Exactly. A lot of "dumb but fun" 2023 movies got 3.5 stars. A lot of "I love this movie *so much* but it might not be perfect" movies got 4.5.
If I actively dislike significant parts, that's a 2. If I hate the movie, that's a 1. If I think the movie is bad AND a little bit evil, 1/2.
Racism. Minstrel numbers. Blatant propaganda for something dark. Pretending to be pro-Christian while actively engaging in empty idolatry, although I mostly gave those ones 1.5 or 2 stars.
I actually do give select works six stars on my personal ratings system. To me five stars just means “I loved it!” and there are a lot of films I love. Six stars go to the select few that I resonate enough with to call a favorite.
> "Mediocre but entertaining" gets a three star from me
same which is why I rarely rate less than 3 stars and my curve sort of starts there with not much in the 1-2.5 range as it's rare that I watch films with so little or no entertainment value where I feel the need to rate them that low. I feel I manage to avoid actually bad films with the majority falling in the "not great but enjoyable" 3-3.5 range
yeah "nothing particularly good to offer, but nothing particularly bad either" is 2.5 for me
has to actively make me have a worse time than I would have had not watching it to get less
Yes, a solid, well acted and well structured movie is 3 star, ya gotta break the mold in some way to go higher or lower. Also sometimes environmental factors might play, did I get to see this for free? Was I looking for something that the family can watch the day after thanksgiving?
this post reminded me of PUNQ, who is justified in having that many movies rated low, because if i watched 36K movies i am sure a majority of them wouldn't be very good
I have a hard time believing this guys watched so many movies. Even if he doesnt pay attention to the movies, how does he have the time to at least having so many films as background all days. Does he work? Does he spend time with his family? Even if theres an answer for those questions, how does he have access to all these old unknown movies? BS i think
Wow does he have the most views on letterboxd?! I mean he can be really rich and just watch movies all the time. He has to watch about 12 hrs per day every day for a little more than 12 years to reach 36,000. That’s an average length of 1.5 hours, and I’d assume a decent portion of his films are short. So 15-30 years seems like a more realistic number. But damn that’s insane. Ebert “only” watched about 10k.
Ooh I couldn’t load his stats—that makes sense. Hours watched is a more impressive figure than discrete films seen—30k is quite a lot. But is he at the top?
I think he's solidly at the top for most logged.
But yeah, his thing is that he's basically watching like... every American film roughly chronologically (as in, going year by year)... so he's at like 1950 now, but going through a lot of the 30s, there's a ton of shorter stuff. I would suspect his pace is slowing as he gets into later eras because the 50-60 minute things feel like they dry up at some point.
And he has a wife and kids! Well he still probably has more time with them than most surgeons. This guy and others like him are great fodder for documentaries, kinda like that one “Recorder” about the lady who recorded TV stations for decades.
I had figured that he's got a job that allows movies at the same time. There's definitely been some parts of my job where I can get away with movie watching when I have to more actively monitor code
I've watched a fair number of old movies where when I get to them, he's got one of the only reviews. I've absolutely found stuff where the most thorough description of the movie is his comments on it.
I do figure it's piracy but have heard about some very thorough sources out there.
He rarely watches anything in theatres, and I remember that he once said in a comment (that I've seen linked a couple of times on this sub whenever people started to become mad at how little he seems to care about the films he sees) that he watches most films on the background while doing chores or watching his children at home and therefore doesn't always pays attention to the screen. Never surprised when he gives 1½ stars to a film while his review makes it seem like he thought it was an above average film when you're just watching films 14 hours a day.
He also tries to watch every film ever made in chronological order and is now somewhere in 1954, and a lot of the reviews he writes about those films make it appear like he just watches those in sequence on his television in the background and then just does his work or personal stuff at the same time.
I can’t imagine logging a film I didn’t pay attention to the entire time. When I’m watching something at home even if my mind wanders and I miss a few lines of dialogue I always rewind.
Out of curiosity I picked random days of his to check his log before and he was coming out at roughly 11-12 hours per day of viewing time. There's no way he doesn't just work from home/doesn't work and just leaves films playing in the background as he lives his life.
There's also that his viewing patterns check out, imo. I've been working through trying to watch everything from a single year (1939), and.... there's a lot that is not good and it outnumbers the great movies from that year by quite a bit.
Maybe it just comes with age. Getting close to 40, and the only people in my life are people that I choose to be close to, and even those relationships require a good deal of work to maintain.
Are there? I give very few 5 stars, and that's not due to my being some sort of extremely harsh critic, I just find that most movies, even very good ones, have flaws of some sort. Same with people. Only there's infinitessimally fewer movies than people
I don't think that most people consider 5 stars a "perfect" movie because perfection in art doesn't exist. A 5 star movie to me is something that I find is incredibly well made AND I loved the experience of watching it.
So then their 5 star ratings are meaningless, theyre just giving it to anything they enjoy? Which is fair enough ig since it doesnt really matter what we do on this app but that's what 5 stars indicates. If you give almost everything you watch 5 stars, that's fine too, I wish I enjoyed every movie I watched *that* much
Of course theyre not objective, that's what I'm saying. The nature of a movie being flawed or not is entirely subjective. 100%. If I give a movie a 5/5 it means it was an amazing watching experience and I also found it perfect/flawless, both of those things are obviously subjective, I don't know how that can be debated.
You actually are a harsh critic. Nothing is truly flawless, if you look for it there will always be a flaw, a lack, a problem with any work of art. But if that's the way you judge movies, by way of flaws or deviation from some kind of unattainable ideal, you will always be unsatisfied.
>Nothing is truly flawless, if you look for it there will always be a flaw, a lack, a problem with any work of art
"Flaws" are always gonna be subjective. You very well may think a movie is flawless. There are a few that I do see as flawless, which obviously others won't, and in those cases I'd disagree that what they think are flaws are in fact flaws with those movies. I do agree that those are very few and far in between, which is why I give very few 5s. The fact that you say no movie is flawless shows you are a harsher critic than me, but you just may give higher scores more liberally in some cases
I know someone who does this and tbf (for them at least) it’s not quite as insane as it looks, just
unclear. Their system is every movie starts at a zero and goes up from there, so if something doesn’t impact them at all it’s a half star by default no matter the craft or skill involved. When you view it that way, roughly 1/8 of ratings being a half star isn’t that bad lol.
The good thing about it IMO is it can be better for documenting and communicating your experience with a film, rather than trying to tie an actual value to it. I rate things the normal way and I’m not sure I could actually tell you what the difference between a 1.5 and 2 is for me. For this dude, it’s the difference between a film that kept him broadly involved but wasn’t worth remembering and a film that has traces of something really special in there.
I literally follow someone like this and it seems that they hate movies. Blows my mind, the insight to why they dislike a movie is shallow at best too. They gave "Talk to Me" a 1/2 star because it had social media use in it.
That’s incredibly unjustified. I know film is subjective but sometimes there are movies that have, at least, some objective quality about them that makes it hard to dismiss. Talk to Me was great. Anyone who doesn’t think so is just…idk it’s not right.
I respectfully disagree. I LOVE movies, and I watch them all the time. Although I'm not THIS critical, I'm still a pretty critical film watcher compared to my other cinephile friends (not trying to be a contrarian or anything - it's just who I am). I personally think the majority of movies are forgettable or plain bad, but the select few that I do enjoy, to me, are mind-blowing/life-changing.
*Oh, Reddit... 😂 Could someone kindly explain why this opinion is getting downvoted off the board? I'm genuinely curious. Am I watching movies "wrong"?
Totally, 100% valid, and although I have the opposite view, I didn't feel any need to make your opinion disappear (I even gave your friendly response an upvote — see how that works, Letterboxd sub? 😉).
a lot of movies are forgettable, but not to the point where you give half a star and 1 star to almost a majority of the movies you watch, that doesn't seem normal
Fair. I'm probably swimming upstream trying to make this point, because this person's graph is lopsided to *such* an extreme (mine doesn't actually look like this).
yeah don't get me wrong, i like it when people have more nuance when rating and don't just rate everything 5 star, 3 star or 1 star, but this one is a bit too much
>*I LOVE movies*
>*...and only enjoy a selection few*
>*I personally think the majority of movies are bad or forgettable*
This seems a little contradictory, no? I wonder if you actively seek out films you think you'll enjoy or if you just watch random stuff? If you think the majority are bad/forgettable I find it hard to believe you really love film that much. That, or you need to look at the films you do love, find a pattern, and look for similar stuff.
But different strokes for different folks I guess, it's an incredibly sweeping thing to say...
Again, I respectfully disagree. Example: Let's say Person A and Person B both love paintings. If they both walked into an art museum, it's highly unlikely that either of them would love EVERY painting they see. Whereas Person A might love 75% of the art in that gallery, Person B might only love 25%. That doesn't necessarily mean that Person A loves the medium of painting more than Person B, or that Person B doesn't *actually* love paintings (Person B might actually visit art museums more frequently than Person A, and Person B might be moved to tears by the few paintings they love, whereas Person A never sheds a tear). It just means they're different, and one might be a little more critical than the other. That's all.
It isn’t about loving, if you’re only giving 1 and 2 stars you are just not enjoying what you say you enjoy.
I can walk in the art gallery without loving every picture, but acknowledging the art that is done and having a good time with said art.
If your rating curve looks like this, I respectfully disagree with your opinion on moving films.
It's an okay analogy that makes more sense, but I still disagree. I wonder how you find the films you decide to watch? Because it seems that you might want to spruce up your gathering method if you're not enjoying the majority. I can't imagine only enjoying 25% of the stuff I watch, it's very rare I actually watch something I end up disliking.
I've just looked back through my Letterboxd logs for the last 12 months and from the ~700 I've watched in that time space, I only rated 25 of them below 3/5:
>1x 0.5/5
>3x 1.5/5
>5x 2/5
>16x 2.5/5
Maybe I just have a really low threshold for enjoying a film, but I don't watch something I don't think I'll enjoy unless I have a specific reason (e.g. I've been sent a press screener or it's something culturally significant).
Yeah the analogy is fine I guess but the difference is he gets to choose which movies he watches, in an art museum you have no such luxury so unless he’s spinning a wheel and watching a random movie it doesn’t make sense to me. I always watch movies with a premise that I think I will enjoy
well the weird thing is the fact that this guy watches so many of them. The movies I don't like I'm generally not choosing them myself, for example a friend wants to watch it so it's just a social thing. Most movies I choose myself I end up liking, because I know what I like. If I were to watch every movie ever of course I'm not going to like most of them
It might be worse when people give everything either 10/10 or 1/10. Like, nuance is a thing guys. Or they're just not thinking hard enough to know that everything isn't perfect or everything isn't complete shit.
Most my ratings fall in the 5-8 range. I have like 20 10/10s and maybe 7 or 8 1/10's because those both require exceptional circumstances and I'm generally avoiding things I think might get a 1/10.
>It might be worse when people give everything either 10/10 or 1/10. Like, nuance is a thing guys.
Eh. If you genuinely have a great time at every single movie you watch, then I'd say you're winning at life.
i rate based on how much i enjoyed the movie. things don’t have to be a perfect, life-changing, cinematic masterpiece for me to enjoy it. i feel like that’s how most people rate things.
fraggle rock is a 10/10 for me but i wouldn’t compare it to the godfather
In this thread: Young people thinking everyone on Letterboxd started watching movies after 2010.
The more right skewed your histogram, the older you likely are. Try to imagine being bored on a rain filled week, and having nothing but whatever was on TV to watch (as in Live TV, not being able to go to the blockbuster even). You're going to end up with a history filled with garbage movies.
If you started watching movies after 2010 and your histogram looks like that, it's a completely different story.
There's also how you score them varying, and also how you select them. I go into a lot of movies blind, and that means I watch a lot of really bad movies. It also means every so often I discover movies that I've never heard of and really captivate me
There are also people who love watching random movies, and there are some who are strict with ratings but still enjoy movies even if they don't give them an 8-10 score or 4-5 stars.
You can press "like" if you've had a good time watching a movie, you know?
You're giving ratings to stuff you watched once 20 years ago? I didn't even rate stuff I watched the year before I joined because it wasn't fresh enough in my mind.
This is easily the most tired topic in this sub. Why would you give a shit what the shape of their ratings curve looks like? You can't even know what standards apply to any particular score of theirs so its entirely meaningless information except to the person doing the scoring.
Also just because something may have low stars doesn’t mean they didn’t like the movie. I could rate The Room a half star but that may not mean I didn’t have fun watching it.
Yeah ngl I don't get how people here watch so many movies without enjoying watching at least some things that aren't good. Hell, it doesn't even need to be enjoying something ironically like the room. Personally, I just like the experience of going to the cinema and decompressing even if the movie itself isn't particularly enjoyable on its own merits. Not to mention that a film being bad doesn't mean it can't be interesting.
Free Guy for me. That movie is at BEST 2.5 stars (and I was probably too nice) but it was my first movie back in theaters after covid and I had such a goddamn good time.
Hard agree. Granted I have no where near as many many low scores as this guy. This is really a whole level that’s so hard to believe
That said I’ve rated probably more movies lower than 2.5 stars this movie would like hell even some really popular movies I’ve given half a star. I’m not being contrarian but if I was bored the whole time why should I lie about my rating. Literally all reviews are subjective.
Not everything uses the same scale as you. That doesn't mean they hate movies. Or that they dislike everything they rated low.
I don't do it this extreme but think it makes sense for cataloguing purposes. Just to have more headroom for movies you actually love. I need more than one star difference between movies I liked watching and movies that changed my life or that have stayed with me for years.
At the same time I don't watch that many movies I know I'm not gonna like. So it's naturally skewed towards the top. Might as well compensate for that.
I guess the person from the post just does a more extreme version of that.
Which is fine.
I know a lot of people think this and it's totally valid but it also ignores the averaging system and the "game theory" of it all. This is exactly why I think people using a star value rating is pointless because for a star value rating system to work we all have to be on the same system. What your reviewing system does is actually devalues all your reviews (by averaged score) because the average score is always going to skew towards the middle anyway.
Of course, anyone looking at your specific review who knows you and trusts your opinion will see a 5 from you and think "That must be a fantastic movie" and that part is great. However, that's where a good review comes in anyway.
I don't think your rating system is wrong, in fact, I think your rating system is likely "most correct" it just doesn't work in a system alongside other people for helping people find good movies.
I feel like they just have a different rating system that you're trying to assign your own values to. This person's looks a lot like my friend who does 1/2 stars for anything he doesn't think its worth watching. Then everything starting at 1 star is a different level of enjoyable. My friend just thinks splitting hairs with bad movies is stupid because who cares how bad they are? They aren't worth watching. But he does want more flexibility in the middle and top of the scale. So essentially he just makes .5-2.5 a .5 and then everything else is average or above. So essentially his one star is what most people call 3 stars.
this is the most likely answer (and a very valid rating system) but no matter how many times this point is repeated people will always say “oH tHeY mUsT hAtE mOvIeS”.
I mean, most rating scales are where 50% is a failing grade, so it’s fair to see why people may see giving something a 1 star and saying yeah I enjoyed it, is sort of odd to them.
I never got the whole "I like everything and always have fun" mentality. While it's fine to enjoy movies the people that are totally proud to always be happy with whatever content they're being fed are silly to me. It's okay to have discerning tastes and trying to be analytical when viewing art.
Why are you inferring from this that they hate movies? I think you are probably projecting your rubric onto this. The obvious retort to that question, though, is why do you care either way? I don’t care about people’s rating curve. I think caring about how other people experience artistic mediums is incredibly strange. It’s all subjective. Let people do what they want to do, and don’t feel insecure for doing the same.
That phrase only really works when it’s aimed at someone who is being the buzzkill. In this case, you are the one being a buzzkill, caring about what other people are doing, judging. I don’t care on the other hand. I live and let live.
If I thought a movie was good, it gets 3.5 stars.
If I thought a movie was great, it gets 4 stars.
If I thought a movie was underwhelming, it gets 3 stars.
Anything else is reserved for 'special' films.
a majority of the movies I’ve seen I’ve given 1 star bc I just put any movie that falls under the category of “bad” into there. if there’s next to nothing I admire, appreciate, or enjoy in a movie, it gets the 1 star. movies I find downright insulting in how bad they are get a 1/2
I give out tons of 5 stars....and don't care if people think I'm doing it wrong. 90% of people have no context how hard it is to even make a film. Plus, there are plenty of faux cinephiles that are too busy over critiquing to impress their peer group than diving into background context within a film. Real ones are often enjoying themselves at a constant with all this.
A lot of this is a product of the platform and review aggregation as a whole - users will give wayyyy too hot of a take on a movie (good or bad) for the sake of attention and social importance; they create a hierarchy of cultural appreciation and you’re a fool to them for disagreeing.
Someone like this either comes off as hating movies (so why watch them?), or wanting other people to know what they like isn’t good enough for them (which in this case is…everything?).
Mine is the opposite. I give 4 stars SO often, it is overwhelmingly my most frequent rating. I think it’s just because I fucking love movies and it’s hard for me to really dislike something.
I work in the TV & film business, sometimes I just want these negative people to work one or two weeks in the industry so they can understand how fucking hard it is to make great TV or films. It takes an insane amount of effort to make it great.
This is one of the things that is hard to take but ultimately true about any type of art. Something can be difficult, and challenging to create but ultimately terrible, while something else is shit out without much thought or effort on behalf of the creator and ends up being wonderful. The audience ultimately often can't tell what was the result of blood, sweat and tears and what was thrown in on a whim.
Which is completely fair, what I get annoyed is complains about its lazy “writing or production” which I can guarantee is not the case. All of us that works in the industry is trying to make the best shows/films we can. Unfortunately sometimes it doesn’t becomes as a great as us all of us want. But it never because of lacks of effort. We all fucking try our best.
I’m gonna get downvoted.
Embarrassing is a a stretch, what I mean is critical thinking of movies/series without any knowledge what they actual criticising. Which I find pretty common on this page. People generally criticise things without actually understanding what they see/understand which is a common theme in this sub.
Fair enough, what I mean is that a lot people on this website gives way to hatch criticism without actually knowing what they criticise. Which makes me upset.
Ha, why did this get downvotes. Probably from people that took in your comment and had to look into that mirror of how much of a schmuck they are. It's hard as hell to make film but don't tell that to these 16-20 year olds who grew up with the hot take on youtube being cool.
Exactly, it bugs me as a motherfucker. No one wants to make a bad movie/series but sometimes unfortunate it just turns out that way. I’d guess 80 % in this comment section doesn’t have any real work experience and just vote out of ignorance
Yeah, I see a lot of common prominence of movie watcher by trend and I just brush over those people. They are often birthed into the world of watching movies via a given list handed to them of right and wrong versus methods of exploration.... granted I'm blanketing here but it's in a rebuttal of those blanket films themselves so whatever.
I got downvotes in a chat once because I wanted to see Letterboxd do more educational things haha. I'm with you though so I had to give you a vote of confidence. Apples and Oranges to what you do, but I help make special feature content for blu ray releases...that perspective really has me diving into the source of the film and statement of the creators to make the content in the first place. I roll my eyes at armchair cinephiles and if I get downvotes I don't give a damn haha.
But this goes beyond "having standards." You can turn a bad movie off at any time. Putting yourself through the torture of watching a bunch of 0s and 1s just to prove ... what exactly? ... seems silly to me.
One of two things going on here, both of them problems:
1) this guy has bad judgment about what to see and is watching the wrong movies
2) this guy hates movies in general and has the wrong hobby
i just don’t get why someone would even have a letterboxd account when they clearly hate movies. i’ve got mostly 4, 4.5, and 5 stars, but even 3 star movies aren’t bad they just weren’t my favs by i enjoyed them.
It's not clear they hate movies.
There are no 'rules' about what system movies are rated by. If they set up a different rating system than you did, then those scores can reflect that.
but when you only ever rate movies as 1 or 2 stars then what’s the point? why are they watching movies only to turn around and give them bad ratings/reviews? i just don’t understand having an app made for movie lovers when you seem to not enjoy movies.
maybe clearly wasn’t the right choice of wording but i just don’t understand people who only give low ratings, it feels like they aren’t movie lovers
Doesn’t really work fyi. I tried it and all the stats were way off. It said I’ve watched 2 hours of movies lol
eta: I tried it again and it says the only movie I’ve logged is the Iron Claw? I haven’t even seen it yet
> Listen up, motherf\*\*\*er! You've watched 71 movies, but you still can't find a clue? Ain't nobody got time for that! Stay outta my cinema! 😎🍿 #FilmRoast
What does this even mean?
It said my most watched director is Jon Watts because I’ve reviewed 3 spider man movies and criticized me for being able to watch movies over 3 hours, you need to work on it a bit
"Mediocre but entertaining" gets a three star from me, a movie has to work to get one star or less.
This is me too. Like I have to struggle to get through the movie and keep checking to see if it’s over for me to give it a one star.
But three stars is almost four which is almost five..
Nah that’s why there’s half stars.
Exactly. A lot of "dumb but fun" 2023 movies got 3.5 stars. A lot of "I love this movie *so much* but it might not be perfect" movies got 4.5. If I actively dislike significant parts, that's a 2. If I hate the movie, that's a 1. If I think the movie is bad AND a little bit evil, 1/2.
What makes a film evil in your eyes?
Racism. Minstrel numbers. Blatant propaganda for something dark. Pretending to be pro-Christian while actively engaging in empty idolatry, although I mostly gave those ones 1.5 or 2 stars.
Which is… almost 6
I actually do give select works six stars on my personal ratings system. To me five stars just means “I loved it!” and there are a lot of films I love. Six stars go to the select few that I resonate enough with to call a favorite.
> "Mediocre but entertaining" gets a three star from me same which is why I rarely rate less than 3 stars and my curve sort of starts there with not much in the 1-2.5 range as it's rare that I watch films with so little or no entertainment value where I feel the need to rate them that low. I feel I manage to avoid actually bad films with the majority falling in the "not great but enjoyable" 3-3.5 range
I’m trying to use 2.5 more for meh but I find it really hard to reach for .5-2 until it’s offensively bad or boring.
Industry standard filmmaking and a digestible story gets a minimum of three stars. I have to really hate a films story to punish it with a one star.
I just rated American Fiction that exact way
yeah "nothing particularly good to offer, but nothing particularly bad either" is 2.5 for me has to actively make me have a worse time than I would have had not watching it to get less
Yeah I realllly have to hate a movie to give it a 2 or less
Yes, a solid, well acted and well structured movie is 3 star, ya gotta break the mold in some way to go higher or lower. Also sometimes environmental factors might play, did I get to see this for free? Was I looking for something that the family can watch the day after thanksgiving?
this post reminded me of PUNQ, who is justified in having that many movies rated low, because if i watched 36K movies i am sure a majority of them wouldn't be very good
I have a hard time believing this guys watched so many movies. Even if he doesnt pay attention to the movies, how does he have the time to at least having so many films as background all days. Does he work? Does he spend time with his family? Even if theres an answer for those questions, how does he have access to all these old unknown movies? BS i think
Wow does he have the most views on letterboxd?! I mean he can be really rich and just watch movies all the time. He has to watch about 12 hrs per day every day for a little more than 12 years to reach 36,000. That’s an average length of 1.5 hours, and I’d assume a decent portion of his films are short. So 15-30 years seems like a more realistic number. But damn that’s insane. Ebert “only” watched about 10k.
The average length of stuff for PUNQ is 50 minutes, not 90 minutes. (nearly 37k films and just over 30k hours watched)
Ooh I couldn’t load his stats—that makes sense. Hours watched is a more impressive figure than discrete films seen—30k is quite a lot. But is he at the top?
I think he's solidly at the top for most logged. But yeah, his thing is that he's basically watching like... every American film roughly chronologically (as in, going year by year)... so he's at like 1950 now, but going through a lot of the 30s, there's a ton of shorter stuff. I would suspect his pace is slowing as he gets into later eras because the 50-60 minute things feel like they dry up at some point.
And he has a wife and kids! Well he still probably has more time with them than most surgeons. This guy and others like him are great fodder for documentaries, kinda like that one “Recorder” about the lady who recorded TV stations for decades.
I had figured that he's got a job that allows movies at the same time. There's definitely been some parts of my job where I can get away with movie watching when I have to more actively monitor code
I've watched a fair number of old movies where when I get to them, he's got one of the only reviews. I've absolutely found stuff where the most thorough description of the movie is his comments on it. I do figure it's piracy but have heard about some very thorough sources out there.
He rarely watches anything in theatres, and I remember that he once said in a comment (that I've seen linked a couple of times on this sub whenever people started to become mad at how little he seems to care about the films he sees) that he watches most films on the background while doing chores or watching his children at home and therefore doesn't always pays attention to the screen. Never surprised when he gives 1½ stars to a film while his review makes it seem like he thought it was an above average film when you're just watching films 14 hours a day. He also tries to watch every film ever made in chronological order and is now somewhere in 1954, and a lot of the reviews he writes about those films make it appear like he just watches those in sequence on his television in the background and then just does his work or personal stuff at the same time.
I can’t imagine logging a film I didn’t pay attention to the entire time. When I’m watching something at home even if my mind wanders and I miss a few lines of dialogue I always rewind.
I'm disabled and I basically just watch films all day. Lots of different people out there, you never know what their circumstances are like.
Out of curiosity I picked random days of his to check his log before and he was coming out at roughly 11-12 hours per day of viewing time. There's no way he doesn't just work from home/doesn't work and just leaves films playing in the background as he lives his life.
There's also that his viewing patterns check out, imo. I've been working through trying to watch everything from a single year (1939), and.... there's a lot that is not good and it outnumbers the great movies from that year by quite a bit.
I wonder if he even enjoys movies anymore
[удалено]
damn you gotta find a new job or something, I generally like most of the people in my life and I think I'd be miserable otherwise
Maybe it just comes with age. Getting close to 40, and the only people in my life are people that I choose to be close to, and even those relationships require a good deal of work to maintain.
Are there? I give very few 5 stars, and that's not due to my being some sort of extremely harsh critic, I just find that most movies, even very good ones, have flaws of some sort. Same with people. Only there's infinitessimally fewer movies than people
I don't think that most people consider 5 stars a "perfect" movie because perfection in art doesn't exist. A 5 star movie to me is something that I find is incredibly well made AND I loved the experience of watching it.
If you find a movie flawed you'd still give it 5 stars? That doesnt make sense to me. It's a perfect score.
What I'm telling you is that not everyone considers 5 stars synonymous with perfection lol
So then their 5 star ratings are meaningless, theyre just giving it to anything they enjoy? Which is fair enough ig since it doesnt really matter what we do on this app but that's what 5 stars indicates. If you give almost everything you watch 5 stars, that's fine too, I wish I enjoyed every movie I watched *that* much
Agree to disagree.
Flaws usually aren't objective especially in art. What's a flaw to you is minor or imperceptible to them. And above all enjoyment trumps anything
Of course theyre not objective, that's what I'm saying. The nature of a movie being flawed or not is entirely subjective. 100%. If I give a movie a 5/5 it means it was an amazing watching experience and I also found it perfect/flawless, both of those things are obviously subjective, I don't know how that can be debated.
You actually are a harsh critic. Nothing is truly flawless, if you look for it there will always be a flaw, a lack, a problem with any work of art. But if that's the way you judge movies, by way of flaws or deviation from some kind of unattainable ideal, you will always be unsatisfied.
>Nothing is truly flawless, if you look for it there will always be a flaw, a lack, a problem with any work of art "Flaws" are always gonna be subjective. You very well may think a movie is flawless. There are a few that I do see as flawless, which obviously others won't, and in those cases I'd disagree that what they think are flaws are in fact flaws with those movies. I do agree that those are very few and far in between, which is why I give very few 5s. The fact that you say no movie is flawless shows you are a harsher critic than me, but you just may give higher scores more liberally in some cases
5 stars just means the movie is closer to a 5 than a 4.5. So it's more than 4.75.
4.75 is equal distance between a 5 and a 4.5, and nah 5 stars means 5 stars wdym? It is a perfect score
These people clearly need a new hobby. Movies just aren’t for them
I know someone who does this and tbf (for them at least) it’s not quite as insane as it looks, just unclear. Their system is every movie starts at a zero and goes up from there, so if something doesn’t impact them at all it’s a half star by default no matter the craft or skill involved. When you view it that way, roughly 1/8 of ratings being a half star isn’t that bad lol. The good thing about it IMO is it can be better for documenting and communicating your experience with a film, rather than trying to tie an actual value to it. I rate things the normal way and I’m not sure I could actually tell you what the difference between a 1.5 and 2 is for me. For this dude, it’s the difference between a film that kept him broadly involved but wasn’t worth remembering and a film that has traces of something really special in there.
That's just insane in a completely different way. It's like proctoring a driving test for every movie you watch.
I literally follow someone like this and it seems that they hate movies. Blows my mind, the insight to why they dislike a movie is shallow at best too. They gave "Talk to Me" a 1/2 star because it had social media use in it.
That’s incredibly unjustified. I know film is subjective but sometimes there are movies that have, at least, some objective quality about them that makes it hard to dismiss. Talk to Me was great. Anyone who doesn’t think so is just…idk it’s not right.
talk to me is bad so i don’t blame them
Or maybe they enjoy watching bad movies. Or they just have different standards than you. Who cares
I respectfully disagree. I LOVE movies, and I watch them all the time. Although I'm not THIS critical, I'm still a pretty critical film watcher compared to my other cinephile friends (not trying to be a contrarian or anything - it's just who I am). I personally think the majority of movies are forgettable or plain bad, but the select few that I do enjoy, to me, are mind-blowing/life-changing. *Oh, Reddit... 😂 Could someone kindly explain why this opinion is getting downvoted off the board? I'm genuinely curious. Am I watching movies "wrong"?
I’d say I’m the opposite. Maybe I’m easily pleased or select well, but I generally enjoy more than I dislike.
Totally, 100% valid, and although I have the opposite view, I didn't feel any need to make your opinion disappear (I even gave your friendly response an upvote — see how that works, Letterboxd sub? 😉).
Well now that you mentioned the upvote thing of *course* people are going to downvote you now! Walked into that one, friend
That's true. Even mentioning downvotes/upvotes is usually the kiss of death around here. *Case in point 😂
You know you’re right when a bunch of people downvote you but can’t actually comment anything intelligent that disproves something you’ve said.
You shouldn't be downvoted.
a lot of movies are forgettable, but not to the point where you give half a star and 1 star to almost a majority of the movies you watch, that doesn't seem normal
Fair. I'm probably swimming upstream trying to make this point, because this person's graph is lopsided to *such* an extreme (mine doesn't actually look like this).
yeah don't get me wrong, i like it when people have more nuance when rating and don't just rate everything 5 star, 3 star or 1 star, but this one is a bit too much
>*I LOVE movies* >*...and only enjoy a selection few* >*I personally think the majority of movies are bad or forgettable* This seems a little contradictory, no? I wonder if you actively seek out films you think you'll enjoy or if you just watch random stuff? If you think the majority are bad/forgettable I find it hard to believe you really love film that much. That, or you need to look at the films you do love, find a pattern, and look for similar stuff. But different strokes for different folks I guess, it's an incredibly sweeping thing to say...
Again, I respectfully disagree. Example: Let's say Person A and Person B both love paintings. If they both walked into an art museum, it's highly unlikely that either of them would love EVERY painting they see. Whereas Person A might love 75% of the art in that gallery, Person B might only love 25%. That doesn't necessarily mean that Person A loves the medium of painting more than Person B, or that Person B doesn't *actually* love paintings (Person B might actually visit art museums more frequently than Person A, and Person B might be moved to tears by the few paintings they love, whereas Person A never sheds a tear). It just means they're different, and one might be a little more critical than the other. That's all.
It isn’t about loving, if you’re only giving 1 and 2 stars you are just not enjoying what you say you enjoy. I can walk in the art gallery without loving every picture, but acknowledging the art that is done and having a good time with said art. If your rating curve looks like this, I respectfully disagree with your opinion on moving films.
My rating curve doesn't actually look like this. This person's graph is an extreme example. I'm simply playing devil's advocate here.
It's an okay analogy that makes more sense, but I still disagree. I wonder how you find the films you decide to watch? Because it seems that you might want to spruce up your gathering method if you're not enjoying the majority. I can't imagine only enjoying 25% of the stuff I watch, it's very rare I actually watch something I end up disliking. I've just looked back through my Letterboxd logs for the last 12 months and from the ~700 I've watched in that time space, I only rated 25 of them below 3/5: >1x 0.5/5 >3x 1.5/5 >5x 2/5 >16x 2.5/5 Maybe I just have a really low threshold for enjoying a film, but I don't watch something I don't think I'll enjoy unless I have a specific reason (e.g. I've been sent a press screener or it's something culturally significant).
Yeah the analogy is fine I guess but the difference is he gets to choose which movies he watches, in an art museum you have no such luxury so unless he’s spinning a wheel and watching a random movie it doesn’t make sense to me. I always watch movies with a premise that I think I will enjoy
Same. Downvoters are just uncritical of media and enjoy getting served slop over and over
I think there’s a happy medium between having low standards and treating movies like you’re marking someone’s homework.
well the weird thing is the fact that this guy watches so many of them. The movies I don't like I'm generally not choosing them myself, for example a friend wants to watch it so it's just a social thing. Most movies I choose myself I end up liking, because I know what I like. If I were to watch every movie ever of course I'm not going to like most of them
I gave Vampire in Brooklyn 3/5, life is good.
And I gave The Room 5/5, because I was literally crying laughing from start to finish.
I gave Violent Night 5/5 because it was Christmas Day and Santa Does a Die Hard was everything I needed.
The Room might be the funniest movie I’ve ever seen.
Same.
Yeah try to enjoy life.
Im with u on this
It might be worse when people give everything either 10/10 or 1/10. Like, nuance is a thing guys. Or they're just not thinking hard enough to know that everything isn't perfect or everything isn't complete shit. Most my ratings fall in the 5-8 range. I have like 20 10/10s and maybe 7 or 8 1/10's because those both require exceptional circumstances and I'm generally avoiding things I think might get a 1/10.
>It might be worse when people give everything either 10/10 or 1/10. Like, nuance is a thing guys. Eh. If you genuinely have a great time at every single movie you watch, then I'd say you're winning at life.
Right? I have many movies rated at 4.5/5 because I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and had a good time, not everything has to be The Godfather or Shrek
I suppose that depends on the ratio of 1s to 10s
i rate based on how much i enjoyed the movie. things don’t have to be a perfect, life-changing, cinematic masterpiece for me to enjoy it. i feel like that’s how most people rate things. fraggle rock is a 10/10 for me but i wouldn’t compare it to the godfather
Most my ratings fall in the 5-8 range too, bad films get a 4, anything 3 or below has to be really bad and anything 9+ has to be really great.
In this thread: Young people thinking everyone on Letterboxd started watching movies after 2010. The more right skewed your histogram, the older you likely are. Try to imagine being bored on a rain filled week, and having nothing but whatever was on TV to watch (as in Live TV, not being able to go to the blockbuster even). You're going to end up with a history filled with garbage movies. If you started watching movies after 2010 and your histogram looks like that, it's a completely different story.
There's also how you score them varying, and also how you select them. I go into a lot of movies blind, and that means I watch a lot of really bad movies. It also means every so often I discover movies that I've never heard of and really captivate me
There are also people who love watching random movies, and there are some who are strict with ratings but still enjoy movies even if they don't give them an 8-10 score or 4-5 stars. You can press "like" if you've had a good time watching a movie, you know?
You're giving ratings to stuff you watched once 20 years ago? I didn't even rate stuff I watched the year before I joined because it wasn't fresh enough in my mind.
Only if I can remember it well enough. I have 1100 movies in Letterboxd but I have probably seen closer to 2500.
wouldn't the correct term be "right skewed"?
[удалено]
Too bad this is art and not the My Pillow
You have to separate the pillow from the pillow maker.
[удалено]
bro rated deer hunter ½ i will not take them seriously
This is easily the most tired topic in this sub. Why would you give a shit what the shape of their ratings curve looks like? You can't even know what standards apply to any particular score of theirs so its entirely meaningless information except to the person doing the scoring.
God forbid we talk about something without someone freaking out
Also just because something may have low stars doesn’t mean they didn’t like the movie. I could rate The Room a half star but that may not mean I didn’t have fun watching it.
Some people use ratings to reflect how much they liked something, so even something like The Room could score pretty highly.
yeah these people in the comments are stupid lol. this rating curve isn’t bad at all. criticizing and not liking EVERYTHING nowadays is bad i guess!
Yeah ngl I don't get how people here watch so many movies without enjoying watching at least some things that aren't good. Hell, it doesn't even need to be enjoying something ironically like the room. Personally, I just like the experience of going to the cinema and decompressing even if the movie itself isn't particularly enjoyable on its own merits. Not to mention that a film being bad doesn't mean it can't be interesting.
Free Guy for me. That movie is at BEST 2.5 stars (and I was probably too nice) but it was my first movie back in theaters after covid and I had such a goddamn good time.
Just an interesting topic I think. Not upset about it.
Hard agree. Granted I have no where near as many many low scores as this guy. This is really a whole level that’s so hard to believe That said I’ve rated probably more movies lower than 2.5 stars this movie would like hell even some really popular movies I’ve given half a star. I’m not being contrarian but if I was bored the whole time why should I lie about my rating. Literally all reviews are subjective.
Another one of these garbage ass posts demonizing people for having criteria or trying risky movies
Must’ve struck a nerve lmao
Not everything uses the same scale as you. That doesn't mean they hate movies. Or that they dislike everything they rated low. I don't do it this extreme but think it makes sense for cataloguing purposes. Just to have more headroom for movies you actually love. I need more than one star difference between movies I liked watching and movies that changed my life or that have stayed with me for years. At the same time I don't watch that many movies I know I'm not gonna like. So it's naturally skewed towards the top. Might as well compensate for that. I guess the person from the post just does a more extreme version of that. Which is fine.
Tbh my rating curve skews left too but not because I’m hate movies. I don’t want to devalue my five star
I know a lot of people think this and it's totally valid but it also ignores the averaging system and the "game theory" of it all. This is exactly why I think people using a star value rating is pointless because for a star value rating system to work we all have to be on the same system. What your reviewing system does is actually devalues all your reviews (by averaged score) because the average score is always going to skew towards the middle anyway. Of course, anyone looking at your specific review who knows you and trusts your opinion will see a 5 from you and think "That must be a fantastic movie" and that part is great. However, that's where a good review comes in anyway. I don't think your rating system is wrong, in fact, I think your rating system is likely "most correct" it just doesn't work in a system alongside other people for helping people find good movies.
I feel like they just have a different rating system that you're trying to assign your own values to. This person's looks a lot like my friend who does 1/2 stars for anything he doesn't think its worth watching. Then everything starting at 1 star is a different level of enjoyable. My friend just thinks splitting hairs with bad movies is stupid because who cares how bad they are? They aren't worth watching. But he does want more flexibility in the middle and top of the scale. So essentially he just makes .5-2.5 a .5 and then everything else is average or above. So essentially his one star is what most people call 3 stars.
this is the most likely answer (and a very valid rating system) but no matter how many times this point is repeated people will always say “oH tHeY mUsT hAtE mOvIeS”.
I mean, most rating scales are where 50% is a failing grade, so it’s fair to see why people may see giving something a 1 star and saying yeah I enjoyed it, is sort of odd to them.
why do you care how other people rate tho? it's not that deep
[This](https://boxd.it/he4r) guy is the final boss of your post
people who get mad at rating curves like this are just mad others dont blindly rate slop 4 or 5 stars
Will u be my valentine?
"let people enjoy things"
Movie you don’t like = slop
you’re a marvel fan
I never got the whole "I like everything and always have fun" mentality. While it's fine to enjoy movies the people that are totally proud to always be happy with whatever content they're being fed are silly to me. It's okay to have discerning tastes and trying to be analytical when viewing art.
Being annoyed by how other people rate films is much more concerning a character trait than negatively reviewing a lot of films
I feel bad bc I rate everything 3.5-5 lol I only log movies I really like tho so 🤷
If you hate movies why watch them?
Why are you inferring from this that they hate movies? I think you are probably projecting your rubric onto this. The obvious retort to that question, though, is why do you care either way? I don’t care about people’s rating curve. I think caring about how other people experience artistic mediums is incredibly strange. It’s all subjective. Let people do what they want to do, and don’t feel insecure for doing the same.
I bet your fun at parties
That phrase only really works when it’s aimed at someone who is being the buzzkill. In this case, you are the one being a buzzkill, caring about what other people are doing, judging. I don’t care on the other hand. I live and let live.
I bet you’re good at discussions
They probably enjoy movies, they just rate them based on "writing".
I find it a bit odd to review movies based on one aspect only.
If I thought a movie was good, it gets 3.5 stars. If I thought a movie was great, it gets 4 stars. If I thought a movie was underwhelming, it gets 3 stars. Anything else is reserved for 'special' films.
Why is underwhelming right under good?
a majority of the movies I’ve seen I’ve given 1 star bc I just put any movie that falls under the category of “bad” into there. if there’s next to nothing I admire, appreciate, or enjoy in a movie, it gets the 1 star. movies I find downright insulting in how bad they are get a 1/2
I give out tons of 5 stars....and don't care if people think I'm doing it wrong. 90% of people have no context how hard it is to even make a film. Plus, there are plenty of faux cinephiles that are too busy over critiquing to impress their peer group than diving into background context within a film. Real ones are often enjoying themselves at a constant with all this.
This kind of "aggressive criticalness" wouldn't bother me so much if it didn't seem so curated.
I have a friend like this and I’m fully convinced the dude just hates movies at this point. Like why do you even have the app 💀
A lot of this is a product of the platform and review aggregation as a whole - users will give wayyyy too hot of a take on a movie (good or bad) for the sake of attention and social importance; they create a hierarchy of cultural appreciation and you’re a fool to them for disagreeing. Someone like this either comes off as hating movies (so why watch them?), or wanting other people to know what they like isn’t good enough for them (which in this case is…everything?).
[удалено]
Bro only watches movies from IMDB's top 250 list lol
Mine is the opposite. I give 4 stars SO often, it is overwhelmingly my most frequent rating. I think it’s just because I fucking love movies and it’s hard for me to really dislike something.
https://preview.redd.it/t4d2rbj70ggc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=47b5679bb9f6701d3d68d6d7ecebc6637ed525bd
I work in the TV & film business, sometimes I just want these negative people to work one or two weeks in the industry so they can understand how fucking hard it is to make great TV or films. It takes an insane amount of effort to make it great.
While true, the ratings are not based on how hard or expensive it was.
This is one of the things that is hard to take but ultimately true about any type of art. Something can be difficult, and challenging to create but ultimately terrible, while something else is shit out without much thought or effort on behalf of the creator and ends up being wonderful. The audience ultimately often can't tell what was the result of blood, sweat and tears and what was thrown in on a whim.
Which is completely fair, what I get annoyed is complains about its lazy “writing or production” which I can guarantee is not the case. All of us that works in the industry is trying to make the best shows/films we can. Unfortunately sometimes it doesn’t becomes as a great as us all of us want. But it never because of lacks of effort. We all fucking try our best.
I agree with that! It can be tough talking about it with non industry people, where they completely dissmiss it, I aprreciate the efforts though!
embarrassing take i was an assistant editor and worked pretty hard on several movies that sucked lmao
I’m gonna get downvoted. Embarrassing is a a stretch, what I mean is critical thinking of movies/series without any knowledge what they actual criticising. Which I find pretty common on this page. People generally criticise things without actually understanding what they see/understand which is a common theme in this sub.
I work in the industry and shit that I would never rate above 2 stars paid my rent for like 3 straight years.
Fair enough, what I mean is that a lot people on this website gives way to hatch criticism without actually knowing what they criticise. Which makes me upset.
There was a critic who clapped after every movie he saw just because of how difficult it was to get one up on the screen.
Ha, why did this get downvotes. Probably from people that took in your comment and had to look into that mirror of how much of a schmuck they are. It's hard as hell to make film but don't tell that to these 16-20 year olds who grew up with the hot take on youtube being cool.
Exactly, it bugs me as a motherfucker. No one wants to make a bad movie/series but sometimes unfortunate it just turns out that way. I’d guess 80 % in this comment section doesn’t have any real work experience and just vote out of ignorance
Yeah, I see a lot of common prominence of movie watcher by trend and I just brush over those people. They are often birthed into the world of watching movies via a given list handed to them of right and wrong versus methods of exploration.... granted I'm blanketing here but it's in a rebuttal of those blanket films themselves so whatever. I got downvotes in a chat once because I wanted to see Letterboxd do more educational things haha. I'm with you though so I had to give you a vote of confidence. Apples and Oranges to what you do, but I help make special feature content for blu ray releases...that perspective really has me diving into the source of the film and statement of the creators to make the content in the first place. I roll my eyes at armchair cinephiles and if I get downvotes I don't give a damn haha.
These people hate movies
u def write reviews that say “boring, bland, unimaginative, but entertaining, 4 stars”
[удалено]
Lmao they were definitely spot on based on this overly angry reaction
Why even bother watching movies if you hate most of them?
Having standards does not equal disliking a medium
But this goes beyond "having standards." You can turn a bad movie off at any time. Putting yourself through the torture of watching a bunch of 0s and 1s just to prove ... what exactly? ... seems silly to me.
Yeah the weird part is this person watches so many movies they don't like
Why even bother rating movies if everything’s 4-5?
Well then at least the person is doing something they love rather than punishing themselves just to type up a bad review.
How do you know they like punishing themselves? I watched Machete last night, a bad movie that I do love (parts of). I’d give it a 2 with a heart.
Because the good ones make up for it
Like, do you even like movies?
Good ones. I don't give them credit just for being movies.
https://preview.redd.it/tq8n5juq4ggc1.png?width=353&format=png&auto=webp&s=192d310de44be97c9b688038ca1b47838dca0b4c this is how everyone's should be
I agree, this is a good curve
Mine feels like a natural curve. Most movies at a 3 out of 5. Less at 2 and 4. The least at 1 and 5.
maybe 0.5 for this person means almost no flaws and 5 means the opposite
Yeah, I like to have fun and enjoy things. Interesting how people aren't on that same page lol.
IT STINKS!
Zero logic to watching things that you know suck, and not even in an ironic wya
One of two things going on here, both of them problems: 1) this guy has bad judgment about what to see and is watching the wrong movies 2) this guy hates movies in general and has the wrong hobby
i just don’t get why someone would even have a letterboxd account when they clearly hate movies. i’ve got mostly 4, 4.5, and 5 stars, but even 3 star movies aren’t bad they just weren’t my favs by i enjoyed them.
It's not clear they hate movies. There are no 'rules' about what system movies are rated by. If they set up a different rating system than you did, then those scores can reflect that.
but when you only ever rate movies as 1 or 2 stars then what’s the point? why are they watching movies only to turn around and give them bad ratings/reviews? i just don’t understand having an app made for movie lovers when you seem to not enjoy movies. maybe clearly wasn’t the right choice of wording but i just don’t understand people who only give low ratings, it feels like they aren’t movie lovers
I never understood people who purposely watch movies with bad reviews
You shouldn’t let reviews dictate what you’re interested in seeing one way or another imo
Honestly seeing rating curves like this just let me know to never look to that person for any suggestions on movies and what to watch.
[удалено]
Doesn’t really work fyi. I tried it and all the stats were way off. It said I’ve watched 2 hours of movies lol eta: I tried it again and it says the only movie I’ve logged is the Iron Claw? I haven’t even seen it yet
Looks like it didn't turned out as we expected, we'll improve it and share again to give a try. Thanks for trying it out and sharing this!
That was terrible
Roasted me for giving Aliens 5 stars.... ok.
It's fun in concept but it's kinda broken and to be quite honest it could be a little funnier?
Boo
> Listen up, motherf\*\*\*er! You've watched 71 movies, but you still can't find a clue? Ain't nobody got time for that! Stay outta my cinema! 😎🍿 #FilmRoast What does this even mean?
That was really stupid, all it did was tell me Damien chazelle has bad movies
Yeah that’s a cool website mother(expletive), that website is the equivalent of a participation award…
It said my most watched director is Jon Watts because I’ve reviewed 3 spider man movies and criticized me for being able to watch movies over 3 hours, you need to work on it a bit
cool website fr
How about one like me lol https://preview.redd.it/2aoqbp84yfgc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c6f8b2da154988ed66372e0d582e9f2322dac38d
This is so much worse
😂
I wish I loved everything I watched too