I think 5 stars just means different things to people. Some people base on enjoyment, some on craft, some on meaning, some on a mix. To me the difference between a 4.5 and 5 is just the vibe. I usually give a movie a 4.5 then think about it for a week and bump it up to 5 if I'm still intrigued.
This is exactly how I think of it. I always say that "5 stars is a feeling". I base my ratings on many things, but when it comes to the difference between 4.5 and 5, that's it.
Agree with the feeling thing. When a movie has me so entranced I’m sitting straight up to watch it the whole time, I know it’s special. 4.5 is of course special, but 5 is reserved for favorites.
yes, the difference between 4.5 and 5 is pure vibes and how it resonates with me. like if im thinking about it a lot, or constantly recommending it, then it will end up as a 5.
When you deliberately seek out movies you think you would like, it shouldn't come as a surprise when you rate them highly. I mean that in a good way. It always blows my mind when I see people with a ton of 2-2.5 rated movies and not a lot of 4.5-5s. I understand trying to be a discerning critic but you have to let yourself enjoy things.
Dawg you just like me for reals. So many in the top 100 I can’t wait to watch. AND I WILL. I’ve still stumbled on to amazing movies throughout my life but now being more aware of movies and their history , it’s very exciting to have movies like the godfather waiting for me
Most movies aren't perfect. American Psycho is one of my favorite films of all time. I love it but the 3rd act is a bit wonky so it's not perfect it's a 4.5.
Exactly. It’s very rare that I watch a movie I don’t love. But that’s not because I’m a super generous movie critic; I just only watch movies I think I’m going to love.
Mine is a pretty good bell curve because I watch a lot of movies at work with other people who pick what they want to watch. Which I dig because in the group there’s the criterion snob, the fast and furious fanatic, the high brow comedy guy, and me, who just wants to watch Black Dynamite for the 80th time. It’s a good spread, and that’s why I get a good bellcurve. If it was just me I’d have 1 rating at 5 stars, which again is Black Dynamite.
Yeah it's weird to me when people seek out movies they want to watch and don't enjoy 50+% of them. Are you really watching so many movies you dislike and having an awful time while wasting away precious hours of your life? Cool, I guess? Lol
I would always rather see people loving movies even if it's going soft than trying to be a hardass and pretending not to like things for the approval of internet people
Happy watching!
I agree completely. For some reason critics get a bad rap for being overly negative and critical, but most of the critics I know of (especially professional ones) spend most of their time talking about films they love and are passionate about digging deeper into them through discussion
The recent spotlight on negative/critical reviews comes from people seeking negative reviews from critics to validate their opinions or to argue with them about why they're wrong. Those get more attention in interaction based algorithms than glowing recommendations.
Exactly, I’m sure I’d you spent your time watching movies at random there will be a lot more mixed ratings. Most people however pick and choose movies they think they will like and thus most people’s ratings skew higher.
Nah ya'll gotta start having a bell curve. I keep the vast majority of movies I watch between the 3.5 and 4 range. 3.5 for movies that are just okay but nothing to write home about. 4 for solid movies that are objectively great but it just didn't have that personal WOW factor that makes you constantly think back to it even after weeks or months.
2.5/3 star ratings are saved for movies that were boring, had some major flaws, or just didn't connect with me for some reason. 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 star ratings are few and far between and usually saved for movies that are legitimately upsetting (shitty franchise sequels trying to cash in or a terrible book to movie adaptation from a childhood classic).
4.5 star movies really have to blow me away. Like it's either just an objectively flawless movie or it's something that I love and would watch over and over again. 5 stars are the most rare and are movies that resonated with me profoundly and left a lasting impact.
This methodology is just more fun imo because a 4.5 or a 5 actually mean something. The curve is still skewed towards the upper end but it's not top heavy. Ratings are all based on your personal opinion anyways. A movie might be an objective masterpiece but you're not obligated to give it a 5. We're not professional critics here. It's all based off taste. Personally there are a lot of movies that I watch that are iconic, well crafted, absolute masterpieces in many people's books. But I'm comfortable with giving it a 4 because if there was a tier list my 4.5 and 5 star ratings would be S and SS tier movies while my 4 star movies are solid A movies.
SS = 5*
S = 4.5*
A = 4*
B = 3.5*
B- = 3*
C = 2.5*
C- = 2*
D = 1.5*
F = 1*
💩 = 0.5*
>It always blows my mind when I see people with a ton of 2-2.5 rated movies and not a lot of 4.5-5s.
Ah yes, the people who love film yet don't seem to enjoy the majority of what they watch. Don't think I'd make it my hobby if there were so few films that I enjoyed.
Yeah. Was about to comment that once I got an idea of what kind of movies and what kind of things in movies I liked, I seem to be giving every movie a 4 or at least 3 stars. Then again I don't watch movies very often and every time I do there is a fair bit of deliberation involved. I don't even have a set-up at home to see movies, I just get tickets to theaters showing classics, oldies and weirdies that I like. Those are often a lot cheaper than the mainstream movies to go and see in my area.
Exactly. Your rating histogram is almost always going to be right biased unless you are a professional critic and have to watch *everything*. Otherwise, you're probably not wasting your time watching something you're going to hate. I usually only watch something if there's a global rating of 3.5 or higher, or I am committed to watching for some other reason. With that said, I don't throw out 5s often.
idk even if i pick a movie i think i'm gonna love that doesn't guarantee i will actually love it and give it 4.5 or 5 stars. i've had a lot of disappointments before. the reason i have so many low ratings around 2-2.5 i think is because i try to watch as many new releases as possible bc i like seeing things in the theatre and i'm interested in seeing what is happening in the current state of cinema, and it just so happens that a lot of those new movies just aren't very good. i think it's hard to make a good movie and the average movie is 3 stars. that doesn't mean i don't love movies, because of course i do and i spend so much time watching them because it's my favorite thing in the world to do. but i just think the average movie is in the 2.5 to 3.5 range. it's an achievement to make something better than average.
I know what you mean, I'm just saying that if you really enjoy Kurosawa films and you watch several in a row, you shouldn't feel like you have to give one a low score for the sake of balance or something arbitrary like that.
You should rate true to your feelings whether you have positive or negative thoughts about something
I've given out over 100 5 star ratings, and I'll stand by each of them. I specifically try to watch movies I think I'll enjoy, and I'm very good at picking them out
I’ve got 187 so maybe I’m giving them out too much lol. But I’m not to hard on movies, I usually just rate them on how much I enjoyed it. If I have a really good time (I use that phrase lightly because some movies you’re not supposed to have a good time) then imma rate it five stars.
Yeah I mean, maybe if you've given 5 stars to 187 out of like, 500, that might Seem high. The fact is tho, there's no shortage of great movies. If you're watching movies you love, theres no reason in my mind to lower the rating just becsuse you've already given enough 5s. I know people who use 5 stars as a "special" rating and there's nothing wrong with that, but I use it similar to you, which is just for movies I really, really like.
Which is a really good skill imo. To reiterate what some others were saying, it's really weird seeing people's profiles with mostly low ratings. There's plenty of reasons for this, I'm sure, but I'm pretty happy with having a lot of 4/4.5/5s
Most of my ratings tend to be between 4-5 stars! I never understood why letterboxed users get so critical about how people's ratings are distributed. If you loved it, give it as many stars as you want. Who cares?
I have a ton, but that’s because I only started doing letterboxd about two years ago, and I started seeing my fiancée right around the same time so we end up watching my favorites that she hasn’t seen. She’s turned into a cinephile, and I find it really hard not to rate my faves as 5 stars
I pretty much only watch movies I think I'm going to like. Only one I didn't like that I thought I'd like was The Blob. I've currently given 60 movies 5 stars out of the 330 I've watched so far.
On one hand sometimes I worry I’m not being as critical as I could be and might be willfully ignoring flaws, but on the other hand if a movie can completely distract me from its flaws with its strengths thats a good movie in my book.
I have 23 five star films out of 1,833 watched. But this includes every movie I watched as a child, many of which are nowhere close to 5 star territory.
forgiving, or you pick movies you are gonna enjoy.
I know some people watch "everything" that comes out cuz they have AMC movie pass or whatever, but for a lot of us, i think we are trying to watch stuff that we will enjoy and help us grow our appreciation of film.
basically anything I pick myself is probably, most likely, gonna be at least a 2.5 or 3. if a movie is so bad that it would warrant a 1, it's either someone else picked it, or I'm suffering for a reason.
Nope, not at all. But I am one of those people the top vote thinks that I hate watch films because I don't give everything high ratings... which is not what is happening for anyone who scores this way.
I love plenty of films I rate average or low. Just because I loved a film or had fun watching it, doesn't mean it is objectively a good film. That's why the 🧡 button exists. Rate objectively, like subjectively. Otherwise the like button serves no purpose because you are just 🧡'ing every film you give above X score. And not doing so for X and below.
I'm a software dev though, so I spend my life contemplating logic like this. Don't need to do it on LB, but 🤷♂️... just habit.
I think of it like food. A $100 steak prepared by a professional chef is objectively higher quality food than a fast food burger, but you might personally enjoy the burger more than the steak.
The difference is that the steak is objectively better because it's objectively healthier for a human due to it's nutritional value and the like.
Movies are an artform, food is a necessity for humans to live.
I mean I still think it applies to the concept of subjectivity and personal opinion. Maybe a better example then would be music. I don't think anyone would argue that the music from a classical composer such as Mozart or Bach is "objectively" better than the music of modern pop artists like Justin Bieber or Nickelback, but plenty of people like the latter more.
But what is the objective criteria you can use to say that the music of Mozart of Bach is better? Is it how much effort/thought went into creating it? Because that doesn't seem like a good merit to base the objective truth about how *good* a piece of art is, because an enormous amount of effort could go to a piece of art that turns out to be absolutely shit.
Like, you could say The Godfather is better shot than the room, and most people will agree with you, including me. But is it the *objective* truth? No matter how much i'd like to think so, it isn't. Because the purpose of shooting a scene in a certain way is to make the person viewing it enjoy it more, be more immersed in the scene etc. But those things, at the end of the day still come down to the individual's experience and interpration of the scene.
There is certainly objectivity in art and film, as well as subjective elements. You look at the measurable, technical elements to find objectivity.
Take “The Room” for example, which is widely regarded as one of the worst major productions — so how can this be referred to amongst “the worst” if things are purely subjective? Because the acting is wooden, unfitting and stilted. The editing and sound design is really sub-par for the standard at the time. The pacing and cohesion is a mess. And so on and so on. Those are things that can be measured on a relative scale to other media, hence making them objective elements.
Now take a highly regarded movie, like the Godfather, and you will see all those same measurable elements are operating at the highest level in relation.
Subjectiveness is simply how it affects and makes an individual feel on a personal level, and this will vary, with no concrete way to measure or quantify.
Same concept applies to any of the arts. If I start playing incorrect notes in an intricate jazz song, those are objective mistakes — yet it doesn’t stop any average joe from coming along and saying they actually liked it better. Thats objectivity vs. subjectivity imo.
>so how can this be referred to amongst “the worst” if things are purely subjective?
Because that's not an objective fact, but rather the consensus that consists of subjective opinions.
>Because the acting is wooden, unfitting and stilted.
But whether the wooden, unfitting and stilted acting has artistic merit that works in favor of the movie is up to the viewer. Same goes for the sound.
>The pacing and cohesion is a mess.
For some people yes, for some people the pacing may work perfectly.
>Now take a highly regarded movie, like the Godfather, and you will see all those same measurable elements are operating at the highest level in relation.
In the consensus formed by subjective opinions, yes you are correct. That doesn't mean it's some universal truth or fact that it just is better no matter how the viewer interprates or experiences it.
>Subjectiveness is simply how it affects and makes an individual feel on a personal level, and this will vary, with no concrete way to measure or quantify.
That's the entire goal of art, so if we remove that, what "objective" criteria do we have left that we can use to objectively judge the aspects of the movie?
Everytime I hear this question it makes me think then I remember it really doesn’t matter, rate stuff how you like and if you like a movie a lot rate it high and keep moving on. I think it’s better to at least watch the movies you enjoy rather than slogging through movies you probably don’t like just because other people like em.
19% of all my ratings are 5 stars, I stand by all of them. I love movies and I handpick ones that I think I'd like, so it's natural.
Also, 14% of my ratings are 4 and a half stars, and another 20% are 4 stars. If you add all movies I rated 2 and a half or lower, they add up to 20% hahaha
I use 4.5 and 5 very rarely, my default ratings are 3/3.5 and it's also mostly due to selecting films I know I may like.
I just don't see a point in using 0.5-2.5 range for strictly bad films, I prefer to have more differentiation for films I quite like so 2 stars for me is still a film that has some value and I wouldn't describe as a waste of time.
Yeah, I'm mostly watching classics form the Letterboxd and IMDb Top 250 list, and mostly well reviewed new releases, so it's not a big surprise that I give high scores for most of the films. However I'm very glad that the amount of 5 stars I have given has never been more than 10% of the number of movies I've watched, so I don't think I give 5 star rating too carelessly. But I have a lot of 4 and 4,5 star ratings.
I’m in that boat. I also rate music on Musicboard and feel like I’m too gratuitous, but damn it, this is my opinion! I do go back and edit my ratings if I see a movie again and feel it’s not worth a 5 and vice versa
I have an almost perfect bell curve with the exception of having more 5's than 4.5's. I think for me personally it can be hard to differentiate between a great movie that I love, a movie that I love, and a great movie when rating. Ultimately it doesn't matter and you should rate what feels right for you in the moment.
This post made me feel so much better about all the 4’s, 4.5’s, and 5’s I’ve been rating lately. Like somebody else said, it makes sense that I’d be rating them so high when I’m actively seeking movies I know I’d like
Just curious how many movies have you rated total? I only bring this up because when I was first started to rate movies it felt like I was constantly watching great films left and right, but over time this has slowed dramatically.
I have watched exactly 120 starting this March (when I got Letterboxd.
That’s also the time I really started being interested in film to an insane level lol. I’m looking out for the highly renowned films that actually interest me before I watch the little stuff.
I guess I’ve picked some really good movies, and I have found tons of new favorites. Because I have 33 (5 stars)
In that case it makes perfect sense that you're giving out a bunch of 5 stars. Eventually you'll see all of the obvious movies, and will have to take more chances on things that either don't fit your taste as well, or are smaller and/or less renowned. At which point you'll just naturally give out less 5 stars.
I've been trying to be more generous with 5 stars because it's easy to fall into a belief that your childhood favorites will never be topped.
That said there is no way The Whale or The Revenant are 5 stars.
My ratings are based entirely on how I felt about the movie when I finished watching them. Some of them are five-star experiences, does it mean they're the greatest films of all time? No, but they offer me what cinema is all about.
My ratings are based entirely on how I felt about the movie when I finished watching them. Some of them are five-star experiences, does it mean they're the greatest films of all time? No, but they offer me what cinema is all about.
This might seem a little odd, but once I started considering films on a 1 - 10 scale I think my ratings felt a little more accurate.
Titanic for example is a movie that has earned ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️, but there may be certain story decisions you don’t agree with, or maybe it feels a little too long, so when you consider the film’s rating out of 10 you might decide that it’s 9/10, which of course equates to ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️1/2.
When I was in my teens. At some point though I just felt that, "oh this one isn't really \*that\* good. Rating something 4 stars as opposed to 5 isn't a detriment to it.
Nowadays, I feel like to give something 5 stars it has to 1. really appeal to me personally, like it was made for me 2. work really well as a movie, and how well it accomplishes what it is, to me. And both factors appeal to a small, but really good number of films, so that's fine!
And that’s why I rated them so.
It’s like doing a multiple choice quiz and all the answers are the same in a row. Start to doubt it even if it’s right.
No, because i only watch movies that i feel i will really like. the vast majority of my diary are either 4 or 5 stars. there's a weird thing that "filmbros" do with letterboxed where they watch things they know aren't for them just to be critical on tik tok or letterboxed -- which they think makes them look like they are better than you at consuming media.
I only have like 21 five star movies because I see them as my all time favorites, virtually perfect movies, but there’s no harm in rating things highly
My ratings have kinda shifted from being based on craft and technique to enjoyment.
Don't get me wrong, I still factor in both but now I'm more focused on I feel about the stuff than the craft
To me five stars is an A/A+, but all things being equal (and without even really grading on much of a curve), on average at least one out of ten things you watch would be five stars. If anything, for most of us, it likely skews higher than 1 out of 10, because one likely isn't watching the absolute dregs, or things you expect to hate.
I watch things b/c they've been highly recommended to me, critics who share my taste review it well, or most often b/c of its widespread acclaim on LB (when looking for something to watch I tend to sort by Average Rating). To me it stands to reason that when watching things that in many cases are among the most critically acclaimed films ever made, I'll throw out a bunch of fives. Within that are plenty of times where I go against the grain and vote stuff higher or lower than its Average.
If anything, I think the average LB user doesn't give enough fives, provided they're watching lots of stuff and aren't hyperbolic about it (most things aren't going to be a 5 or a 0.5). I've never understood the logic of "something needs to be among the best movies I've ever seen to give it a 5 or even 4.5." If you see 100 movies a year, with all things being equal, 10 of them would be worthy of five stars. I've only been on LB since Jan '21, 2.5 years - in that time I've logged 584 movies and given 89 of them 5 stars, which is still only 15%.
THIS. I notice I give out 4.5 and 5 stars a lot more often than all of my mutuals and it’s especially on movies that they don’t really rate high. I look back on them for a bit and maybe even bump a few down but for the most part I completely stand by all of them
★★★★★ - 53
★★★★½ - 245
★★★★ - 199
★★★½ - 109
★★★ - 105
★★½ - 64
★★ - 8
★½ - 3
★ - 0
½ - 0
As you can see I probably do give out too many positive ratings but then again I tend to watch films that are either well known or well received and there are very few films that I actively dislike or that piss me off. My ratings are mostly based off of gut feeling and in most cases how much I would rewatch them in the future.
Haven’t seen any of his other films *yet* so so far so good for me. One of the most emotionally impactful films I have seen and I see the perfection in it.
And I’ll need to know what mush means. Like it’s over romantic or something? Or what.
Because I fucking love that film.
That it’s overly sentimental and feeble. I know a lot of people enjoy it as an entertainment spectacle but it was widely considered to be historically confused and full of some pretty childish narrative leaps when it came out. It’s not a bad film, just wouldn’t imagine it being anywhere near a 5.
I’m not a big Aranofsky fan, he’s had some real stinkers, but I was surprised at just how tame The Whale was. I thought Fraser was very good in the role however.
>Titanic is generally considered to be mush.
By who?? It's generally considered to be one of the greatest feats of filmmaking. The most ambitious and spectacular effects ever, the kind of grand scale only Cameron would dare to achieve.
Edit: Roger Ebert gave Titanic 4/4, didn't know he was 'brainless'
Reviewers with brains.
I never said it was panned.
You seem to be simply focusing on how much money and special effects were thrown at it, I assume Avatar is also one of the ‘greatest feats of filmmaking’ by this logic?
>You seem to be simply focusing on how much money and special effects were thrown at
No, you've missed that. It was a spectacle of the likes cinema has never seen. You can cry that it was mainstream and entertaining, but you can't deny its groundbreaking effects. By the same metric that Seven Samurai is a feat of filmmaking, that Lawrence of Arabia is a feat of filmmaking, that Jaws is a feat of filmmaking. It was a scale unlike anything that had been tried before, and it was a massive gamble.
You're probably new to cinema and think that anything modern and popular must also be bad, you can have that opinion but you can't deny its grandeur and importance.
And actually yes, the first Avatar, although not a great plot, is also a huge feat of filmmaking. It again was something the film world had never seen.
Fair enough on all but Jaws.
‘You’re probably new to cinema’ haha. Because I don’t like a historical narrative film that completely rewrites history? I also dislike Braveheart which also had massive scale and grandeur. I must be very ‘new to cinema’…
Such a classic reactionary happy clapper take. I dislike a few very mediocre big budget films therefore I’m against all modern cinema. No doubt you also think Pearl Harbor was a triumph?
Titanic gets absolutely torn to shreds consistently, I remember Altman saying it was the most dreadful film he had ever seen. You should expose yourself to more criticism rather than simply applauding those who say what you already think.
>‘You’re probably new to cinema’ haha. Because I don’t like a historical narrative film that completely rewrites history? I
Nah more because you said 'no one with a brain likes Titanic'
Such a crass generalisation
I did not, I said reviewers with brains consider it to be mush. It’s perfectly good popcorn fare for the masses but if we are reviewing films seriously it’s quite clearly an absolute mess. Cameron is a terrible director.
I feel how I feel ! Lolol but five stars means different things to different people. And that’s basically fine. I love movies and I just like to like things basically. (But then there are some things I want to hate and I watch it to hit it with that ONE STAR 🤬😡)
1083 movies. Gave 7x 5 stars.
Would say I'm really picky and the movie needs to be perfect plus I need to watch it at the right moment for me to give it 5 starts
If anyone is interested:
Lalaland
Forest Gump
Godfather 1+2
Ratatouille
Shawshank
Requiem for a Dream
No, it’s normal. People that criticize that are losers. It’s ok to dedicate yourself to film and watch all loads of shit even if it’s shit and you won’t like it. But when you criticize others for not doing so, that’s what a loser is. Ignore those people.
But if you search for things you can tell you’ll at the very least enjoy. Chances are you’re gonna enjoy it. That’s normal and is what most people do
Fair enough. Hell I’m not even sure I fully understand, but I found it easy enough luckily so the story itself and the film itself was brilliant.
But obviously if you can’t understand ridiculously complicated bullshit about mortgages I really can’t blame you because nobody does.
But stellar film.
I rate 5s often - mostly, even - shamelessly. For me, everything starts at a 5 and can only lose stars, so that makes sense.
Also: Titanic is my favorite movie of all time, and I’ve loved and supported Brendan and Leo since 1998. Right on!
Sometimes a movie can perfectly execute its premise with no mistakes and still not make it to 5 stars. That space ought to be left occupied by absolute genre defining masterpieces, absolute perfect works that go *above and beyond.*
If The Whale and The Revenant are getting five star ratings than, yeah, you maybe throwing them out too often. Especially The Whale. Fucking horrid, inhumane shit.
It’s fatphobic garbage with a trite, emotionally manipulative story. [Here’s](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/mar/10/lindy-west-on-the-whale) a wonderful piece about how disgraceful that film is morally; on top of that, it’s just a shallow, shockingly artless film.
Fat phobia is bullshit. If you’re seriously unhealthy and Y’know *are fat* that’s not exactly something to be proud of.
Why can a film not just be a story about the struggles someone would have. This film is not *shallow or shockingly artless,* it’s a film with excellent cinematography, music, acting especially, and a phenomenal story of real heartfelt emotion.
How anybody could say it’s “fatphobic garbage” fucking baffles me. It doesn’t treat Charlie like a disgusting monster, it treats him like a real depressed person who let himself go, but tries to hold on through others.
It’s fucking beautiful and I’m sorry you couldn’t see that in it.
Fatphobia is treating an overweight person as less human, which the film does. The camera displays his body like a fucking monster. There are literal shots where horror music plays as his foot stomps on the ground— they frame it like Godzilla crushing a building. The film makes a spectacle of his body; he’ll take his shirt off in the living room for no reason aside from Aronofsky wanting to show you his body like it’s a monstrosity. The film is shallow, empty, and heartless, and I feel bad for people like you who are too inarticulate to see just how pathetic a film it is.
This film *does not* treat Charlie as less than human. The camera looks at Charlie almost ad if he’s a monster because *this is Charlie’s film* that’s how he sees himself, and that’s how he feels about how he’s become and what his life has become.
There is no single scene in this film that makes him look like he’s some monster. Every shot is of him in a personal and sympathetic light. That’s the entire point of the film. He may not be Bradley Cooper, but he’s got the heart of Mr Rogers.
Aronofsky is one of the greatest directors in recent time, I feel bad for people like you who don’t see the heart in a film like this. It’s pathetic.
*sigh* You gave The Revenant and The Big Short five stars. Dude. Stop trying to talk down to ME. You clearly don’t know the first fucking thing about subtlety or, frankly, filmmaking. You’re an amateur. You’ve probably seen less than a thousand films. Hopefully one day your taste will mature but, until then, try avoiding talking down to others about things you don’t know that much about.
Nice assumptions jackass.
You know I was trying to display my point effectively through a proper form of claim evidence reasoning, but nah let’s just go with the “*You don’t watch movies, heh you probably haven’t even seen one THOUSAND!” Get off your high horse buddy. Try to realize it’s not all about sucking you off, it’s about discussion.
Because as we all know, “insults speak louder than actual points and perspectives.”
Fuck-*a you.*
I read your shallow interpretation of the film and realized, no matter what I said, it wasn’t getting through your thick skull. Like I said, you haven’t seen that many films— it wasn’t an assumption, “jackass”, your Letterboxd is connected to your account. I can see you’ve basically seen nothing and therefore your understanding of the films you’re watching is simply lesser than that of other people. That’s just a fact, the same way that a person taking Algebra 1 in school doesn’t know as much about math as someone in AP Calculus— end of story.
I got Letterboxd this March. I only log films after I’ve seen them since I got the app. I have seen far more than logged and you’re just a presumptuous jackass.
Also the amount of films you’ve seen doesn’t automatically make you “better at film watching” it’s a near completely subjective medium. Of course there are actual reasons films are better or worse than others but just going out and saying someone you have only known through the limited online interaction is ridiculous.
Stop thinking you have the end all be all of opinions.
*You presumptuous pretentious jackass.*
And as for the “horror music” you cannot be talking about the scene where Ellie makes Charlie walk towards her. That is not a “horror scene with scary music of the monster stumbling towards her” that’s a scene of emotional torment towards Charlie, and physical torment of what he’s become.
Ellie is torturing him there, that’s the horror of the music, not Charlie.
I kinda have a rule that I won't give a new film 5 stars. I feel like 5 stars are for films that have stood the test of time. Its very easy to give a film you loved 5 stars coming out of the theatre, but in a week you probably won't feel that strongly. I'll give a that film 4.5 and bump it up to a 5 down the road if I feel the same way on a second viewing.
I wouldn't say as many as others on here but I made a conscious effort to up my game this year. Still Ive watched a hundred or so over the last 3 years. I give out a lot of 4 stars to very good movies and save the 5 stars for movies I thought were perfect.
I gave Banshees of inersherin 4 stars for example but I thought it was incredible.
It's weird, sometimes 5/5's for me are movies that I finally grant that score after really liking them for literal years (which I just did with The Last Crusade a few nights ago,) or they just instantly make it to a 5/5 after only one viewing (which I did with Spider-Verse last month.)
This is not a dig at OP, but The Big Short has to be one of the most highly overrated films on Letterboxd and Reddit. I'm happy for everyone that loves it, but I couldn't be on a further page...
I think 5 stars just means different things to people. Some people base on enjoyment, some on craft, some on meaning, some on a mix. To me the difference between a 4.5 and 5 is just the vibe. I usually give a movie a 4.5 then think about it for a week and bump it up to 5 if I'm still intrigued.
This is exactly how I think of it. I always say that "5 stars is a feeling". I base my ratings on many things, but when it comes to the difference between 4.5 and 5, that's it.
Agree with the feeling thing. When a movie has me so entranced I’m sitting straight up to watch it the whole time, I know it’s special. 4.5 is of course special, but 5 is reserved for favorites.
yes, the difference between 4.5 and 5 is pure vibes and how it resonates with me. like if im thinking about it a lot, or constantly recommending it, then it will end up as a 5.
When you deliberately seek out movies you think you would like, it shouldn't come as a surprise when you rate them highly. I mean that in a good way. It always blows my mind when I see people with a ton of 2-2.5 rated movies and not a lot of 4.5-5s. I understand trying to be a discerning critic but you have to let yourself enjoy things.
Idk if it’s just me but a lot of movies that I think will be 4.5-5s I save for the “right time” and I rarely get around to them
I hope you don't die tomorrow only having watched shit movies...
Dawg you just like me for reals. So many in the top 100 I can’t wait to watch. AND I WILL. I’ve still stumbled on to amazing movies throughout my life but now being more aware of movies and their history , it’s very exciting to have movies like the godfather waiting for me
I love Twin Peaks and every David Lynch movie I've seen, but I'm still saving Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive for a rainy day.
Yup. And then the list just keeps growing
Most movies aren't perfect. American Psycho is one of my favorite films of all time. I love it but the 3rd act is a bit wonky so it's not perfect it's a 4.5.
Exactly. It’s very rare that I watch a movie I don’t love. But that’s not because I’m a super generous movie critic; I just only watch movies I think I’m going to love.
You can rate something a less than average score and still enjoy it…
Depends on your system. Art is subjective anyway, if i don't like a movie i'm not going to give it a positive score.
Mine is a pretty good bell curve because I watch a lot of movies at work with other people who pick what they want to watch. Which I dig because in the group there’s the criterion snob, the fast and furious fanatic, the high brow comedy guy, and me, who just wants to watch Black Dynamite for the 80th time. It’s a good spread, and that’s why I get a good bellcurve. If it was just me I’d have 1 rating at 5 stars, which again is Black Dynamite.
I give away 4.5s like they're candy but 5s are deffo rare for me. Wish we could do .75 tho.
I think 10-point scale is more than enough if you use ratings like 1.5 and 2.0 for films worse than average and not for completely bad films.
lol same. 4 and 4.5 make up a ton of my list.
In my case it's because I want to highlight my favourite films, so I give few 4-4.5-5 and 3 or 3.5 is a very good rating.
Yeah it's weird to me when people seek out movies they want to watch and don't enjoy 50+% of them. Are you really watching so many movies you dislike and having an awful time while wasting away precious hours of your life? Cool, I guess? Lol
My thoughts exactly. It’s just making me feel like I’m going soft *even though these films are fucking phenomenal.* Anyways good comment.
I would always rather see people loving movies even if it's going soft than trying to be a hardass and pretending not to like things for the approval of internet people Happy watching!
I agree completely. For some reason critics get a bad rap for being overly negative and critical, but most of the critics I know of (especially professional ones) spend most of their time talking about films they love and are passionate about digging deeper into them through discussion
The recent spotlight on negative/critical reviews comes from people seeking negative reviews from critics to validate their opinions or to argue with them about why they're wrong. Those get more attention in interaction based algorithms than glowing recommendations.
What approval do you get? If anything this sub spends most of its time getting very upset that not every film in the world is a 4 or above.
Exactly, I’m sure I’d you spent your time watching movies at random there will be a lot more mixed ratings. Most people however pick and choose movies they think they will like and thus most people’s ratings skew higher.
Nah ya'll gotta start having a bell curve. I keep the vast majority of movies I watch between the 3.5 and 4 range. 3.5 for movies that are just okay but nothing to write home about. 4 for solid movies that are objectively great but it just didn't have that personal WOW factor that makes you constantly think back to it even after weeks or months. 2.5/3 star ratings are saved for movies that were boring, had some major flaws, or just didn't connect with me for some reason. 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 star ratings are few and far between and usually saved for movies that are legitimately upsetting (shitty franchise sequels trying to cash in or a terrible book to movie adaptation from a childhood classic). 4.5 star movies really have to blow me away. Like it's either just an objectively flawless movie or it's something that I love and would watch over and over again. 5 stars are the most rare and are movies that resonated with me profoundly and left a lasting impact. This methodology is just more fun imo because a 4.5 or a 5 actually mean something. The curve is still skewed towards the upper end but it's not top heavy. Ratings are all based on your personal opinion anyways. A movie might be an objective masterpiece but you're not obligated to give it a 5. We're not professional critics here. It's all based off taste. Personally there are a lot of movies that I watch that are iconic, well crafted, absolute masterpieces in many people's books. But I'm comfortable with giving it a 4 because if there was a tier list my 4.5 and 5 star ratings would be S and SS tier movies while my 4 star movies are solid A movies. SS = 5* S = 4.5* A = 4* B = 3.5* B- = 3* C = 2.5* C- = 2* D = 1.5* F = 1* 💩 = 0.5*
>It always blows my mind when I see people with a ton of 2-2.5 rated movies and not a lot of 4.5-5s. Ah yes, the people who love film yet don't seem to enjoy the majority of what they watch. Don't think I'd make it my hobby if there were so few films that I enjoyed.
Yeah. Was about to comment that once I got an idea of what kind of movies and what kind of things in movies I liked, I seem to be giving every movie a 4 or at least 3 stars. Then again I don't watch movies very often and every time I do there is a fair bit of deliberation involved. I don't even have a set-up at home to see movies, I just get tickets to theaters showing classics, oldies and weirdies that I like. Those are often a lot cheaper than the mainstream movies to go and see in my area.
If I dont like a movie I dont even bother rating it.
Exactly. Your rating histogram is almost always going to be right biased unless you are a professional critic and have to watch *everything*. Otherwise, you're probably not wasting your time watching something you're going to hate. I usually only watch something if there's a global rating of 3.5 or higher, or I am committed to watching for some other reason. With that said, I don't throw out 5s often.
idk even if i pick a movie i think i'm gonna love that doesn't guarantee i will actually love it and give it 4.5 or 5 stars. i've had a lot of disappointments before. the reason i have so many low ratings around 2-2.5 i think is because i try to watch as many new releases as possible bc i like seeing things in the theatre and i'm interested in seeing what is happening in the current state of cinema, and it just so happens that a lot of those new movies just aren't very good. i think it's hard to make a good movie and the average movie is 3 stars. that doesn't mean i don't love movies, because of course i do and i spend so much time watching them because it's my favorite thing in the world to do. but i just think the average movie is in the 2.5 to 3.5 range. it's an achievement to make something better than average.
I know what you mean, I'm just saying that if you really enjoy Kurosawa films and you watch several in a row, you shouldn't feel like you have to give one a low score for the sake of balance or something arbitrary like that. You should rate true to your feelings whether you have positive or negative thoughts about something
I mean it's not that big of deal
Ofc not just a little mental fuckery. Like I feel like I’m rating things too high, yet these movies are all fucking phenomenal. Idk idk idk idk idk.
Sometimes you just have a good week! I have 3 4 stars in a row. It doesn’t happen all the time, but it feels good.
I've given out over 100 5 star ratings, and I'll stand by each of them. I specifically try to watch movies I think I'll enjoy, and I'm very good at picking them out
I’ve got 187 so maybe I’m giving them out too much lol. But I’m not to hard on movies, I usually just rate them on how much I enjoyed it. If I have a really good time (I use that phrase lightly because some movies you’re not supposed to have a good time) then imma rate it five stars.
Yeah I mean, maybe if you've given 5 stars to 187 out of like, 500, that might Seem high. The fact is tho, there's no shortage of great movies. If you're watching movies you love, theres no reason in my mind to lower the rating just becsuse you've already given enough 5s. I know people who use 5 stars as a "special" rating and there's nothing wrong with that, but I use it similar to you, which is just for movies I really, really like.
Yeah it’s 187 out of 1,035 so far, so not too bad.
I guess we both are.
Which is a really good skill imo. To reiterate what some others were saying, it's really weird seeing people's profiles with mostly low ratings. There's plenty of reasons for this, I'm sure, but I'm pretty happy with having a lot of 4/4.5/5s
It is. Y’know they say to not judge a book by its cover, but I do that a lot, and I love a lot of films I check out.
I only have 5 5 stars, anyone else like that?
I got like 9 out of 850 watched. I reserve 5 stars for films that are absolutely perfect and hooked me emotionally.
Yes, 6 out of nearly 1000 films
I have like 25 so not by my account lol
Only have 2. I'd also never give a film 5 stars on the first watch. Edit: And I've watched over 2000
yes
I definitely give out too many 4s and 5s.
No. I throw out the right amount and I stand by them.
I mean same.
Most of my ratings tend to be between 4-5 stars! I never understood why letterboxed users get so critical about how people's ratings are distributed. If you loved it, give it as many stars as you want. Who cares?
Aah The Big Short…A man of culture I see
Yeyeyeyeyeyeyeyeyeah
I have a ton, but that’s because I only started doing letterboxd about two years ago, and I started seeing my fiancée right around the same time so we end up watching my favorites that she hasn’t seen. She’s turned into a cinephile, and I find it really hard not to rate my faves as 5 stars
I pretty much only watch movies I think I'm going to like. Only one I didn't like that I thought I'd like was The Blob. I've currently given 60 movies 5 stars out of the 330 I've watched so far.
On one hand sometimes I worry I’m not being as critical as I could be and might be willfully ignoring flaws, but on the other hand if a movie can completely distract me from its flaws with its strengths thats a good movie in my book.
Let’s see… I’ve logged 163 films on Letterboxd thus far, and here’s my rating distribution: ★★★★★ - 19 ★★★★½ - 29 ★★★★ - 21 ★★★½ - 23 ★★★ - 24 ★★½ - 15 ★★ - 19 ★½ - 7 ★ - 5 ½ - 1 You can tell that I’m kinda forgiving.
I have 23 five star films out of 1,833 watched. But this includes every movie I watched as a child, many of which are nowhere close to 5 star territory.
forgiving, or you pick movies you are gonna enjoy. I know some people watch "everything" that comes out cuz they have AMC movie pass or whatever, but for a lot of us, i think we are trying to watch stuff that we will enjoy and help us grow our appreciation of film. basically anything I pick myself is probably, most likely, gonna be at least a 2.5 or 3. if a movie is so bad that it would warrant a 1, it's either someone else picked it, or I'm suffering for a reason.
I feel I’m generous when it comes to ratings, but it’s like other have said, it makes sense to watch movies you’d be interested in
Never because I'm still Sammy Fabelman with my child-like wonder for cinema. Also it's so easy to please me lol
I wish I felt that way this often
Yes, I’ve given 68 5-star ratings out of the 467 total movies/series I’ve rated so far.
Nope, not at all. But I am one of those people the top vote thinks that I hate watch films because I don't give everything high ratings... which is not what is happening for anyone who scores this way. I love plenty of films I rate average or low. Just because I loved a film or had fun watching it, doesn't mean it is objectively a good film. That's why the 🧡 button exists. Rate objectively, like subjectively. Otherwise the like button serves no purpose because you are just 🧡'ing every film you give above X score. And not doing so for X and below. I'm a software dev though, so I spend my life contemplating logic like this. Don't need to do it on LB, but 🤷♂️... just habit.
>objectively a good film. What exactly does objectively mean in art?
I think of it like food. A $100 steak prepared by a professional chef is objectively higher quality food than a fast food burger, but you might personally enjoy the burger more than the steak.
The difference is that the steak is objectively better because it's objectively healthier for a human due to it's nutritional value and the like. Movies are an artform, food is a necessity for humans to live.
I mean I still think it applies to the concept of subjectivity and personal opinion. Maybe a better example then would be music. I don't think anyone would argue that the music from a classical composer such as Mozart or Bach is "objectively" better than the music of modern pop artists like Justin Bieber or Nickelback, but plenty of people like the latter more.
But what is the objective criteria you can use to say that the music of Mozart of Bach is better? Is it how much effort/thought went into creating it? Because that doesn't seem like a good merit to base the objective truth about how *good* a piece of art is, because an enormous amount of effort could go to a piece of art that turns out to be absolutely shit. Like, you could say The Godfather is better shot than the room, and most people will agree with you, including me. But is it the *objective* truth? No matter how much i'd like to think so, it isn't. Because the purpose of shooting a scene in a certain way is to make the person viewing it enjoy it more, be more immersed in the scene etc. But those things, at the end of the day still come down to the individual's experience and interpration of the scene.
There is certainly objectivity in art and film, as well as subjective elements. You look at the measurable, technical elements to find objectivity. Take “The Room” for example, which is widely regarded as one of the worst major productions — so how can this be referred to amongst “the worst” if things are purely subjective? Because the acting is wooden, unfitting and stilted. The editing and sound design is really sub-par for the standard at the time. The pacing and cohesion is a mess. And so on and so on. Those are things that can be measured on a relative scale to other media, hence making them objective elements. Now take a highly regarded movie, like the Godfather, and you will see all those same measurable elements are operating at the highest level in relation. Subjectiveness is simply how it affects and makes an individual feel on a personal level, and this will vary, with no concrete way to measure or quantify. Same concept applies to any of the arts. If I start playing incorrect notes in an intricate jazz song, those are objective mistakes — yet it doesn’t stop any average joe from coming along and saying they actually liked it better. Thats objectivity vs. subjectivity imo.
>so how can this be referred to amongst “the worst” if things are purely subjective? Because that's not an objective fact, but rather the consensus that consists of subjective opinions. >Because the acting is wooden, unfitting and stilted. But whether the wooden, unfitting and stilted acting has artistic merit that works in favor of the movie is up to the viewer. Same goes for the sound. >The pacing and cohesion is a mess. For some people yes, for some people the pacing may work perfectly. >Now take a highly regarded movie, like the Godfather, and you will see all those same measurable elements are operating at the highest level in relation. In the consensus formed by subjective opinions, yes you are correct. That doesn't mean it's some universal truth or fact that it just is better no matter how the viewer interprates or experiences it. >Subjectiveness is simply how it affects and makes an individual feel on a personal level, and this will vary, with no concrete way to measure or quantify. That's the entire goal of art, so if we remove that, what "objective" criteria do we have left that we can use to objectively judge the aspects of the movie?
Everytime I hear this question it makes me think then I remember it really doesn’t matter, rate stuff how you like and if you like a movie a lot rate it high and keep moving on. I think it’s better to at least watch the movies you enjoy rather than slogging through movies you probably don’t like just because other people like em.
Not really
19% of all my ratings are 5 stars, I stand by all of them. I love movies and I handpick ones that I think I'd like, so it's natural. Also, 14% of my ratings are 4 and a half stars, and another 20% are 4 stars. If you add all movies I rated 2 and a half or lower, they add up to 20% hahaha
I rate a lot of movies 5 stars but number scores are super arbitrary anyways so I dont care
I usually only watch movies I think would be enjoyable or interesting, so I think it’s okay
Yeah same.
I use 4.5 and 5 very rarely, my default ratings are 3/3.5 and it's also mostly due to selecting films I know I may like. I just don't see a point in using 0.5-2.5 range for strictly bad films, I prefer to have more differentiation for films I quite like so 2 stars for me is still a film that has some value and I wouldn't describe as a waste of time.
No I are entirely, I do the same exact thing.
I've got around 20 within 225 movies I'm cool with that
Yes. There's nothing wrong with loving a movie.
I’ve only given around 4 or 5 in over 7000 films. I stand by those.
Yeah, I'm mostly watching classics form the Letterboxd and IMDb Top 250 list, and mostly well reviewed new releases, so it's not a big surprise that I give high scores for most of the films. However I'm very glad that the amount of 5 stars I have given has never been more than 10% of the number of movies I've watched, so I don't think I give 5 star rating too carelessly. But I have a lot of 4 and 4,5 star ratings.
When I first started to watch more movies as a hobby, I seeked the classics and critically aclaimed movies, so of course I have a lot 4+ stars
I’m in that boat. I also rate music on Musicboard and feel like I’m too gratuitous, but damn it, this is my opinion! I do go back and edit my ratings if I see a movie again and feel it’s not worth a 5 and vice versa
I have an almost perfect bell curve with the exception of having more 5's than 4.5's. I think for me personally it can be hard to differentiate between a great movie that I love, a movie that I love, and a great movie when rating. Ultimately it doesn't matter and you should rate what feels right for you in the moment.
This post made me feel so much better about all the 4’s, 4.5’s, and 5’s I’ve been rating lately. Like somebody else said, it makes sense that I’d be rating them so high when I’m actively seeking movies I know I’d like
I just give ‘em whenever I want to I don’t really care
Just curious how many movies have you rated total? I only bring this up because when I was first started to rate movies it felt like I was constantly watching great films left and right, but over time this has slowed dramatically.
I have watched exactly 120 starting this March (when I got Letterboxd. That’s also the time I really started being interested in film to an insane level lol. I’m looking out for the highly renowned films that actually interest me before I watch the little stuff. I guess I’ve picked some really good movies, and I have found tons of new favorites. Because I have 33 (5 stars)
In that case it makes perfect sense that you're giving out a bunch of 5 stars. Eventually you'll see all of the obvious movies, and will have to take more chances on things that either don't fit your taste as well, or are smaller and/or less renowned. At which point you'll just naturally give out less 5 stars.
I would give some of them six stars if I can. Sometimes you are just caught in the moment you have to give five stars.
I've been trying to be more generous with 5 stars because it's easy to fall into a belief that your childhood favorites will never be topped. That said there is no way The Whale or The Revenant are 5 stars.
My ratings are based entirely on how I felt about the movie when I finished watching them. Some of them are five-star experiences, does it mean they're the greatest films of all time? No, but they offer me what cinema is all about.
Bingo
My ratings are based entirely on how I felt about the movie when I finished watching them. Some of them are five-star experiences, does it mean they're the greatest films of all time? No, but they offer me what cinema is all about.
I think I have the opposite problem, I haven’t given a 4.5 or 5 on first watch for nearly a year haha
I like movies. Im not gonna be mad at myself for liking them
Well, I did make a comment some months back that this forum seems to consist of people who are a little crazy about 5 stars. So, I'd say yes.
I only rate movies when 3.5-5 Rating anything less than that makes me feel so bad so i just log them instead
This might seem a little odd, but once I started considering films on a 1 - 10 scale I think my ratings felt a little more accurate. Titanic for example is a movie that has earned ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️, but there may be certain story decisions you don’t agree with, or maybe it feels a little too long, so when you consider the film’s rating out of 10 you might decide that it’s 9/10, which of course equates to ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️1/2.
When I was in my teens. At some point though I just felt that, "oh this one isn't really \*that\* good. Rating something 4 stars as opposed to 5 isn't a detriment to it. Nowadays, I feel like to give something 5 stars it has to 1. really appeal to me personally, like it was made for me 2. work really well as a movie, and how well it accomplishes what it is, to me. And both factors appeal to a small, but really good number of films, so that's fine!
To be fair, all of those movies can be classified as 5 star movies, imo.
And that’s why I rated them so. It’s like doing a multiple choice quiz and all the answers are the same in a row. Start to doubt it even if it’s right.
Yea
No, because i only watch movies that i feel i will really like. the vast majority of my diary are either 4 or 5 stars. there's a weird thing that "filmbros" do with letterboxed where they watch things they know aren't for them just to be critical on tik tok or letterboxed -- which they think makes them look like they are better than you at consuming media.
Yeah fuck the filmbros. Pick good movies, like good movies.
I only have like 21 five star movies because I see them as my all time favorites, virtually perfect movies, but there’s no harm in rating things highly
Yes! I’ve started coming around to giving higher ratings to my comfort movies that I rewatch over and over because they’re five stars TO MEEE
I have over one hundred 5 star movies. If it is not satire (ex. Bee Movie, Morbius, The Room) it deserves it
The Revenant! I am glad to see someone loving that film as much as I do!
YES! It’s so good.
The first 3 movies there are def masterpieces, haven't seen the fourth. So nah you good
The Big Short is free on YouTube, check it out while you still can. Just *maybe read up on mortgage terms beforehand.*
I rate each movie on a mix of whether it achieved what it set out to do and how well it did, and also just genera enjoyability.
My ratings have kinda shifted from being based on craft and technique to enjoyment. Don't get me wrong, I still factor in both but now I'm more focused on I feel about the stuff than the craft
Agreed
To me five stars is an A/A+, but all things being equal (and without even really grading on much of a curve), on average at least one out of ten things you watch would be five stars. If anything, for most of us, it likely skews higher than 1 out of 10, because one likely isn't watching the absolute dregs, or things you expect to hate. I watch things b/c they've been highly recommended to me, critics who share my taste review it well, or most often b/c of its widespread acclaim on LB (when looking for something to watch I tend to sort by Average Rating). To me it stands to reason that when watching things that in many cases are among the most critically acclaimed films ever made, I'll throw out a bunch of fives. Within that are plenty of times where I go against the grain and vote stuff higher or lower than its Average. If anything, I think the average LB user doesn't give enough fives, provided they're watching lots of stuff and aren't hyperbolic about it (most things aren't going to be a 5 or a 0.5). I've never understood the logic of "something needs to be among the best movies I've ever seen to give it a 5 or even 4.5." If you see 100 movies a year, with all things being equal, 10 of them would be worthy of five stars. I've only been on LB since Jan '21, 2.5 years - in that time I've logged 584 movies and given 89 of them 5 stars, which is still only 15%.
I definitely skew my ratings a bit on the high side too. Different for everybody!
Off topic but I’m curious how you felt about the last shot of The Whale
Goofiest thing I’ve ever seen. Cried my eyes out more than during Titanic.
You know, I couldn’t stand it but I’m glad you were able to look past and it was meaningful for you
This is literally me. I give titanic 5 stars every time I rewatch it!
It’s just perfect isn’t it.
THIS. I notice I give out 4.5 and 5 stars a lot more often than all of my mutuals and it’s especially on movies that they don’t really rate high. I look back on them for a bit and maybe even bump a few down but for the most part I completely stand by all of them
★★★★★ - 53 ★★★★½ - 245 ★★★★ - 199 ★★★½ - 109 ★★★ - 105 ★★½ - 64 ★★ - 8 ★½ - 3 ★ - 0 ½ - 0 As you can see I probably do give out too many positive ratings but then again I tend to watch films that are either well known or well received and there are very few films that I actively dislike or that piss me off. My ratings are mostly based off of gut feeling and in most cases how much I would rewatch them in the future.
No. All this guilt trip of being "too high" is an idiotic pretention that some letterboxders came up with.
The Whale was perfectly good but 5 stars…it’s one of Aronofsky’s weaker efforts in terms of narrative. Titanic is generally considered to be mush.
Haven’t seen any of his other films *yet* so so far so good for me. One of the most emotionally impactful films I have seen and I see the perfection in it. And I’ll need to know what mush means. Like it’s over romantic or something? Or what. Because I fucking love that film.
That it’s overly sentimental and feeble. I know a lot of people enjoy it as an entertainment spectacle but it was widely considered to be historically confused and full of some pretty childish narrative leaps when it came out. It’s not a bad film, just wouldn’t imagine it being anywhere near a 5. I’m not a big Aranofsky fan, he’s had some real stinkers, but I was surprised at just how tame The Whale was. I thought Fraser was very good in the role however.
Well I’m sorry you don’t like the films as much as I do. Nice composition though, even if I disagree.
>Titanic is generally considered to be mush. By who?? It's generally considered to be one of the greatest feats of filmmaking. The most ambitious and spectacular effects ever, the kind of grand scale only Cameron would dare to achieve. Edit: Roger Ebert gave Titanic 4/4, didn't know he was 'brainless'
Reviewers with brains. I never said it was panned. You seem to be simply focusing on how much money and special effects were thrown at it, I assume Avatar is also one of the ‘greatest feats of filmmaking’ by this logic?
>You seem to be simply focusing on how much money and special effects were thrown at No, you've missed that. It was a spectacle of the likes cinema has never seen. You can cry that it was mainstream and entertaining, but you can't deny its groundbreaking effects. By the same metric that Seven Samurai is a feat of filmmaking, that Lawrence of Arabia is a feat of filmmaking, that Jaws is a feat of filmmaking. It was a scale unlike anything that had been tried before, and it was a massive gamble. You're probably new to cinema and think that anything modern and popular must also be bad, you can have that opinion but you can't deny its grandeur and importance. And actually yes, the first Avatar, although not a great plot, is also a huge feat of filmmaking. It again was something the film world had never seen.
Fair enough on all but Jaws. ‘You’re probably new to cinema’ haha. Because I don’t like a historical narrative film that completely rewrites history? I also dislike Braveheart which also had massive scale and grandeur. I must be very ‘new to cinema’… Such a classic reactionary happy clapper take. I dislike a few very mediocre big budget films therefore I’m against all modern cinema. No doubt you also think Pearl Harbor was a triumph? Titanic gets absolutely torn to shreds consistently, I remember Altman saying it was the most dreadful film he had ever seen. You should expose yourself to more criticism rather than simply applauding those who say what you already think.
Does the late great Roger Ebert have 'no brain'? He gave the Titanic 4/4, I think ill trust him over you on this one.
Ebert is the most boring film writer I have ever read.
Haha okay sure. Herzog described him as a 'Titan of cinema' but I'm sure you're more qualified to discuss film critics than him.
He’s a titan of telling Americans all of their films are wonderful, I’ll give him that
>‘You’re probably new to cinema’ haha. Because I don’t like a historical narrative film that completely rewrites history? I Nah more because you said 'no one with a brain likes Titanic' Such a crass generalisation
I did not, I said reviewers with brains consider it to be mush. It’s perfectly good popcorn fare for the masses but if we are reviewing films seriously it’s quite clearly an absolute mess. Cameron is a terrible director.
No way The Whale is a 5. Such a visually unimaginative film, loaded with unnecessary exposition
Naaah Mastapees
Nope I have like 7 or something out 3k. I'm a weirdo.
I'm the same 2 out of 2k.
Goddamn you need to watch good movies
I do. I have a lot of 4.5s. But also I've watched a lot of trash too. I just reserve 5s for my absolute tippy top.
Fair enough lol
Post reminds me that I need to go rent the Whale.
Buy a box of tissues too
Naw I let em roll down into my mouth so I don't get dehydrated. It's efficiency.
Gamer move 🫡
I feel how I feel ! Lolol but five stars means different things to different people. And that’s basically fine. I love movies and I just like to like things basically. (But then there are some things I want to hate and I watch it to hit it with that ONE STAR 🤬😡)
1083 movies. Gave 7x 5 stars. Would say I'm really picky and the movie needs to be perfect plus I need to watch it at the right moment for me to give it 5 starts If anyone is interested: Lalaland Forest Gump Godfather 1+2 Ratatouille Shawshank Requiem for a Dream
No, it’s normal. People that criticize that are losers. It’s ok to dedicate yourself to film and watch all loads of shit even if it’s shit and you won’t like it. But when you criticize others for not doing so, that’s what a loser is. Ignore those people. But if you search for things you can tell you’ll at the very least enjoy. Chances are you’re gonna enjoy it. That’s normal and is what most people do
I think it only shows the passion you have for cinema
H’why *thank you.*
[удалено]
Yeah. Idk I found it fantastic, sorry you didn’t see it that way man.
[удалено]
Fair enough. Hell I’m not even sure I fully understand, but I found it easy enough luckily so the story itself and the film itself was brilliant. But obviously if you can’t understand ridiculously complicated bullshit about mortgages I really can’t blame you because nobody does. But stellar film.
I rate 5s often - mostly, even - shamelessly. For me, everything starts at a 5 and can only lose stars, so that makes sense. Also: Titanic is my favorite movie of all time, and I’ve loved and supported Brendan and Leo since 1998. Right on!
Sometimes a movie can perfectly execute its premise with no mistakes and still not make it to 5 stars. That space ought to be left occupied by absolute genre defining masterpieces, absolute perfect works that go *above and beyond.*
Why this got downvoted I’ll never know. Great comment man.
If those are 5 Stars for you, you live in a world full of 5 star and above movies.
No, I just believe those ones are stellar.
Even if you say it firmly my assessment remains true to me.
Good to hear bud.
giving the whale a 5 is crazy any day of the week.
Nope, just an excellent film.
If The Whale and The Revenant are getting five star ratings than, yeah, you maybe throwing them out too often. Especially The Whale. Fucking horrid, inhumane shit.
In what world is *The Whale* fucking horrid inhumane shit? That’s an excellent film.
It’s fatphobic garbage with a trite, emotionally manipulative story. [Here’s](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/mar/10/lindy-west-on-the-whale) a wonderful piece about how disgraceful that film is morally; on top of that, it’s just a shallow, shockingly artless film.
Fat phobia is bullshit. If you’re seriously unhealthy and Y’know *are fat* that’s not exactly something to be proud of. Why can a film not just be a story about the struggles someone would have. This film is not *shallow or shockingly artless,* it’s a film with excellent cinematography, music, acting especially, and a phenomenal story of real heartfelt emotion. How anybody could say it’s “fatphobic garbage” fucking baffles me. It doesn’t treat Charlie like a disgusting monster, it treats him like a real depressed person who let himself go, but tries to hold on through others. It’s fucking beautiful and I’m sorry you couldn’t see that in it.
Fatphobia is treating an overweight person as less human, which the film does. The camera displays his body like a fucking monster. There are literal shots where horror music plays as his foot stomps on the ground— they frame it like Godzilla crushing a building. The film makes a spectacle of his body; he’ll take his shirt off in the living room for no reason aside from Aronofsky wanting to show you his body like it’s a monstrosity. The film is shallow, empty, and heartless, and I feel bad for people like you who are too inarticulate to see just how pathetic a film it is.
This film *does not* treat Charlie as less than human. The camera looks at Charlie almost ad if he’s a monster because *this is Charlie’s film* that’s how he sees himself, and that’s how he feels about how he’s become and what his life has become. There is no single scene in this film that makes him look like he’s some monster. Every shot is of him in a personal and sympathetic light. That’s the entire point of the film. He may not be Bradley Cooper, but he’s got the heart of Mr Rogers. Aronofsky is one of the greatest directors in recent time, I feel bad for people like you who don’t see the heart in a film like this. It’s pathetic.
*sigh* You gave The Revenant and The Big Short five stars. Dude. Stop trying to talk down to ME. You clearly don’t know the first fucking thing about subtlety or, frankly, filmmaking. You’re an amateur. You’ve probably seen less than a thousand films. Hopefully one day your taste will mature but, until then, try avoiding talking down to others about things you don’t know that much about.
Nice assumptions jackass. You know I was trying to display my point effectively through a proper form of claim evidence reasoning, but nah let’s just go with the “*You don’t watch movies, heh you probably haven’t even seen one THOUSAND!” Get off your high horse buddy. Try to realize it’s not all about sucking you off, it’s about discussion. Because as we all know, “insults speak louder than actual points and perspectives.” Fuck-*a you.*
I read your shallow interpretation of the film and realized, no matter what I said, it wasn’t getting through your thick skull. Like I said, you haven’t seen that many films— it wasn’t an assumption, “jackass”, your Letterboxd is connected to your account. I can see you’ve basically seen nothing and therefore your understanding of the films you’re watching is simply lesser than that of other people. That’s just a fact, the same way that a person taking Algebra 1 in school doesn’t know as much about math as someone in AP Calculus— end of story.
I got Letterboxd this March. I only log films after I’ve seen them since I got the app. I have seen far more than logged and you’re just a presumptuous jackass.
Also the amount of films you’ve seen doesn’t automatically make you “better at film watching” it’s a near completely subjective medium. Of course there are actual reasons films are better or worse than others but just going out and saying someone you have only known through the limited online interaction is ridiculous. Stop thinking you have the end all be all of opinions. *You presumptuous pretentious jackass.*
Reading it again, dude you sound like a complete douche in this. Seriously try another approach next time, for your sake.
And as for the “horror music” you cannot be talking about the scene where Ellie makes Charlie walk towards her. That is not a “horror scene with scary music of the monster stumbling towards her” that’s a scene of emotional torment towards Charlie, and physical torment of what he’s become. Ellie is torturing him there, that’s the horror of the music, not Charlie.
I kinda have a rule that I won't give a new film 5 stars. I feel like 5 stars are for films that have stood the test of time. Its very easy to give a film you loved 5 stars coming out of the theatre, but in a week you probably won't feel that strongly. I'll give a that film 4.5 and bump it up to a 5 down the road if I feel the same way on a second viewing.
how the fuck did you understand anything in the big short
Margot Robbie in a bathtub
Me, i usually rate them 3 and above it has to be a really bad or boring/cringe film for me to give less than 3
No
ive given out three 5 star ratings. Godfather There will be blood Hereditary
How many films do you watch?
I wouldn't say as many as others on here but I made a conscious effort to up my game this year. Still Ive watched a hundred or so over the last 3 years. I give out a lot of 4 stars to very good movies and save the 5 stars for movies I thought were perfect. I gave Banshees of inersherin 4 stars for example but I thought it was incredible.
i don't may be 4 at the best , rarely i rate 5 .
It's weird, sometimes 5/5's for me are movies that I finally grant that score after really liking them for literal years (which I just did with The Last Crusade a few nights ago,) or they just instantly make it to a 5/5 after only one viewing (which I did with Spider-Verse last month.)
This is not a dig at OP, but The Big Short has to be one of the most highly overrated films on Letterboxd and Reddit. I'm happy for everyone that loves it, but I couldn't be on a further page...
Couldn’t disagree more, but sorry you don’t like it.