MovieChat Forums > Troll 2 Discussion > How do you rate bad movies? Troll 2 a 10...

How do you rate bad movies? Troll 2 a 10 or 0?

posted 15 years ago by taraalcar
9 replies | jump to latest

When rating movies, should you decide your rating based on the overall professional quality of the film, including cinematography, strength of performances, effects, etc? Or should you rate based on the total enjoyment you experienced while watching it?
Troll 2 is of course a 0 by any standard if you are going by the former, but clearly its entertainment value is through the roof.. you can certainly have more fun watching Troll 2 with a group of friends than you can with, for example, Schindler's List, a 10 in nearly all regards.

So what do you think? Should a movie be rated depending on its quality? Or its enjoyment value? Does Troll 2 deserve a 0 or a 10?

[–] starman15317 14 years ago

Good question. If there's a bad movie that I enjoyed then I would give it however many stars it deserves (never a 10). If it's painfully bad it gets 1 star. I gave this 1 star because even though it's hilarious, it's painfully bad too

[–] jwstaube 14 years ago

For me, it depends on where I'm rating something. If I'm doing a rating on Netflix, I'll rate based on entertainment, because I want Netflix to recommend other such bad movies that I'd enjoy to me, and I don't want to get such movies mixed up with other lowly rated movies that I WOULDN'T enjoy.

If I'm giving a rating to a friend, I rate based on professional quality of the film. For example, I'll tell someone that a film is God-awful, but I don't mean it's not entertaining, I just mean it's poorly made/written/acted etc., and I'll supplement my comment by telling them that it's also hilarious.

[–] onyx-1 14 years ago

Yeah, I had the same dilemma with rating it. I mean for quality it's definitely a 1 or 0 out of 10, but it's also one of the more entertaining movies I've seen in my life. Maybe a 7 or 8 out of 10 if you rate it on just entertainment and (unintentional) humor. I split the difference and ended up giving it 4/10.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GeneNash_com 14 years ago

When deciding ratings, I always try to separate my personal feelings about a film from its intrinsic qualities. But I'd give Troll 2 a 0 either way.

[–] xPhenomenusx 13 years ago

Well, here you can't actually give it a 0.

I gave it a 1. I think it deserves to be in the top 250. It's one of the worst movies, and one of my favorites.

Canadian Bacon - 7/10
Beneath the Planet of the Apes - 7/10

[–] capnmorgan5150 12 years ago

It's a tough question. If something is so bad, it's good, how do you rate it? With something like Troll 2, you would almost have to hear about it through word of mouth, because the rating doesn't really give you that information. I've downloaded a lot of movies, and the only way to really tell how bad (good) they are is to go into the imdb forums and see what people are saying about it. It seems like there should be a website that caters to people who are looking for so bad they're good movies.

[–] NewID 11 years ago

That's a question in my mind since someone objected that I gave 7 to Turkish Star Wars. My answer was that every film I rated have different reasons for having their stars. In that case an empty and mediocre film is the worst rated.

Films like this kind should rated on how they are really good at being "so bad its so good" in my opinion. So you can differentiate these gems from many films just with low ratings.

Also it would be cool that some aspects of the films could be rated seperately. Other than cinematography etc, one i really care is "re-watchability" for example. There are some really good films that you will never want to watch again.

[–] tobyrclark 11 years ago

I rate based on both quality and personal enjoyment. Troll 2 is incompetent enough for a 2/10, but not personally offensive enough to me to deserve a 1.

The Angels Have the Phone Box