see or don't want to see? How does it get things done? What are it's specific strengths and specific weaknesses?

Saying "I like it it's great" isn't a conversation. And it's not communicating anything. It's just a flat, round declarative statement that can only be answered with "You're right" or "You're wrong" and not much else. WHY do you like it? Do you like it because this is the sort of thing you like, or despite the fact that it's not the sort of thing you like?

And I second getting to know the way films generate meaning. Even a little knowledge of mise-en-scene, the differences between the different kinds of shots and cuts, can work wonders, not just for your criticism, but your enjoyment of the medium. Because I'm not saying that every "Great" movie is automatically GREAT, but it's one thing to see (for example) Citizen Kane and be all "Meh, it's no Endgame" but it's quite another to gain some knowledge of what movies were like at the time of Kane's release, what innovations it spearheaded, and the way it's put together, and then make a decision about how you feel about it. There's a big difference between not liking something everyone else likes and not liking something because you don't understand why everyone likes it (look up the work of Armand White sometime if you ever want to see a truly intelligent, informed contrarian in action).

And again, remember, I mean all this fondly. Good criticism is a subject near and dear to my stuffy academics's heart. It requires (or at least encourages) careful thought and self awareness and putting more of it in the world is a good thing.

[Peelee]

I've seen pool based cooling techniques before, albeit for water bottles. I can confirm that they work wonders.

Keeping water bottles in a pool full of gin does have a certain logic to it...

Look, some of us don't have enough booze to justify it. Taking a bath can be difficult with all the bottles and kegs , but it frees up more of the pool for storing dried meat.

But where do your spices go?

[Anonymouswizard]

But where do your spices go?

The oven of course, it saves on air freshener.

[AMFV]

The only acceptable rating system for cinema is Percentage of the Film Which Features Jason Statham Kicking People. Or PotFWFJSKP. Nothing else determines quality cinema.

[KillianHawkeye]

What about the parts where Jason Statham is punching someone? Or maybe even more importantly, the parts where Jason Statham is doing stunts while driving a car??

[AMFV]

What about the parts where Jason Statham is punching someone? Or maybe even more importantly, the parts where Jason Statham is doing stunts while driving a car??

Punching counts as half-kicking, and driving is done by what action of the legs? It's kicking a car.

[Peelee]

Punching counts as half-kicking, and driving is done by what action of the legs? It's kicking a car.

What about Kickpuncher?