The Key to Disseminating Life as Fiction Ratings
The reason I started doing ratings was because I wanted to remember, in a quantifiable manner, how I felt about a film. Considering the amount of films I see every year, it becomes almost necessary to be able to recall the degree to which I enjoyed something. However, it is and has never been a perfect science. They're just shortcuts for me and for the reader, and shortcuts are often a risky way to get to destinations.
Update on February 12, 2009: In ways, I consider each rating to be divided between two primary questions: How much do I personally like the film, and how good is it on a technical and fundamental basis. However, the question I often end up asking is, "How has this aged over time?"
As close to perfect as possible. Everything clicks.
A great film that I find myself feeling deeply passionate about. Something that sticks with me years after viewing, and probably pretty original to boot.
A very, very good film, possibly great, but misses out on being an all-time favorite. More often than not, this would be highly recommended without reservations.
A good film with some nagging flaws that kept it from being great. Occasionally, some very good films will end up here due to their lack of scope.
The film works. I enjoyed it, but maybe it lacked the depth necessary to stand out. Or sometimes, it's used as a "disappointment" rating when I find myself let down by the promise of a possible classic.
Generally considered the lowest level at which I will actually recommend a film, but even that's rare. Uusally it's a movie with a few qualities that stand above what is otherwise a mediocre production.
This is my basic "I don't really get it" or "I finished it but would never think about watching it again" rating.
A film that I probably disliked or is simply not good, but may have a quality or two worthy of note.
Essentially means the film lacks any redeemable value, social or otherwise, to even exist.
I always try to keep in mind is that there's a lot of hard work that goes into the process of filmmaking by those involved. Many films are based on their love and dedication and that should be respected, whether the film is a generic blockbuster or a high-brow classic.
Update on February 13, 2007: Ratings are skewed due to a survivor bias: I usually only watch films I'm interested in, so a natural distribution occurs but is skewed towards a rating of 3.0. This signifies that I will like most of the films I watch (or else why watch them?), and will undoubtedly differentiated from a mass market distribution that would be attained at a website such a rottentomatoes.com or metacritic.com. For example, with 100 films watched in 2006, the ratings breakdown has been roughly:
As as result of the above survivor bias, there is heavy frequency in the middle but with steep drop-offs at the ends. For those interested, the average of the first 100 films from 2006 is 2.85, the median is 3.00 and the standard deviation is 0.81.
Most Recent Commentaries
Information & Basic Archives
View by Rating
View by Region
Related Externalities