People are scared to use the 10-scale properly

Cdogg pointed this out years ago and he was absolutely right, but the change hasn't happened.

When people rate movies in a scale from 1 to 10, they usually use like four or five numbers of it.

If the film is total pish, you give it 5/10 or 4/10. If a movie gets 6/10, it's clearly a bad movie too. Good films are 8 or 9 10 is for absolute classics.

That's not how it works, fucker's!

A piece of piss is 1 or 2, a solid three-star movie is 6! Use the whole scale!

If we are scared to give low scores, we end up with this nonsense that 6/10 is bad, 8/10 is very good and 85% of all movies are rated on this three-point scale.

This thread is a solid 9/10, for example

 

When I reviewed more films on here I changed to a 5 point system for this reason. Easier to break films down on that scale I think.

 

yeh it's interesting how 3/5 is good, but 6/10 is bad

 

I agree. In fact I’d like someone to give a few examples of movies they think are 1’s and or 2’s.

 

I use the full scale.
If I feel a movie is average, but watchable, it gets a 5/10

So, in today's movie climate, hardly anything gets past a 7/10

 

Dracula 3000 is a solid 2. Dogshit

 

1s and 2s?

A lot of made-for-Netflix movies

 

1 or 2 would be something like reeds YouTube videos... 1 to be exact... any professionally made flick deserves at least a 4 or 5.... people like reed are out there to remind us about the lower end of the 1-10 scale.

 

Me and my family like to drink and MST3K shitty movies once or twice a week for laughs, so I've probably seen plenty of 1 and 2's........or at least 3's and 4's, depending on your scale.

We went through a shitty Christmas movie phase recently (A successful and prolific genre that absolutely boggles my mind BTW). Titles included: "A Dogwalkers Christmas Tale", and "The Rooftop Christmas Tree". Real absolute dreck, LOL!

 

Ebert always said he hated the star system (him and his colleagues always used a 4-Star system BTW), but he had to use it because publishers and the public kind of demanded it of him. He simplified it even more when he was on television with Siskel, to the simple thumbs up, or thumbs down.

What's most important is the content of the review, not the amount of arbitrary stars or numbers that get doled out. He might have given one movie a 2 1/2 star review, that he enjoyed personally more then a movie he gave a 3 star review for, but felt the 3 star movie fit into it's chosen niche for the people it was intended to be made for, better then the other.

Dude was simply a good writer. He reviewed many movies he hated that I could tell I might like, based on the content of his review, and visa versa.

There's not a reviewer on his site right now who could carry his jock (though some are definitely better then others), but I get annoyed as fuck when most of the comment sections are filled with whiners bitching "You gave such and such movie this many stars, why the fuck did you give THIS movie, This many stars?"................Like, just read the content of the review, the stars don't actually mean shit, you cunts!

 

A 5 stars/point system is better:

1 star = bad, total piece of shit
2 stars = so-so/ one or two redeeming qualities
3 stars = average/watchable but forgettable
4 stars = good
5 stars = classic

 

I remember an episode of 'At The Movies' were Siskel & Eber went at each other's throats reviewing the same night 'Altered States' and 'Scanners'. Each one hated the movie the other liked a lot and that happened with both films for them. It was amusing listening each other's point about why the particular film sucked and also why it was brilliant.