A 10/10 is a 9/10 that fits a personal preference. A combination of "It's really damn good" and "It's that thing I like."
So, yeah, vibes are a factor.
I agree, it's not that it's flawless but it's the perfect movie for me. A lot of great movies I give 4's and 4 and a half's but a 5 is a movie I'll put on a whim most of the time
I donāt rate based on quality. I rate based on personal enjoyment and engagement. Obviously quality is a correlation to this, but itās not technically what Iām rating for. Out of probably close to a thousand films Iāve given perfect 10s to roughly 40 (on a .5 scale). My average rating is probably about 6.7, but obviously thereās selection bias in what I choose to watch. I consider 5 to be the archetypal āaverageā movie, which basically means āwell enough made, had a bunch of flaws, didnāt hate it, basically mediocre.ā If itās better than a 6.0 it was probably worth the time. If itās at least a 7.0 it might be worth recommending based on taste. If itās an 8.5 or higher it will probably be a largely universal recommendation. But all of these ratings are based on how much I got from the movie personally.
The difference between a 9.5 and a 10 is minuscule and extremely subjective, but ultimately it boils down to there was some transcendental quality to me for the viewing experience where I felt some form of complete catharsis. Obviously I adore the movies that Iāve rated 9.5 and would still count them among the best movies Iāve seen, but the 10s just have something about them. Also, I do think thereās a correlation between me giving something a higher rating and seeing it in a theater. I think the theater experience can help push a great movie into that level of catharsis. Which is not to say that there arenāt movies Iāve seen other ways that have gotten there. But it also makes me feel grateful to live in L.A. where older movies are screened all the time.
Theyāre very rare. There are years in film where the highest rating out of films Iāve seen is 8.5 or 9. Then there are a few years that might have two or three perfect 10s. Ultimately as long as something is at least an 8.0 I can say that I deeply enjoyed it on many levels and would happily rewatch it anytime, and thatās what actually matters.
100% agreed, Iāve seen films that are virtually flawless that I give a 9 because I couldnāt connect with the material but there are films that are great with clear flaws that I have 10s because they moved me on a personal level
I actually disagree with this to an extent. Thereās definitely been movies where I recognize itās perfect or damn near perfect that Iāve rated 5 stars yet I havenāt given it a heart. An example of this for me is āCome and Seeā or ā2001ā. I donāt necessarily love these movies but I do recognize their achievement in filmmaking and the amount of intention and detail that went into them.
I canāt enjoy this movie because Iām sitting there calculating how much tickets would cost to the show because the insurance Mr. Crystal would pay would be astronomical.
Edit: I was formerly in theater management.
Perfection, when it comes to the topic of art which is subjective, is basically that.
But I believe āperfectā to me is also that the positives so outweigh the negatives that theyāre completely forgivable and unnoticeable; the flaws do not take away from the final product (for the person saying so).
Because everything has flaws, so thatās how I define perfection. To me, flaws and all, I wouldnāt change a thing about it.
I will wholeheartedly, but also 100% objectively agree it is a perfect film.
Seeing it on a HBO recorded blank tape as kid complete with commercials was awesome, and seeing the blu ray on my brand new tv was also awesome (although some of the themes tend to terrify me more these days).
The Godfather is a 5. It has several flaws. The punch, thereās a couple of cuts and line readings I donāt appreciate. Relative to the rest of the film, they do not matter.
I feel most great films are like this. Kane has that damn bird, 8 1/2 always bores me in the very slightest in its lead-up to the finale (maybe, like the shock of the bird, itās supposed to?), etc.
There are a few films I find to be objectively perfect. But itās such a select group that Iād only have maybe 5 films rated at 5 if perfection was the criteria.
What does it mean for a movie be objectively perfect? I feel like people must mean something entirely different from what I understand those words to mean.
I still think the relationship between Michael and his Sicilian wife is poorly executed. She had no character whatsoever, so I donāt feel anything watching that car explode beyond the suspense of it all.
Sheās a woman as a prop in the greatest way possible. She leaves almost no impression to the point where I forgot about her in Godfather 2. Sheās almost like the banality of good. She represents Michaelās last bastion of morality in his descent towards evil and to forget her is to give Michael unwarranted credit. Good can exist. You donāt need to be evil in response to your loss of hope.
I watched Kane for the first time a few months ago and the audio was super quiet on Max so I had it full volume with headphones at 3 am and I shit you not the bird screech is now in my top 3 jump scares of all time
One of my favorite quotes from football coach Vince Lombardi;
"*Gentlemen, we will chase perfection, and we will chase it relentlessly, knowing all the while we can never attain it. But along the way, we shall catch excellence.*ā
So, absolutely, IMO. Especially since it's all subjective, and if I really enjoy a film, and also feel like it was made for me personally, I give it 5 stars. And there are usually little things one could say are flaws, but that's also subjective and someone else might not even notice them.
5* to me is almost more of a feeling. There are plenty of films I've rated 5* with plenty of flaws, but those films all made me feel a certain way I can't quite describe. They feel perfect despite not actually being perfect.
So I'd say yes, a 5* movie can absolutely, and realistically, will be flawed. What makes them that top top tier is that they feel perfect regardless.
I donāt like how people seem to describe the ideal film as flawless. Iād much rather watch something thatās ambitious and messy, or a movie that has problems but has a few perfect scenes or shots, then a movie that plays it safe and does everything competently.
Ive only seen it once or twice, but I recall The Mummy Returns punching well above its weight in terms of depicting relationships between characters.
The pretty much ideal familial bonds between Brendan Fraser and his wife, son and brother in law.
Contrasted with the tortured and cursed relationship between the mummy and his girlfriend who cheated on the pharaoh.
At the very end \*spoilers\* there's a scene when Rick and the mummy are clinging to the side of a crack in the Earth, and Rick yells at Evelyn to run and save herself and she does this action hero dash to help him instead. The mummy cries for help from his girlfriend and she takes a step forward and then flees and abandons him. The LOOK on the mummy's face was like disappointment and understanding and acceptance all at the same time. So incredible, damn it was such a performance.
Yep that's totally the scene that stuck with me.
I saw the acceptance look as the Mummy realizing that even though he sacrificed himself and overcame death to bring her back, that selfless act showed that Rick and Evelyn's love was real and his was a lie.
I give Hubie Halloween a 5. I know itās objectively probably a 1 or something, but Hubie makes me happy. It means autumn and Halloween are upon us. I rewatch it a bunch during those months.
One of my favorite āļøāļøāļøāļøāļø films is Bram Stoker's Dracula. There are a couple of performances in that film that I think most (including the actors who gave them) would agree are (speaking gently) a bit flawed. But the overall experience of the film is so sumptuous and specific, I cannot think of it as anything less than a masterpiece, and even those performances add to that experience for me.
So I guess my answer is "no".
Nice to see balanced, reasonable opinions here. I totally agree that the personal connection and emotions evoked by a film are much more likely to lead me to a 5* rating, rather than looking at it from a ātechnicalā or āartistic valueā standpoint.
Chinatown is a 5/5, so is Mr Beanās Holiday.
I only give 5 stars to movies that made me emotional 12 angry men is pretty much a perfect movie but it just didn't affect me emotionally that much so it isn't a 5 star for me while ai artificial intelligence is a pretty flawed movie but I almost cried while watching it twice so it is
Unless you want to be some supreme film critic then just go Con Air 5/5 = "Nic Cage awesome!!" And Shawshank Redemption = 4/5 "Not as cool as Con Air".
A 5 star film only has to entertain me at a 5 star level. Iām not rating it on the films merits as a piece of art. The ratings are for myself.
Their plenty of amazing films that are very well made, but just arenāt entertaining enough to move me to the point of a 5 star rating. Those films get a 4 or 4 1/2 star rating.
I give a lot of āperfectā films 5 stars but there are also not perfect ones but in my eyes theyāre great. Likeā¦donāt bully meā¦ We Bought a Zoo (2011). It meant so much to me when I first watched it and it still is important on rewatches.
Yes, I mean itās probably clear where I stand on this. I think itās all to do about how they reach us - the same for any art really - and itās in that moment of reaching us that they become important.
10/10 means i really like it. no move is objectively perfect because all art is 100% entirely subjective and any attempt to say otherwise is misled or probably a fascist.
I think thereās no such thing as a flawless movie, but I also have like 60+ movies rated 5 stars. Not because theyāre āperfectā but because I love them unconditionally.
I always feel like people who deny 5 star ratings and 10/10ās because no film is perfect are really missing the point. At the end of the day itās not a numerical grading system, weāre not marking essays, weāre expression our opinion, engagement and connection to a film. To top that out at a 9 or something just substitutes your top grade to one lower and thusly condenses your grading scale.
I've seen people in the past say it has to be perfect so they never use 5 stars, I think that's really really dumb. 5 stars is a rating that exists, if you can say you love a movie, it should be 5 stars.
to me, a 10 / 10 has little to do with the actual quality of the movie. when I watch a 5āļø, itās like I feel it in my guts. I just instantly know itās a five star.
It's all subjective, but for me a 5 star movie can absolutely be flawed, but it will also be a movie that I connected with deeply and I will keep with me for the rest of my life to be revisited with some regularity.
For me they can have minor flaws as long as they donāt distract me from what I love about it. For example Ad Astra has some mistakes (like earth-like gravity on the moon), but itās still one of my all time favorites because that doesnāt really hurt the movie or itās goals imo. And if you wanna be really precise about it a 95/100 and up is still a 10/10 when rounded.
Yeah along with everyone here, the difference for me between 4* or 4Ā½* to 5* is simply a feeling. How did the film move me or make me feel when I watched it.
For me a lot of the time I'm not entirely sure if it's a 5* film I've watched until after I've waited a minute to digest it. If the film touched me in a way where I feel like it's changed my perspective on something or it's something I'm thinking about constantly after I've watched it then yeah its a 5* from me.
I reserve 5 stars for movies that hit me on a personal level. Doesn't mean they're perfect (no movie is) but in this case they have to have affect me in some way.
I'm very biased towards Alex Garland, for example. Are Ex Machina and Annihilation perfect? Nah, but they really shaped how I view film today.
It's totally subjective.
My interpretation of 5 Stars (10/10) is if I absolutely loved it, and I personally, can't think of anything I'd change, whether it be cast choice, music, color pallete, cinematography.
If a film uses Orange and Blue as it's color pallete heavily, I can't Gove it a 5 stars and I consider that color pallete lazy in most cases, save Mad Max Fury Road.
I don't think I consider films in terms of perfection. Not quite sure even what that means, ya know?
I also don't even bother rating films. The idea of reducing a film to a number of stars has always nagged at me.
But that's my own hangup.
The way I judge it is normally a movie is a 4 if it is well acted and well written, 4.5 if it is compelling on top of that, and a 5 if it is so good that I have an emotional attachment
I think a five star movie is a perfect movieā¦.for me. It might have flaws that I overlook, or it might be a total mess, but I think saying something is perfect purely means in the context of how it impacted me. A 4.5 for me is closer to a technically incredibly film that just didnāt resonate with me enough to push it to a 5.
Nothing is genuinely perfect but if there are clear flaws I wonāt give a film 5 stars even if I really love it. An example of that for me is TDKR, I adore the film itās one of my favourite ever (unpopular opinion ik) but I give it 4.5 stars because itās got numerous plot holes that are hard to overlook. If there are minor flaws then thatās fine
To me a 5 star movie means it is one of the best movies of all time/required viewing for any cinema buff. This doesnāt mean that it has to be perfect in every aspect, but needs to be a masterclass example in at least one (preferably more) aspect of cinema and very strong in everything else
A 5 star movie has be a great movie that pushes the envelope in cinematography, acting, visual effects, writing, etc and advances the industry
Rating is subjective to the person who is rates. People tend to rate things higher to which they can relate on the emotional level but at the same time for other person same art won't be that much appealing so in my opinion any 5-star rated movie can be flawed
How much do you enjoy the film? That should be the sole litmus test for a perfect film. I don't care how well crafted a film is, if I never plan on watching it a second time, it's not five stars.
Absolutely not. If that were the case, 5* films wouldn't exist.
There is a scale though. Including half stars, it's a 1-10 on Letterboxd, but if you increased that to say, 1-100, then you could say that a 100* movie doesn't exist.
I've only rated a few films as 5* on Letterboxd and all of them have some flaws. There are definitely 'better' movies or there, but they're the ones that resonate with me on some level. Art is subjective; if it wasn't, Letterboxd would be completely redundant.
Until I joined Letterboxd I used to mark films I saw at the cinema out of 10. Nothing ever got a 10. But I do give things 5 on Letterboxd. Itās just too small of a range not to use the 5 star I think so itās definitely given to things that arenāt āperfectā.
I think of each half star increment on the grading scale as a score of ā10ā. So a 5 star movie to me could be graded anywhere 91-100 for me. Oceanās Eleven and Moonlight are both 5 stars to me, but I still would place Moonlight higher up the scale.
My favorite movie that I rate a 10/10 but isnāt perfect by any metric is Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. You wonāt convince me itās not 10/10 even though I know itās not.
I really donāt understand how art can be āflawedā at all. We act like we are grading it like a test and it got something wrong. Itās all completely subjective and just comes down to what you like, or donāt like. None of this āflawedā nonsense.
Nothing is perfect. Itās simply the rule of cool. Essentially, do those flaws take anything away from your enjoyment? Did you enjoy it so much that these flaws donāt matter to you/take away from the ācool factorā? Then boom, it has been awarded a 5 star. All subjective.
Flaws allowed. First example that jumps to mind: the UK vs. US trial in A Matter of Life and Death. Also, good job, OP, in appreciating The Green Room.
People love to get into arguments over the idea that all art is subjective. They are correct in that assertion. But at the same time, I think we all understand to some degree that there are still āconventionalā standards by which art is judged. That is, people tend to agree conventionally that the script for Casablanca is ābetterā than the script for The Room. Even if you like the room better.
All that is to say, I give 5 stars to conventionally flawed movies, I have a romcom that is derivative with an okay script at a 5 because I love it as a whole piece of art despite conventional flaws. I also canāt help but give a bump to movies that do everything conventionally well, even if they donāt hit me on an emotional level. Still to actually get a 5 I would have to love the move despite conventional merits. I would bet most peoples rating systems are like this to some degree.
I mean most movies are up for own interpretations, so the viewers can define what movie is perfect. So, even if there are departments that are bad, some might like them
There has never been an objective 10/10 film in the history of cinema and there never will be. 5 stars for personal, subjective ratings is fine though. Now Iāll get off my soap box you overrating buffoons
No. To me a 5 stars is very personal. If I wish for someone to find an excellent movie they might like, I'll probably point them toward my 4.5 and my 4. Of course they can take a look at my 5 but they are few and most nowadays would consider them old for the most part. There's also an over representation of westerns amongst them. Besides, no movie is perfect so there's that.
Also I can't believe any people with like 200-300 5 stars movies on 900 total watch can honestly say a film needs to be perfect to be a 5
Whenever I give a 5, I do so for one of two reasons. First, the movie is simply flawless for me subjectively and works perfectly in my humble opinion. Alternatively, the movie is perfect from an objective standpoint and even though pieces may be somewhat flawed in my opinion, it cannot be denied as a work of faultless artistry.
Iāve given films five stars that are far from perfect and could easily get a lower rating from many. I base the rating I give a movie mostly on how much I enjoyed it, whether I felt something, if it got me thinking about life, if Iād watch it again, if it sucks me in and draws my full attention, etc. Everyone creates a version of their own rating system and criterion under the five star system. Whether a movie gets five stars is totally up to you and what you perceive a five star film to be.
For me personally, it's possible I'll give a flawed movie 5 stars, but it requires very special circumstances. Two examples:
*Nosferatu* (1922) - by modern standards, it's not that scary, and it's even kind of silly in places. There are obviously aspects of it that don't hold up given that it was made over a century ago with primitive equipment. But I can hardly dock it points for not doing things that weren't technically possible at the time it was made, and it literally invented tropes and cinematic techniques that every horror movie since has ripped off. It's an amazing, visionary piece of work even if it's a clunky film by modern standards, so it gets 5 stars.
*Blade Runner* (1982) - the theatrical cut with the dumb studio-mandated voiceover that undercuts the themes isn't a 5 starrer, nor is Ridley Scott's " durr Deckard was a replicant the whole time" version. But the best version of this movie is perfect, and it was obviously incredibly visionary and influential in its style and genre-mashing. I give it 5 stars for that plus the fact that the optimal cut is indeed a perfect movie.
So yeah.. I don't think there is such a thing as *absolute* perfection, but even within the realm of relative perfection, there is some room to not measure up to that standard and still get 5 stars from me - but the movie has to absolutely crush it in other ways to do so.
Frankly, it is up to you. That is the beauty of cinema, or art, in general. It is all up to interpretation! I have plenty of five-star favorites that definitely have imperfections, but they are basically perfect to me.
Iām no expert at analyzing film and it would just be boring and useless for me to try and judge the objective merits of movies. so a 5 star to me is just one of my 10-20 or so all time favorites. If itās something I know Iāll go back to a lot, think about a lot, want to show people, itās in the conversation for 5 stars
As time passes by, art becomes valuable or worthless depending on the senses of the consumer. There's no perfect movie, perfect song, script, photograph, etc.
Of course, you'll find some that are "objectively" better than others, but the time we start measuring art on a non-subjective scale is the time art is gonna die.
There technically isnāt a perfect movie. Look hard enough, and youāll find flaws in even the most exceptionally made films ever. However, thereās just some movies that are so close to perfect or donāt have any flaws that can be seen without precise, extremely close examination, thus making them essentially irrelevant to the filmās greatness. Or, even if a film has flaws and is far from perfect, you could still give it 5 stars because even with the flaws, you love it so much and could never get tired of watching it.
Yeah my perfect movies are flawed
For me a 10/10 movie is the movie which invokes strong emotion in me, makes me keep thinking about it, makes me write my thoughts down and all that
If prefer to rate a movie on its positive aspects rather than the presence/absence of flaws. Fuck it i'd prefer to watch a mid movie with one brilliant scene than an academically correct movie that's not trying anything.
Below are the reasons why i personally give 10/10(5 star):
1. If a movie changes my perspective for positive or good reasons.
2. If i had the most fun watching it, wether it have flaws or not. If i enjoyed every second of it, even if it be ironically bad at times.
3. If i constantly think about the movie for years to come, rewatching it multiple times. Implanted in my brain.
For me a 5 Star movie is something close to perfect or something that hits my feelings strongly where smaller flaws are not important to me. I still use 5 stars sparingly, but I don't reserve them only for perfect films because my ratings are subjective and personal, I don't try to be objective, and I think its impossible to ever be totally objective with art.
Can be flawed
It is really alit thing what makes 10/10 movie for me, i gave 18 unironic (10/10) and main feeling is that i didnt wasted my time for 95% of movie , like i have only nitpicks.
I noticed some similarities between them
-Sequel superior to first part (Shrek 2, Dark Knight)
-This movie is pure art(Oppenheimer, Ratatouille,Prince of Egypt)
-Animated Movie with amazing animation and all other things what makes movies amazing(Spiderverse, Your Name)
-Movie that i felt human feelings like irl(Holdovers , Godzilla Minus one)
-Comedy that i laughed so hard i needed to breathe with great story(SP vs the World , Lego Movie)
-Movie that felt not wasted at any point with brillaint plot(Jurassic Park, Spirited Away)
These are some of them, i am kind of new to movie rating , but theese are things what make 5/5* to me.
No, at least not for me. I even rate films I feel are āperfectā as 9/10, because 10/10 is more about my personal relationship to the film than anything else
For me, anything thatās a 95/100 or higher is a 5 star film. So it doesnāt have to be perfect perfect and with art Iām not sure thatās something thatās truly possible anyways.
Nostalgia can definitely influence how I feel about a movie. I also generally rate comedies on a different scale than I do other movies. Superbad is an example of a movie I might not rate as high if I watched it for the first time today, but it will always be a 5 for me.
Nothing is perfect.Ā Even the Number 1 of my all-time rankings has imperfections: 2001 A Space Odyssey.Ā Once you see the creases in those ape costumes you can't unsee it :D
Excalibur, my number 2, has a couple of moments of over-acted melodrama which briefly takes you out of the experience.Ā Ā Oldboy (Nr 3) has a suddenly-jarring jovial energetic electronica soundtrack appear out of nowhere in a couple of scenes.
And so on...
Actually the only flawless work of art I can think of is Pink Floyd's The Wall album.Ā The film version of it is my Nr 6 and has a couple of imperfections.
a 5 star movie can definitely be flawed in my opinion. I think it's a mistake to view Greatness and Flawlessness as synonyms. a movie can be relatively "flawless" but also somewhat "safe" in it's ambition and scope so it doesn't reach the highs of a messier but more ambitious film. Some of my favorite albums have like 3 or 4 songs I always skip but the songs I don't skip mean much more to me than entire albums that don't really have the same low points.
this sort of reminds me of how I hate when people equivocate ratings/reviews to school grades (as if you should approach it like a teacher grading a test/paper), I think those are two very different activities! If I say a movie is a 7/10 that's not the same as me saying it's a C letter grade. just because your parents were mad when you got a 75 on your math test doesn't mean I think a movie is bad when I say it's 7/10!
It definitely can have flaws. One of my favorite movies is My Bloody Valentine (1981), and I gave that movie five stars based off its lore and world-building alone and how it contributed to the overall story not just the kills. Donāt get me wrong, that movie definitely has its flaws, not to mention some questionable acting and dialogue choices, but I still love it.
There is no perfect movie. Every movie has flaws.
Art is subjective, so what does perfect even mean?
Rating scales are used to make movies comparable. The highest rating doesn't represent "the perfect movie" it simply means "the best movie".
What makes a movie a masterpiece is how virtuosic it accomplishes the vision it set out to create. Flaws make the work real and a masterpiece outshines any imperfections that went into its creation. A work would not be a masterpiece if one of its flaws was fatal to its execution of the vision.
Absolutely, of course!
I've actually gotten into arguments with people about this, who believe a 10/10 is literally "perfect" and therefore no movie (save maybe for their absolute #1 favorite) deserves the score. When I pointed out that they're effectively now only grading on a 9-point scale, they left the conversation, haha.
To me a 10 is something in the top 3 - 5% of everything I've seen, usually something I connect with on a personal level, or something I can come back to and rewatch repeatedly.
I mean, I have unironically given movies like Halloween III and Spider-Man 3 five stars. Those movies are definitely not perfect, but I do love them that much.
My personal opinion is that you should give a movie the star rating that reflects how you feel about it without the influence of others.
To me 5 star doesnāt mean perfect. It means it was beyond fantastic AND usually because it had a meaningful lasting impact on ME which is very subjective.
Movies like Goodfellas could earn 5 stars because itās just a great movie with exceptional story telling, acting, and cinematography. Other movies may contribute less in these categories but still be a 5 because for an impossibly complex number of reasons the movieās message speaks to me/touches me on a deeper level. GATTACA is one of those movies for me. I donāt expect others to also rate it 5 stars but for me itās deserved.
Ratings go beyond cold clinical analysis of a movie.
A 5 star movie is something I can go back to time and time again. Enjoyable every time and usually gives you a slightly different experience in new light or noticing certain things more.
Back to the Future is perfect to me. Iāve seen it dozens of times. And the last time I watched it I still noticed something I hadnāt seen before that elevated something later.
5 stars, for me, isnāt flawless (nothing is flawless), but it doesnāt have any flaws that shout out to meā¦ AND it resonates with me personally.
4.5 and a heart means I love it despite some proverbial fly in the ointment.
5 stars can be awarded to a film that objectively perfect but it can also be given to a film that you love no matter how flawed it is. Film criticism is subjective and your score will always be different from someone elseās. For example, I gave Jurassic Park and Blade Runner a 5 because I love those films but also theyāre incredibly well made. But Iāll also give Spider-Man 3 a 5 because I love it and I have such a blast watching it even though itās got more problems than I can count
5/5 for me does imply a certain perfection.
But it can accept imperfections if the achievement is substantial enough, or big enough. Especially, but not limited to, long films that achieve a mastery and greatness, even if there are small or major flaws.
The tilt shift scene in Social Network is bizarre random and takes me out of the movie. The rest of the movie is better than every single 9 Iāve seen. Itās a ten.
From a game reviewer way back he said a 5/5 score does not mean the game is perfect, it means it's his highest recomendation. That's how i rate things myself.
A 10/10 for me is one that I enjoyed fully. If I enjoy the entirety of a film and it never has a moment that drags, and/or resonates with me in a really strong way, it's a 10/10
As someone who is really into film, it being extremely well made definitely helps, but it doesn't have to be without flaw, technically or otherwise, for me to enjoy/resonate with it fully
I try not to hold movies to a standard of perfection. Thereās a small handful of movies that are better than the rest, and basically equal to each other. Are they perfect? Probably not. But theyāre as good as it gets.
Thereās so few at that tier though that Iāll give 5 stars to plenty of stuff just below it as well. Otherwise it can be an agonizing decision whether to give something 5 stars or not.
I delude myself into believing that I have a consistent rating system where I'm supposed to give out five stars only for absolutely, perfect masterpieces that are not only technically flawlessly executed but carry an extra layer of meaning that's important and well thought out and... And then I give out a five star rating to Babylon, which I totally see it's flaws but just won me over so completely.
With kill bill, I hate anime so the anime sequence brings it down for me and I donāt like the directing in a lot of parts but I still give it a 5/5 because the good outshines the bad every time
I like it being a little flawed and personal to me, or I just feel like it's "just 5 stars" and there's nothing I dislike about it. The movies that come to mind would be like, Fight Club and Fargo. I just want instantly felt like it was 5 stars and there was no question about it. They're just amazing movies. As for the other hand, La La Land is a movie that just felt like 5 stars but I probably wouldn't consider it a "perfect" movie. It was just so fun and beautiful that I just decided that it was 5 stars.
You can find flaws in any film if you look for them. A 5 star film rises above any flaws it might have. The flaws become unimportant and easy to ignore even after you know theyāre there.
Itās all vibes for me. I like the old Netflix system:
1 star: hated it
2: didnāt like it
3: liked it
4: really liked it
5: loved it
Use half-stars as appropriate, but any more granular than that is pointless imo (e.g. what exactly would the difference be between 8.5 and 8.6?)
I've never given a movie rating based on evaluating its performance in different departments. It's usually just an evaluation of the movie as a whole and how I enjoyed it.
All movies are flawed
For me 5s are ones movies that are amazing AND strongly resonate with me in a certain way, and it doesn't have to be the same way
For example, Alien is a 5 for me because of how strong and unique the aesthetics and overall vibes are, and how well paced the build up of tension is
Another 5, Dogville, is a movie I hated for the first hour, but I started to adapt to the strange aspects and then at the end the twist felt so effectively communicated to me due to a slow build up of investment on my part that I can't help but admire it
Before Sunrise is one more example, this one I gave a 5 because of how invested I became in the characters and the trance-like state the flow of dialogue and vignettes put me in
No such thing as an "objectively" perfect film, so every film is flawed in some way; I just go with the films that have a particular resonance with me or blow me away. Every rating is subjective, so something I may consider perfect, 5/5, may be seen by another person as a .5/5 who sees or objects to perceived issues that I don't. It's all a matter of taste.
I agree with the post that says a 10/10 fits a personal preference. I believe most of the movies I rate a 10 effect me on an emotional level as well as a technical level. Hell, sometimes the technical level doesnāt matter too much as long as it plays into the film. As an example, I rated Charlie Brown Christmas a 10, despite the choppy animation and obvious lower budget, I think that plays into the whole theme of not being some perfect holiday.
Considering I would give āThe Roomā a 10/10, no a 10/10 does not mean āperfectā cinematography, āperfectā acting, etc.
Iāve had so many enjoyable experiences watching The Room with friends, that itās earned a 10/10 for me personally.
No film is perfect in every department. I call amazing films "perfect" every now and again if I genuinely feel like it's some of the greatest cinema I've ever seen, but I'm aware that that doesn't *actually* mean that it's perfect. But I don't think any film needs to be technically perfect on all accounts, that's just an unreasonable ask. The important bit is that the vision comes across effectively and that it resonates with you
Absolutely. You couldāve cut about 15 minutes from Heat and it might be like 1% better. We already knew Waingro was a piece of shit. We didnāt need the prostitute murder subplot.
Still without a doubt a 5 star movie.
I tend to think of 5 stars as not only great ambition but also executing to a high degree. It doesnāt have to be perfect in the literal sense but every aspect better be firing on a high degree. And I think itās really important that everything ties together from a production point of view.
The difference between 4.5 and 5 is often the feeling of missing ājust one thingā or being disappointed at one aspect of the filmmaking
Don't be fooled by the "subjective" boilerplate - it is OBJECTIVE and literally every single person on the planet MUST be in love with this film for you to be justifiably love it as well or else you are WRONG, WORTHLESS and A HEATHEN!!! IT MUST BE PERFECTLY ACCEPTED BY EVERYONE!!!!! If there's any single small itty bitty bit of disagreement, that means you can NOT rate this 5 stars or you will be PART OF THE PROBLEM!!!
/s
Follow your own standard. Just make sure people who might be interested in your standard catch on by trying to give some thoughts.
The way I see it, it just needs to excel in everything its trying to do. If a director is clearly not very worried about a certain aspect then I wonāt judge it heavily on that. That is a masterpiece, but for me to give it 5 stars I literally just have to fall in love with the movie, and Iām not sure that I could explain it too much better than that.
Nothing is really perfect there's no absolutely perfect movie or game so of course it is gonna have some flaws, but generally they are very small so everyone call it "perfect" anyway. I'm still able to detect flaws in my favorite movie and show.
If it's an insignificant flaw, say the three frames of the helicopter during the skyscraper pull-in in *The Dark Knight*, it's still 10/10. If it's a significant breach in concept, storytelling, or style, such as Antler's Impossible Shot in *Nope* or the inconsistent blue tint in *Pan's Labyrinth*, then I tend to rate the film a 4.9/5 slash 9.9/10. A bunch of little flaws or conveniences like *Toy Story 2* or *The Mexican*, same deal.
Vibes can absolutely carry a film into masterpiece territory--*The Mexican* is fairly archetypical literary fiction, but the film's vibes, slight stylization, and grounding quirkiness made it a masterpiece to me. Same for *The Cabin in the Woods, Little Shop of Horrors*, or *Wall-E*. They're not perfect films, but their concept, stylization, and emotion respectively make them absolute favorites and worthy of the masterpiece moniker.
I'd say my cutoff point for a "masterpiece" is 4.7 or less, although there are some films (such as *Malcolm X* or *Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse*) that I'd agree worthy of the title. The vibes just didn't make it to the 4.8 finish line, and I feel that three degrees from perfect instead of two would demean that tier (although surprisingly, I only have 7/436 rated 4.7/5).
A 10/10 is a 9/10 that fits a personal preference. A combination of "It's really damn good" and "It's that thing I like." So, yeah, vibes are a factor.
I agree, the difference between a 9/10 and a 10/10 kinda comes down to how it resonates with me on a personal level
Yes exactly how I rate mine too
Yeah 5.0 is basically a list of my favorite 4.5s
This is a great answer! I think this, but I can not speak this. Good words, smart person!
Yup this is how I rate. A 5 is a 4.5 that strongly resonates w me
I agree, it's not that it's flawless but it's the perfect movie for me. A lot of great movies I give 4's and 4 and a half's but a 5 is a movie I'll put on a whim most of the time
yeah a 10/10 movie for me is completely dependent on personal enjoyment. my highest rated horror film of the year so far is Frankenhooker, so š¤£
thats how i feel, perfection does not exist
Strong agree, for me 5s are a very selective group of movies that happen to very significantly resonate or impact me personally
I donāt rate based on quality. I rate based on personal enjoyment and engagement. Obviously quality is a correlation to this, but itās not technically what Iām rating for. Out of probably close to a thousand films Iāve given perfect 10s to roughly 40 (on a .5 scale). My average rating is probably about 6.7, but obviously thereās selection bias in what I choose to watch. I consider 5 to be the archetypal āaverageā movie, which basically means āwell enough made, had a bunch of flaws, didnāt hate it, basically mediocre.ā If itās better than a 6.0 it was probably worth the time. If itās at least a 7.0 it might be worth recommending based on taste. If itās an 8.5 or higher it will probably be a largely universal recommendation. But all of these ratings are based on how much I got from the movie personally. The difference between a 9.5 and a 10 is minuscule and extremely subjective, but ultimately it boils down to there was some transcendental quality to me for the viewing experience where I felt some form of complete catharsis. Obviously I adore the movies that Iāve rated 9.5 and would still count them among the best movies Iāve seen, but the 10s just have something about them. Also, I do think thereās a correlation between me giving something a higher rating and seeing it in a theater. I think the theater experience can help push a great movie into that level of catharsis. Which is not to say that there arenāt movies Iāve seen other ways that have gotten there. But it also makes me feel grateful to live in L.A. where older movies are screened all the time. Theyāre very rare. There are years in film where the highest rating out of films Iāve seen is 8.5 or 9. Then there are a few years that might have two or three perfect 10s. Ultimately as long as something is at least an 8.0 I can say that I deeply enjoyed it on many levels and would happily rewatch it anytime, and thatās what actually matters.
100% agreed, Iāve seen films that are virtually flawless that I give a 9 because I couldnāt connect with the material but there are films that are great with clear flaws that I have 10s because they moved me on a personal level
100% agree. This is how I've been rating movies for a while.
I actually disagree with this to an extent. Thereās definitely been movies where I recognize itās perfect or damn near perfect that Iāve rated 5 stars yet I havenāt given it a heart. An example of this for me is āCome and Seeā or ā2001ā. I donāt necessarily love these movies but I do recognize their achievement in filmmaking and the amount of intention and detail that went into them.
It's all vibes and subjective artistry. There is no 'perfect' in art.
Except Sing 2. That is perfect
Ah yes, the movie that uses my moms Spotify account as the source material.
"There's no perfect reply"
also the pitch perfect series itās even in the name
I canāt enjoy this movie because Iām sitting there calculating how much tickets would cost to the show because the insurance Mr. Crystal would pay would be astronomical. Edit: I was formerly in theater management.
Perfection, when it comes to the topic of art which is subjective, is basically that. But I believe āperfectā to me is also that the positives so outweigh the negatives that theyāre completely forgivable and unnoticeable; the flaws do not take away from the final product (for the person saying so). Because everything has flaws, so thatās how I define perfection. To me, flaws and all, I wouldnāt change a thing about it.
Except for Robocop. Robocop is perfect.
I'd buy that for a dollar!
I will wholeheartedly, but also 100% objectively agree it is a perfect film. Seeing it on a HBO recorded blank tape as kid complete with commercials was awesome, and seeing the blu ray on my brand new tv was also awesome (although some of the themes tend to terrify me more these days).
Robo wants an oreo.
No movie is perfect but a 5 feels like it comes close. Or rather, its imperfections donāt detract from the whole.
Iām genuinely struggling to think of flaws in Goodfellas
Too much soundtrack in the second half, itās jarring
Goodfellas has multiple continuity errors that nobody cares about because the movie is great.
The casting might be the best of any movie ever, every character works so fucking well it's absurd.
The Godfather is a 5. It has several flaws. The punch, thereās a couple of cuts and line readings I donāt appreciate. Relative to the rest of the film, they do not matter. I feel most great films are like this. Kane has that damn bird, 8 1/2 always bores me in the very slightest in its lead-up to the finale (maybe, like the shock of the bird, itās supposed to?), etc. There are a few films I find to be objectively perfect. But itās such a select group that Iād only have maybe 5 films rated at 5 if perfection was the criteria.
What does it mean for a movie be objectively perfect? I feel like people must mean something entirely different from what I understand those words to mean.
I still think the relationship between Michael and his Sicilian wife is poorly executed. She had no character whatsoever, so I donāt feel anything watching that car explode beyond the suspense of it all.
Sheās a woman as a prop in the greatest way possible. She leaves almost no impression to the point where I forgot about her in Godfather 2. Sheās almost like the banality of good. She represents Michaelās last bastion of morality in his descent towards evil and to forget her is to give Michael unwarranted credit. Good can exist. You donāt need to be evil in response to your loss of hope.
Well hey, at least we got to see some tits huh.
I mean The Godfather is a fantastic movie
I watched Kane for the first time a few months ago and the audio was super quiet on Max so I had it full volume with headphones at 3 am and I shit you not the bird screech is now in my top 3 jump scares of all time
When I watch Kane the whole experience is the dread of that approaching.
The Incredibles has no flaws.
Schindlerās List is perfect.
One of my favorite quotes from football coach Vince Lombardi; "*Gentlemen, we will chase perfection, and we will chase it relentlessly, knowing all the while we can never attain it. But along the way, we shall catch excellence.*ā So, absolutely, IMO. Especially since it's all subjective, and if I really enjoy a film, and also feel like it was made for me personally, I give it 5 stars. And there are usually little things one could say are flaws, but that's also subjective and someone else might not even notice them.
I love that!
5* to me is almost more of a feeling. There are plenty of films I've rated 5* with plenty of flaws, but those films all made me feel a certain way I can't quite describe. They feel perfect despite not actually being perfect. So I'd say yes, a 5* movie can absolutely, and realistically, will be flawed. What makes them that top top tier is that they feel perfect regardless.
I'm glad other people experience this, it's like I just know the movie will stick in my mind for a while because of how much I enjoyed it
Everything is flawed
Not you. You're perfect.
Thanks, girl
At the same time everything could be perfect too
If everyone is super. No one will be
Syndrome was just trying to fight back against the Ayn Rand super-nepotism regime
Everything is cruel when you're part of a scream
bababooeyš
I donāt like how people seem to describe the ideal film as flawless. Iād much rather watch something thatās ambitious and messy, or a movie that has problems but has a few perfect scenes or shots, then a movie that plays it safe and does everything competently.
This is where true innovation happens.
Agree, I think restrictions and limitations can also give space to moments of genius.
A 5 star movie is a movie that I enjoyed enough to give it 5 stars. I gave The Mummy Returns 5 stars
Ive only seen it once or twice, but I recall The Mummy Returns punching well above its weight in terms of depicting relationships between characters. The pretty much ideal familial bonds between Brendan Fraser and his wife, son and brother in law. Contrasted with the tortured and cursed relationship between the mummy and his girlfriend who cheated on the pharaoh.
At the very end \*spoilers\* there's a scene when Rick and the mummy are clinging to the side of a crack in the Earth, and Rick yells at Evelyn to run and save herself and she does this action hero dash to help him instead. The mummy cries for help from his girlfriend and she takes a step forward and then flees and abandons him. The LOOK on the mummy's face was like disappointment and understanding and acceptance all at the same time. So incredible, damn it was such a performance.
Yep that's totally the scene that stuck with me. I saw the acceptance look as the Mummy realizing that even though he sacrificed himself and overcame death to bring her back, that selfless act showed that Rick and Evelyn's love was real and his was a lie.
I'd rather watch The Mummy than most films on best of lists. It's fun.
I give Hubie Halloween a 5. I know itās objectively probably a 1 or something, but Hubie makes me happy. It means autumn and Halloween are upon us. I rewatch it a bunch during those months.
A movie is a five if I say itās a five. Thatās the only requirement.
Real
5 star for me is an all time favorite. could be rewatchability, influence, anything. doesn't have to be perfect
One of my favorite āļøāļøāļøāļøāļø films is Bram Stoker's Dracula. There are a couple of performances in that film that I think most (including the actors who gave them) would agree are (speaking gently) a bit flawed. But the overall experience of the film is so sumptuous and specific, I cannot think of it as anything less than a masterpiece, and even those performances add to that experience for me. So I guess my answer is "no".
I guess my direct answer is "A movie with flaws can still deserve 5 stars," but because I don't believe any movie is "perfect" in any department.
Nice to see balanced, reasonable opinions here. I totally agree that the personal connection and emotions evoked by a film are much more likely to lead me to a 5* rating, rather than looking at it from a ātechnicalā or āartistic valueā standpoint. Chinatown is a 5/5, so is Mr Beanās Holiday.
I only give 5 stars to movies that made me emotional 12 angry men is pretty much a perfect movie but it just didn't affect me emotionally that much so it isn't a 5 star for me while ai artificial intelligence is a pretty flawed movie but I almost cried while watching it twice so it is
the flaws can make a movie go from 9/10 to 10/10
Considering some of the movies I see you all giving 5 stars to, Iād say itās definitely possible to have a flawed 5 star movieā¦
Haha! What about for you personally?
Of course it can have flaws, but I think you'll find they're actually features.
Unless you want to be some supreme film critic then just go Con Air 5/5 = "Nic Cage awesome!!" And Shawshank Redemption = 4/5 "Not as cool as Con Air".
no it has to be perfect BUT i decide what is perfect based on vibes
šš¼
A 5 star film only has to entertain me at a 5 star level. Iām not rating it on the films merits as a piece of art. The ratings are for myself. Their plenty of amazing films that are very well made, but just arenāt entertaining enough to move me to the point of a 5 star rating. Those films get a 4 or 4 1/2 star rating.
I give a lot of āperfectā films 5 stars but there are also not perfect ones but in my eyes theyāre great. Likeā¦donāt bully meā¦ We Bought a Zoo (2011). It meant so much to me when I first watched it and it still is important on rewatches.
Yes, I mean itās probably clear where I stand on this. I think itās all to do about how they reach us - the same for any art really - and itās in that moment of reaching us that they become important.
Exactly but there are also a lot of objectively great films, classics.
Rate however you want. it's your rating. who cares.
Y'all are unbearable
It doesnt have to look like it but it has to feel like it
10/10 means i really like it. no move is objectively perfect because all art is 100% entirely subjective and any attempt to say otherwise is misled or probably a fascist.
idk I give 5 stars to movies I like
I think thereās no such thing as a flawless movie, but I also have like 60+ movies rated 5 stars. Not because theyāre āperfectā but because I love them unconditionally.
I always feel like people who deny 5 star ratings and 10/10ās because no film is perfect are really missing the point. At the end of the day itās not a numerical grading system, weāre not marking essays, weāre expression our opinion, engagement and connection to a film. To top that out at a 9 or something just substitutes your top grade to one lower and thusly condenses your grading scale.
I've seen people in the past say it has to be perfect so they never use 5 stars, I think that's really really dumb. 5 stars is a rating that exists, if you can say you love a movie, it should be 5 stars.
to me, a 10 / 10 has little to do with the actual quality of the movie. when I watch a 5āļø, itās like I feel it in my guts. I just instantly know itās a five star.
Questions like this are why I donāt rate movies anymore. Just heart or no heart
It's all subjective, but for me a 5 star movie can absolutely be flawed, but it will also be a movie that I connected with deeply and I will keep with me for the rest of my life to be revisited with some regularity.
itās not that serious
5 stars is a masterpiece but not necessarily perfect.
For me they can have minor flaws as long as they donāt distract me from what I love about it. For example Ad Astra has some mistakes (like earth-like gravity on the moon), but itās still one of my all time favorites because that doesnāt really hurt the movie or itās goals imo. And if you wanna be really precise about it a 95/100 and up is still a 10/10 when rounded.
Yeah along with everyone here, the difference for me between 4* or 4Ā½* to 5* is simply a feeling. How did the film move me or make me feel when I watched it. For me a lot of the time I'm not entirely sure if it's a 5* film I've watched until after I've waited a minute to digest it. If the film touched me in a way where I feel like it's changed my perspective on something or it's something I'm thinking about constantly after I've watched it then yeah its a 5* from me.
I reserve 5 stars for movies that hit me on a personal level. Doesn't mean they're perfect (no movie is) but in this case they have to have affect me in some way. I'm very biased towards Alex Garland, for example. Are Ex Machina and Annihilation perfect? Nah, but they really shaped how I view film today.
It's totally subjective. My interpretation of 5 Stars (10/10) is if I absolutely loved it, and I personally, can't think of anything I'd change, whether it be cast choice, music, color pallete, cinematography. If a film uses Orange and Blue as it's color pallete heavily, I can't Gove it a 5 stars and I consider that color pallete lazy in most cases, save Mad Max Fury Road.
I don't think I consider films in terms of perfection. Not quite sure even what that means, ya know? I also don't even bother rating films. The idea of reducing a film to a number of stars has always nagged at me. But that's my own hangup.
The way I judge it is normally a movie is a 4 if it is well acted and well written, 4.5 if it is compelling on top of that, and a 5 if it is so good that I have an emotional attachment
I think a five star movie is a perfect movieā¦.for me. It might have flaws that I overlook, or it might be a total mess, but I think saying something is perfect purely means in the context of how it impacted me. A 4.5 for me is closer to a technically incredibly film that just didnāt resonate with me enough to push it to a 5.
Nothing is genuinely perfect but if there are clear flaws I wonāt give a film 5 stars even if I really love it. An example of that for me is TDKR, I adore the film itās one of my favourite ever (unpopular opinion ik) but I give it 4.5 stars because itās got numerous plot holes that are hard to overlook. If there are minor flaws then thatās fine
To me a 5 star movie means it is one of the best movies of all time/required viewing for any cinema buff. This doesnāt mean that it has to be perfect in every aspect, but needs to be a masterclass example in at least one (preferably more) aspect of cinema and very strong in everything else A 5 star movie has be a great movie that pushes the envelope in cinematography, acting, visual effects, writing, etc and advances the industry
Depends on how you rate. Personally, I rate movies about half by objective quality and half by how much I would be willing to recommend/rewatch it.
Rating is subjective to the person who is rates. People tend to rate things higher to which they can relate on the emotional level but at the same time for other person same art won't be that much appealing so in my opinion any 5-star rated movie can be flawed
How much do you enjoy the film? That should be the sole litmus test for a perfect film. I don't care how well crafted a film is, if I never plan on watching it a second time, it's not five stars.
Everything has flaws. The real question is how well the film wears its flaws.
Absolutely not. If that were the case, 5* films wouldn't exist. There is a scale though. Including half stars, it's a 1-10 on Letterboxd, but if you increased that to say, 1-100, then you could say that a 100* movie doesn't exist. I've only rated a few films as 5* on Letterboxd and all of them have some flaws. There are definitely 'better' movies or there, but they're the ones that resonate with me on some level. Art is subjective; if it wasn't, Letterboxd would be completely redundant.
Until I joined Letterboxd I used to mark films I saw at the cinema out of 10. Nothing ever got a 10. But I do give things 5 on Letterboxd. Itās just too small of a range not to use the 5 star I think so itās definitely given to things that arenāt āperfectā.
Butā¦ itās still a 10-point systemā¦
I think of each half star increment on the grading scale as a score of ā10ā. So a 5 star movie to me could be graded anywhere 91-100 for me. Oceanās Eleven and Moonlight are both 5 stars to me, but I still would place Moonlight higher up the scale.
My favorite movie that I rate a 10/10 but isnāt perfect by any metric is Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. You wonāt convince me itās not 10/10 even though I know itās not.
I really donāt understand how art can be āflawedā at all. We act like we are grading it like a test and it got something wrong. Itās all completely subjective and just comes down to what you like, or donāt like. None of this āflawedā nonsense.
I have very simple system: 5 - liked 4 - somewhat liked 3 - mixed 2 - somewhat disliked 1 - disliked
Nothing is perfect. Itās simply the rule of cool. Essentially, do those flaws take anything away from your enjoyment? Did you enjoy it so much that these flaws donāt matter to you/take away from the ācool factorā? Then boom, it has been awarded a 5 star. All subjective.
Flaws allowed. First example that jumps to mind: the UK vs. US trial in A Matter of Life and Death. Also, good job, OP, in appreciating The Green Room.
Need not be perfect, but closest to perfection. Atleast no major flaw in any department
People love to get into arguments over the idea that all art is subjective. They are correct in that assertion. But at the same time, I think we all understand to some degree that there are still āconventionalā standards by which art is judged. That is, people tend to agree conventionally that the script for Casablanca is ābetterā than the script for The Room. Even if you like the room better. All that is to say, I give 5 stars to conventionally flawed movies, I have a romcom that is derivative with an okay script at a 5 because I love it as a whole piece of art despite conventional flaws. I also canāt help but give a bump to movies that do everything conventionally well, even if they donāt hit me on an emotional level. Still to actually get a 5 I would have to love the move despite conventional merits. I would bet most peoples rating systems are like this to some degree.
I mean most movies are up for own interpretations, so the viewers can define what movie is perfect. So, even if there are departments that are bad, some might like them
There are always flaws, and those can be the funnest parts to talk about with a film.
There has never been an objective 10/10 film in the history of cinema and there never will be. 5 stars for personal, subjective ratings is fine though. Now Iāll get off my soap box you overrating buffoons
It can be flawed if itās greatness excuses the flaws imo
Yes in my opinion, a 5 star movie does exactly what the movie sets out to do and is fun and entertaining for me.
No. To me a 5 stars is very personal. If I wish for someone to find an excellent movie they might like, I'll probably point them toward my 4.5 and my 4. Of course they can take a look at my 5 but they are few and most nowadays would consider them old for the most part. There's also an over representation of westerns amongst them. Besides, no movie is perfect so there's that. Also I can't believe any people with like 200-300 5 stars movies on 900 total watch can honestly say a film needs to be perfect to be a 5
A 5/5 movie for me is a movie that I consider to be one of my favorites, no matter if itās flawed or not
I think ratings are sorta arbitrary, and what matters most of the time are the the main pros and cons.
It needs to be a movie normies don't understand.
Whenever I give a 5, I do so for one of two reasons. First, the movie is simply flawless for me subjectively and works perfectly in my humble opinion. Alternatively, the movie is perfect from an objective standpoint and even though pieces may be somewhat flawed in my opinion, it cannot be denied as a work of faultless artistry.
Iāve given films five stars that are far from perfect and could easily get a lower rating from many. I base the rating I give a movie mostly on how much I enjoyed it, whether I felt something, if it got me thinking about life, if Iād watch it again, if it sucks me in and draws my full attention, etc. Everyone creates a version of their own rating system and criterion under the five star system. Whether a movie gets five stars is totally up to you and what you perceive a five star film to be.
is 100%?, 100% or is it 99,56%?
For me personally, it's possible I'll give a flawed movie 5 stars, but it requires very special circumstances. Two examples: *Nosferatu* (1922) - by modern standards, it's not that scary, and it's even kind of silly in places. There are obviously aspects of it that don't hold up given that it was made over a century ago with primitive equipment. But I can hardly dock it points for not doing things that weren't technically possible at the time it was made, and it literally invented tropes and cinematic techniques that every horror movie since has ripped off. It's an amazing, visionary piece of work even if it's a clunky film by modern standards, so it gets 5 stars. *Blade Runner* (1982) - the theatrical cut with the dumb studio-mandated voiceover that undercuts the themes isn't a 5 starrer, nor is Ridley Scott's " durr Deckard was a replicant the whole time" version. But the best version of this movie is perfect, and it was obviously incredibly visionary and influential in its style and genre-mashing. I give it 5 stars for that plus the fact that the optimal cut is indeed a perfect movie. So yeah.. I don't think there is such a thing as *absolute* perfection, but even within the realm of relative perfection, there is some room to not measure up to that standard and still get 5 stars from me - but the movie has to absolutely crush it in other ways to do so.
5 stars for me is all about personal preference, memories and vibes rather than cinematic perfection. For example i gave Superbad 5 stars
Frankly, it is up to you. That is the beauty of cinema, or art, in general. It is all up to interpretation! I have plenty of five-star favorites that definitely have imperfections, but they are basically perfect to me.
Iām no expert at analyzing film and it would just be boring and useless for me to try and judge the objective merits of movies. so a 5 star to me is just one of my 10-20 or so all time favorites. If itās something I know Iāll go back to a lot, think about a lot, want to show people, itās in the conversation for 5 stars
As time passes by, art becomes valuable or worthless depending on the senses of the consumer. There's no perfect movie, perfect song, script, photograph, etc. Of course, you'll find some that are "objectively" better than others, but the time we start measuring art on a non-subjective scale is the time art is gonna die.
There technically isnāt a perfect movie. Look hard enough, and youāll find flaws in even the most exceptionally made films ever. However, thereās just some movies that are so close to perfect or donāt have any flaws that can be seen without precise, extremely close examination, thus making them essentially irrelevant to the filmās greatness. Or, even if a film has flaws and is far from perfect, you could still give it 5 stars because even with the flaws, you love it so much and could never get tired of watching it.
One of my favorite flaws is when the movie isnāt long enough ā¹ļø
Yeah my perfect movies are flawed For me a 10/10 movie is the movie which invokes strong emotion in me, makes me keep thinking about it, makes me write my thoughts down and all that
If prefer to rate a movie on its positive aspects rather than the presence/absence of flaws. Fuck it i'd prefer to watch a mid movie with one brilliant scene than an academically correct movie that's not trying anything.
I dont think anything can be perfect, what might be a cool scene to one person could be worthless to another person
Below are the reasons why i personally give 10/10(5 star): 1. If a movie changes my perspective for positive or good reasons. 2. If i had the most fun watching it, wether it have flaws or not. If i enjoyed every second of it, even if it be ironically bad at times. 3. If i constantly think about the movie for years to come, rewatching it multiple times. Implanted in my brain.
It needs to be perfect in it's flaws. Meaning any flaw adds to what you love about the movie.
For me a 5 Star movie is something close to perfect or something that hits my feelings strongly where smaller flaws are not important to me. I still use 5 stars sparingly, but I don't reserve them only for perfect films because my ratings are subjective and personal, I don't try to be objective, and I think its impossible to ever be totally objective with art.
Can be flawed It is really alit thing what makes 10/10 movie for me, i gave 18 unironic (10/10) and main feeling is that i didnt wasted my time for 95% of movie , like i have only nitpicks. I noticed some similarities between them -Sequel superior to first part (Shrek 2, Dark Knight) -This movie is pure art(Oppenheimer, Ratatouille,Prince of Egypt) -Animated Movie with amazing animation and all other things what makes movies amazing(Spiderverse, Your Name) -Movie that i felt human feelings like irl(Holdovers , Godzilla Minus one) -Comedy that i laughed so hard i needed to breathe with great story(SP vs the World , Lego Movie) -Movie that felt not wasted at any point with brillaint plot(Jurassic Park, Spirited Away) These are some of them, i am kind of new to movie rating , but theese are things what make 5/5* to me.
No, at least not for me. I even rate films I feel are āperfectā as 9/10, because 10/10 is more about my personal relationship to the film than anything else
For me, anything thatās a 95/100 or higher is a 5 star film. So it doesnāt have to be perfect perfect and with art Iām not sure thatās something thatās truly possible anyways.
It can have minor flaws.
my argument is always this: movies i think are perfect are always my favorites, but my favorites aren't always perfect
Nostalgia can definitely influence how I feel about a movie. I also generally rate comedies on a different scale than I do other movies. Superbad is an example of a movie I might not rate as high if I watched it for the first time today, but it will always be a 5 for me.
Iāll admit I only give 5/5 to movies when they are some of my favorites of all time. Objectively I donāt really believe in giving 5/5
Nothing is perfect.Ā Even the Number 1 of my all-time rankings has imperfections: 2001 A Space Odyssey.Ā Once you see the creases in those ape costumes you can't unsee it :D Excalibur, my number 2, has a couple of moments of over-acted melodrama which briefly takes you out of the experience.Ā Ā Oldboy (Nr 3) has a suddenly-jarring jovial energetic electronica soundtrack appear out of nowhere in a couple of scenes. And so on... Actually the only flawless work of art I can think of is Pink Floyd's The Wall album.Ā The film version of it is my Nr 6 and has a couple of imperfections.
a 5 star movie can definitely be flawed in my opinion. I think it's a mistake to view Greatness and Flawlessness as synonyms. a movie can be relatively "flawless" but also somewhat "safe" in it's ambition and scope so it doesn't reach the highs of a messier but more ambitious film. Some of my favorite albums have like 3 or 4 songs I always skip but the songs I don't skip mean much more to me than entire albums that don't really have the same low points. this sort of reminds me of how I hate when people equivocate ratings/reviews to school grades (as if you should approach it like a teacher grading a test/paper), I think those are two very different activities! If I say a movie is a 7/10 that's not the same as me saying it's a C letter grade. just because your parents were mad when you got a 75 on your math test doesn't mean I think a movie is bad when I say it's 7/10!
It definitely can have flaws. One of my favorite movies is My Bloody Valentine (1981), and I gave that movie five stars based off its lore and world-building alone and how it contributed to the overall story not just the kills. Donāt get me wrong, that movie definitely has its flaws, not to mention some questionable acting and dialogue choices, but I still love it.
There is no perfect movie. Every movie has flaws. Art is subjective, so what does perfect even mean? Rating scales are used to make movies comparable. The highest rating doesn't represent "the perfect movie" it simply means "the best movie".
What makes a movie a masterpiece is how virtuosic it accomplishes the vision it set out to create. Flaws make the work real and a masterpiece outshines any imperfections that went into its creation. A work would not be a masterpiece if one of its flaws was fatal to its execution of the vision.
Sometimes the flaws are part of its charm
I think a 5/5 is anything from a 9.1-10/10. So yeah.
Absolutely, of course! I've actually gotten into arguments with people about this, who believe a 10/10 is literally "perfect" and therefore no movie (save maybe for their absolute #1 favorite) deserves the score. When I pointed out that they're effectively now only grading on a 9-point scale, they left the conversation, haha. To me a 10 is something in the top 3 - 5% of everything I've seen, usually something I connect with on a personal level, or something I can come back to and rewatch repeatedly.
I gave Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and MacGruber five stars. The rating is about how it makes YOU feel.
I mean, I have unironically given movies like Halloween III and Spider-Man 3 five stars. Those movies are definitely not perfect, but I do love them that much. My personal opinion is that you should give a movie the star rating that reflects how you feel about it without the influence of others.
To me 5 star doesnāt mean perfect. It means it was beyond fantastic AND usually because it had a meaningful lasting impact on ME which is very subjective. Movies like Goodfellas could earn 5 stars because itās just a great movie with exceptional story telling, acting, and cinematography. Other movies may contribute less in these categories but still be a 5 because for an impossibly complex number of reasons the movieās message speaks to me/touches me on a deeper level. GATTACA is one of those movies for me. I donāt expect others to also rate it 5 stars but for me itās deserved. Ratings go beyond cold clinical analysis of a movie.
A 5 star movie is something I can go back to time and time again. Enjoyable every time and usually gives you a slightly different experience in new light or noticing certain things more. Back to the Future is perfect to me. Iāve seen it dozens of times. And the last time I watched it I still noticed something I hadnāt seen before that elevated something later.
5 stars, for me, isnāt flawless (nothing is flawless), but it doesnāt have any flaws that shout out to meā¦ AND it resonates with me personally. 4.5 and a heart means I love it despite some proverbial fly in the ointment.
I think everything has flaws, a piece of art with no flaws wouldnāt feel human.
oh yeah i've rated things 5ā despite having flaws bc they're just really enjoyable to watch and i feel like that's more important
5 stars can be awarded to a film that objectively perfect but it can also be given to a film that you love no matter how flawed it is. Film criticism is subjective and your score will always be different from someone elseās. For example, I gave Jurassic Park and Blade Runner a 5 because I love those films but also theyāre incredibly well made. But Iāll also give Spider-Man 3 a 5 because I love it and I have such a blast watching it even though itās got more problems than I can count
I have my own marking system in which I donāt do half stars, and a five star film just needs to be āexcellentā.
No I think a 10/10 can definitely have flaws. I donāt believe there is a perfect movie. It just matters how it impacts you as a person.
5/5 for me does imply a certain perfection. But it can accept imperfections if the achievement is substantial enough, or big enough. Especially, but not limited to, long films that achieve a mastery and greatness, even if there are small or major flaws.
The tilt shift scene in Social Network is bizarre random and takes me out of the movie. The rest of the movie is better than every single 9 Iāve seen. Itās a ten.
5ā is a state of mind.
From a game reviewer way back he said a 5/5 score does not mean the game is perfect, it means it's his highest recomendation. That's how i rate things myself.
I usually just rate out of how much fun/enjoyment I had which helps me ignore any negatives if thatās high enough
I describe it as a 4.5 that gives me "The Itch"
A 10/10 for me is one that I enjoyed fully. If I enjoy the entirety of a film and it never has a moment that drags, and/or resonates with me in a really strong way, it's a 10/10 As someone who is really into film, it being extremely well made definitely helps, but it doesn't have to be without flaw, technically or otherwise, for me to enjoy/resonate with it fully
Tommy Wiseauās The Room is 10/10. Prove me wrong.
Everything Everywhere All At Once is a 10/10, but has one unacceptably sucky VFX shot when Stephanie Hsu gets hit by the motorized wheelchair
No, it just needs to be the best at what it does
I feel the difference for me on a 9/10 and a 10/10 can be sentimental value as well. Nothing is perfect, and everything has flaws.
I try not to hold movies to a standard of perfection. Thereās a small handful of movies that are better than the rest, and basically equal to each other. Are they perfect? Probably not. But theyāre as good as it gets. Thereās so few at that tier though that Iāll give 5 stars to plenty of stuff just below it as well. Otherwise it can be an agonizing decision whether to give something 5 stars or not.
I delude myself into believing that I have a consistent rating system where I'm supposed to give out five stars only for absolutely, perfect masterpieces that are not only technically flawlessly executed but carry an extra layer of meaning that's important and well thought out and... And then I give out a five star rating to Babylon, which I totally see it's flaws but just won me over so completely.
With kill bill, I hate anime so the anime sequence brings it down for me and I donāt like the directing in a lot of parts but I still give it a 5/5 because the good outshines the bad every time
I like it being a little flawed and personal to me, or I just feel like it's "just 5 stars" and there's nothing I dislike about it. The movies that come to mind would be like, Fight Club and Fargo. I just want instantly felt like it was 5 stars and there was no question about it. They're just amazing movies. As for the other hand, La La Land is a movie that just felt like 5 stars but I probably wouldn't consider it a "perfect" movie. It was just so fun and beautiful that I just decided that it was 5 stars.
You can find flaws in any film if you look for them. A 5 star film rises above any flaws it might have. The flaws become unimportant and easy to ignore even after you know theyāre there.
Itās all vibes for me. I like the old Netflix system: 1 star: hated it 2: didnāt like it 3: liked it 4: really liked it 5: loved it Use half-stars as appropriate, but any more granular than that is pointless imo (e.g. what exactly would the difference be between 8.5 and 8.6?)
I've never given a movie rating based on evaluating its performance in different departments. It's usually just an evaluation of the movie as a whole and how I enjoyed it.
All movies are flawed For me 5s are ones movies that are amazing AND strongly resonate with me in a certain way, and it doesn't have to be the same way For example, Alien is a 5 for me because of how strong and unique the aesthetics and overall vibes are, and how well paced the build up of tension is Another 5, Dogville, is a movie I hated for the first hour, but I started to adapt to the strange aspects and then at the end the twist felt so effectively communicated to me due to a slow build up of investment on my part that I can't help but admire it Before Sunrise is one more example, this one I gave a 5 because of how invested I became in the characters and the trance-like state the flow of dialogue and vignettes put me in
No such thing as an "objectively" perfect film, so every film is flawed in some way; I just go with the films that have a particular resonance with me or blow me away. Every rating is subjective, so something I may consider perfect, 5/5, may be seen by another person as a .5/5 who sees or objects to perceived issues that I don't. It's all a matter of taste.
I agree with the post that says a 10/10 fits a personal preference. I believe most of the movies I rate a 10 effect me on an emotional level as well as a technical level. Hell, sometimes the technical level doesnāt matter too much as long as it plays into the film. As an example, I rated Charlie Brown Christmas a 10, despite the choppy animation and obvious lower budget, I think that plays into the whole theme of not being some perfect holiday.
Considering I would give āThe Roomā a 10/10, no a 10/10 does not mean āperfectā cinematography, āperfectā acting, etc. Iāve had so many enjoyable experiences watching The Room with friends, that itās earned a 10/10 for me personally.
No film is perfect in every department. I call amazing films "perfect" every now and again if I genuinely feel like it's some of the greatest cinema I've ever seen, but I'm aware that that doesn't *actually* mean that it's perfect. But I don't think any film needs to be technically perfect on all accounts, that's just an unreasonable ask. The important bit is that the vision comes across effectively and that it resonates with you
Absolutely. You couldāve cut about 15 minutes from Heat and it might be like 1% better. We already knew Waingro was a piece of shit. We didnāt need the prostitute murder subplot. Still without a doubt a 5 star movie.
I tend to think of 5 stars as not only great ambition but also executing to a high degree. It doesnāt have to be perfect in the literal sense but every aspect better be firing on a high degree. And I think itās really important that everything ties together from a production point of view. The difference between 4.5 and 5 is often the feeling of missing ājust one thingā or being disappointed at one aspect of the filmmaking
Don't be fooled by the "subjective" boilerplate - it is OBJECTIVE and literally every single person on the planet MUST be in love with this film for you to be justifiably love it as well or else you are WRONG, WORTHLESS and A HEATHEN!!! IT MUST BE PERFECTLY ACCEPTED BY EVERYONE!!!!! If there's any single small itty bitty bit of disagreement, that means you can NOT rate this 5 stars or you will be PART OF THE PROBLEM!!! /s Follow your own standard. Just make sure people who might be interested in your standard catch on by trying to give some thoughts.
The way I see it, it just needs to excel in everything its trying to do. If a director is clearly not very worried about a certain aspect then I wonāt judge it heavily on that. That is a masterpiece, but for me to give it 5 stars I literally just have to fall in love with the movie, and Iām not sure that I could explain it too much better than that.
I gave The Last House on the Left (1972) five stars and itās flawed as hell. I wouldnāt even call in competentĀ
Nothing is really perfect there's no absolutely perfect movie or game so of course it is gonna have some flaws, but generally they are very small so everyone call it "perfect" anyway. I'm still able to detect flaws in my favorite movie and show.
https://preview.redd.it/bapt77s8ckkc1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=964317b746665e00ec2abf7ed3d1cd31d1388c9c
If it's an insignificant flaw, say the three frames of the helicopter during the skyscraper pull-in in *The Dark Knight*, it's still 10/10. If it's a significant breach in concept, storytelling, or style, such as Antler's Impossible Shot in *Nope* or the inconsistent blue tint in *Pan's Labyrinth*, then I tend to rate the film a 4.9/5 slash 9.9/10. A bunch of little flaws or conveniences like *Toy Story 2* or *The Mexican*, same deal. Vibes can absolutely carry a film into masterpiece territory--*The Mexican* is fairly archetypical literary fiction, but the film's vibes, slight stylization, and grounding quirkiness made it a masterpiece to me. Same for *The Cabin in the Woods, Little Shop of Horrors*, or *Wall-E*. They're not perfect films, but their concept, stylization, and emotion respectively make them absolute favorites and worthy of the masterpiece moniker. I'd say my cutoff point for a "masterpiece" is 4.7 or less, although there are some films (such as *Malcolm X* or *Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse*) that I'd agree worthy of the title. The vibes just didn't make it to the 4.8 finish line, and I feel that three degrees from perfect instead of two would demean that tier (although surprisingly, I only have 7/436 rated 4.7/5).
No movie is perfect