Great question. I don't like the 10 point rating system either. In my brain, I have a 4 point rating system that is not necessarily based on objective quality:
1. Not worth watching. Technically inept.
2. Flawed but maybe of interest to fans.
3. Average. Worth watching once. Many people would find this entertaining.
4. I will watch this again. Mass appeal and/or technical proficiency + artistic mastery.
I try to translate that into a 10 point system (most common).
1. Inept in all ways. Not worth anyone's time.
2. Technically inept but possibly a few moments that don't suck.
3. Inept but a few good ideas, a good concept poorly executed. Amateur.
4. Some technical skill but boring, excessive dialog and poor acting.
5. Good technical execution but a flawed concept or poorly written. Artistically flawed. Maybe of interest to franchise or genre fans.
6. Good technical execution, some artistic merit, probably popular.
7. Excellent technical execution, real talent, excellent acting, some artistic merit.
8. Excellent technical execution, well above average talent and acting, considerable artistic merit.
9. Outstanding technical execution, exceptional acting and artistic merit.
10. You know it when you see it.
I won't claim to be entirely consistent when I rate movies. There are times when I give genre films higher ratings than they deserve because I am rating them against other genre films and I feel that is fair. For example, against all films a movie might deserve a 6, but for it's genre I might give it a 7, or even an 8. Basically the better the film, the harsher I critique it.
reply
share