What kind of grade is that, for real?

I don't know about you all, but I’ve been sitting here staring at my screen for twenty minutes wondering if anyone else feels this same creeping sense of exhaustion lately? It’s like we’re all just running on a treadmill that someone keeps speeding up while we’re trying to tie our shoelaces. Does anyone else feel like the more we try to keep pace with everything happening in the country, the further behind we actually fall? I mean, really, is it even possible to stay sane when the goalposts move every single week? kaže:
Wait, isn't an average basically just the midpoint? I mean, if you're looking at a scale from zero to ten, isn't five right there in the middle? 🤔

Not for me. Back in the day, I spent some time working as a sports journalist, rating soccer players for a major national newspaper. We had a pretty strict scale back then—anything starting at a 5.5 was considered a bad showing, and if you dropped to a 5 or anything below that, you were essentially failing the test. A 6 was basically just a passing grade. To put it in perspective, a 5 out of 10 would be like getting an F on a standard American grading scale. In my book, I never once gave a rating of 5/10 to anyone who actually deserved credit for their performance.

So, that’s not even really the trick, is it? The real kicker—the part that actually matters—is the idea that we should just steer clear of mediocre movies altogether, even though there aren't many left worth skipping. Why is that?

It seems like there’s an overwhelming abundance of absolute garbage out there lately. Honestly, if I look back at the movies I’ve sat through this year—and I’ve probably checked off about a hundred of them—it’s pretty depressing; roughly 90% of them couldn't even crack a 5/10 rating, which basically places them firmly in the trash category. Then you have the mediocre stuff, maybe around 8%, hovering in that uninspired middle ground between a 5.5 and a 6.5. The remaining sliver represents the actual good films, though even those can be subdivided into the very good, the masterpieces, the true spectacles, and so on. It really makes you wonder: is quality just becoming a lost art?

analogpanther55 said:But wait, isn't an "average" basically the same thing as the "midpoint"? Like, if you have 10, the middle is 5.🤔

True.
I suppose he claims his average is a 6 because he's influenced by IMDb ratings. It’s true that movies rated a 5 on IMDb are often quite poor, whereas those at a 6 actually feel mediocre. However, I suspect this has everything to do with who is voting and why they choose a 10—and the same applies to those giving a 1. This creates a situation where his "average" ends up being a 6, just like everyone else's. Therefore, one can't really argue about what constitutes an "average" based purely on IMDb standards. I don't think anyone should be judged for saying the average is 5 when someone else insists it's 6.🤣

Regarding the forum itself... the average is half. That seems logical, I guess.😁

Steven Smith16 said:I disagree. I would argue the average sits closer to 5.7.

I don't think I need to rethink anything; as I mentioned, I haven't even seen the movie. And I'm not a fan of those blockbusters either; they seem to rely far too heavily on special effects to mask thin plots. I much prefer trashy cinema.

It seems you've been mistaken so far. About everything, really. And I've only read two posts from you. Now I'm tempted to go through everyone else's comments just to calculate a real average.

That was sarcasm, if it wasn't obvious.
😛

mah11 said:I thought the movie was alright,

R. P. was fine, but honestly, based on how people were talking about it, I expected way more,

Just your typical Fincher thriller, and man, I love those kinds of movies! I mean, I pretty much called it early on that she was the psycho, and honestly, that moment when they got robbed—right before she killed him—that felt like the absolute peak of the film. I really didn't see that twist coming where she circles back to him again; I mean, goodness, she's a total psycho 🤣 , but hey, you just sweep everything under the rug and keep moving, right? They both have money now, and let's be real, they both did some pretty stupid stuff (though one definitely went further than the other), so life goes on. ☕

8/10

It’s just okay and then boom! 8/10 🤔 But wait, an 8 should be "very good," a 9 should be "excellent," and a 10 is a "masterpiece," so "okay" doesn't quite fit, does it?

Man, what more could you even ask for? It couldn't have been done better; R. P. was absolutely stellar in her role. The character was written so well and acted so perfectly that I truly don't see how the ending could have played out any differently.
But maybe you were hoping her character would have been even deeper or more developed? ...or was there something about her acting that didn't sit right with you?

Ugh, I am totally obsessed with thrillers like this! I totally agree, it's such a great look at how society functions these days. People are basically like sheep; you just point them in a certain direction and they'll follow blindly. It's wild how much TV can actually shape what people think and believe.

To me, it seems like both of them are actually kind of digging the new situation and will probably just adapt and stay together.

593 said:beetlejuice. I watched this movie for the first time a long time ago, and I remember thinking it was good. But now, on a second viewing, I see it's just total nonsense.
VI

Good movies usually get a 6 or a 7, yet you call it total nonsense when it's a 6? I don't get it.

goldenhound32 said:Rope—definitely one of Hitchcock’s finest. It’s basically a masterclass in minimalism: a short murder mystery confined to a single apartment and just a handful of shots. Pure genius.
VIII

So, what was the catch? There’s usually a reason behind an eight—don't leave me hanging. :-)

Samuel Murphy8 said:So, what was the catch? There’s usually a reason behind an eight—don't leave me hanging. :-)

Honestly, those 7s and 8s are basically a 99% rating for them.😬

redpanther20 said:

just my quick little take on the movie.

Regarding his chances at the Oscars, I honestly think he could easily end up as one of the biggest losers of the night. In my opinion, the award he really deserves is for Costume Design. As for the rest... it would be wonderful to see him take home Best Director, but I’d say it’s a total coin flip for me.

He'll either grab it or he won't. 🙂

Sally Hawkins was absolutely phenomenal, but the competition for Best Actress this year is just brutal. I suspect it's going to come down to a tight race between her, Margot Robbie, and Frances McDormand.

Anyway, that's just my two cents. 🙂

9/10?
Now, that's a rating I reserve for truly spectacular films, and I don't see how SOW could possibly fit into that category. It’s a film that tries so incredibly hard to be great, but it just doesn't quite land. Aside from the visual aesthetic, which does work, it leaves such an empty impression that it actually gives me a bit of a headache. And don't even get me started on the heavy-handed clichés. There isn't any real emotional connection to the story, which means you never truly connect with it as a viewer. It's a love story that has been told much better a million times over. The acting is solid, certainly, but it's just not enough to save the narrative.
4/10

Raymond Walker5 said:9/10?
Now, that's a rating I reserve for truly spectacular films, and I don't see how SOW could possibly fit into that category. It’s a film that tries so incredibly hard to be great, but it just doesn't quite land. Aside from the visual aesthetic, which does work, it leaves such an empty impression that it actually gives me a bit of a headache. And don't even get me started on the heavy-handed clichés. There isn't any real emotional connection to the story, which means you never truly connect with it as a viewer. It's a love story that has been told much better a million times over. The acting is solid, certainly, but it's just not enough to save the narrative.
4/10

I'm sticking with my 9/10, purely based on the overall impact the movie had on me. You're free to post whatever number you want, thank God. 🙂

goldenhound32 said:The Florida Project. It is an exceptionally charming little film.
VI

If that is the case, why only give it a 6?

I would certainly grant it a solid 7.

Christian Myers said:Fair enough, everything you guys pointed out is valid. But honestly, if you aren't nitpicking every single little detail or plot hole, I still think it’s a great movie to sit down and watch. Maybe it's just because I went in expecting absolute garbage, so my perspective is a bit skewed?

That said, an 8/10 usually implies we're looking at a masterpiece. Personally, if a movie actually manages to surprise me and exceeds what I expected, I'll usually land on a 7/10—to me, that's the mark of a really solid film. An 8/10 is more like something heading toward the top 250 list on IMDb.

So, what counts as a 10/10? For me, a 10/10 is a total knockout—a masterpiece that just leaves you breathless. A 9/10 is an excellent movie where I had one tiny gripe or just didn't hit that "wow" factor. 8s and 7s are solid films, just with a few more flaws. A 6 is basically just your average, watchable flick. Anything below that is either neglectable or barely worth the effort. Mind you, I almost never give a 1/10—well, except for that overrated trash *Aftersun* where I felt Paul Mescal totally pulled a fast one on me. That was the only time I've ever dropped a 1.

Christian Myers said:Guy Ritchie delivered another winner with The Covenant. The first hour and fifteen minutes are absolute fire—super dynamic and intense. It drags for about twenty minutes in the middle, but the ending is killer. Okay, maybe that’s an exaggeration, but it’s still great. 9/10

And what about the ninth one?🤔
I feel like I've seen it all before. It’s giving me major "Mark Wahlberg playing a Marine" vibes. ☕

Daniel Kelly57 said:And what about the ninth one?🤔
I feel like I've seen it all before. It’s giving me major "Mark Wahlberg playing a Marine" vibes. ☕

Just take it easy; my colleague here tends to be a bit generous with his scores.

Christian Myers, you’re seriously screwing people over with those ratings. You’re giving totally wrong suggestions, and honestly, you’ve steered me wrong a couple of times too. Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to just stop posting them for a while. At the end of the day, a plain, dry comment about what you watched is way more useful than a wildly subjective score. Just a thought...

Honestly, I don't see why everyone is getting so worked up about this. It’s his opinion, and he has just as much right to hold it as any of you have to yours. At the end of the day, all movie reviews are subjective. Christian Myers, just stick to commenting and sharing your ratings—at least you still show an interest in the classics. This snobbish attitude some people are displaying on this forum feels less like criticism and more like pure jealousy. Everyone uses their own criteria when they rate a film, and that's just how it works.

I don't really get why everyone’s getting so worked up over these ratings. The review says what it says—the score is just there for show. Besides, it’s not like you guys haven't roasted me plenty of times before. Did you ever see me complaining when you forced me to sit through that tedious slog *Aftersun* with that actor Paul Mescal? There are plenty of other movies people hyped up here that I thought were total garbage, and vice versa. Everyone's got different tastes—and honestly, even the setting matters when you're watching.

Christian Myers said:I don't really get why everyone’s getting so worked up over these ratings. The review says what it says—the score is just there for show. Besides, it’s not like you guys haven't roasted me plenty of times before. Did you ever see me complaining when you forced me to sit through that tedious slog *Aftersun* with that actor Paul Mescal? There are plenty of other movies people hyped up here that I thought were total garbage, and vice versa. Everyone's got different tastes—and honestly, even the setting matters when you're watching.

Just use a 1-5 scale then. Why bother with a ten-point range if you're only ever going to use three or four numbers? Stick to your own system and let's just have some peace in America.

Ethan Davis34 said:Just use a 1-5 scale then. Why bother with a ten-point range if you're only ever going to use three or four numbers? Stick to your own system and let's just have some peace in America.

That's a bit too narrow for me. I like having a wider spread—it helps me distinguish between the absolute masterpieces and the ones that are just "great" with a few flaws, or between total garbage and stuff that's trash but has one redeeming quality. Plus, IMDb uses a 10-point scale. And it's definitely not true that I only use a handful of ratings—for instance, Ben Affleck Hypnotic got a 5, Aftersun got a 1, Birdman got a 3, and so on.

Christian Myers said:That's a bit too narrow for me. I like having a wider spread—it helps me distinguish between the absolute masterpieces and the ones that are just "great" with a few flaws, or between total garbage and stuff that's trash but has one redeeming quality. Plus, IMDb uses a 10-point scale. And it's definitely not true that I only use a handful of ratings—for instance, Ben Affleck Hypnotic got a 5, Aftersun got a 1, Birdman got a 3, and so on.

I agree. I prefer a wider range as well, and I often use decimals for scores above a 7 because it allows for much greater precision. While some might find that approach irritating, it is simply how I operate. 😁For example, I gave the latest Batman a 3, whereas I gave Burton's version a 9. You cannot express such a significant disparity if you are limited to a five-point scale.🤣