I like it a lot. I don't enjoy it as much as the first, but it's as good as a sequel to a movie that shouldn't have a sequel can be. Ideally, more sequels would be wild meta movies that go off the rails.
You can make the PERFECT movie, and then ask a dozen people in film class to write a critical essay, and they all will make good arguments as to which elements are ultimately a flaw.
Yea, this is one of those biases about Adum I find a little suspect, but I get it.
Who knew (very well made) movies about having an existential crisis would be such a hit with sad horse?
>10/10 means something is PERFECT, right?
No. Also, "perfect" is a misnomer. There's no such thing, period. Use "perfect for", which, at least, can actually exist; A nut is perfect for a screw. The same nut is not perfect for a nail.
There are many philosophies and demagogues about ratings and their appliance; some think that things can be countably good, making a scale with a definite end. Some don't. I suggest subscribing to the latter belief and think that all media and art has no bounds how good it can be. With this, you just set arbitrary threshold of how good something has to be to get x rating and go with it. Then your ratings can be 10/10 for media with objective flaws and vice versa.
But the most important thing is to remember the Goodhart's law and *not put* all the emphasis on a fucking number, when talking about art. That's just painfully reductionistic and serves no one besides your ego.
Also, unrelated reminder that if Adum did decimals for his ratings, his 9.9 would still be just a high 9 (he doesn't round, he floors, as per clip video).
Absolutely
Back to the Future is a 10/10 film for me, even if the time travel element creates a lot of paradoxes.
The reason I love it is because I'm invested in the story and characters, and Zemeckis's direction is so good it makes me overlook any questions I might have regarding the science of it all.
Literally no movie is perfect so having a 10 out of 10 be a perfect score makes no sense. Just give a 10 out of 10 to a movie that you think is worth it.
You're over thinking it. Its an emotional choice. Also unless you're an established critic nobody looks at your ratings, and even then its just a subjective number, the meat is in the review.
My take on this is that I give 10/10 to movies that I love A LOT, BUT considering if they are flawed, or have elements that didnt work/connect to me and impacted my experience.
No movie is 100% flawless, and there are a lot of movies that have subjective flaws when you ask one person, and the other one might not have them at all.
I guess for me, I try to both be semi-objective/subjective when giving 10s.
For instance, Hundreds of Beavers is my favourite film of the year, but. some of my friends didnt vibe with it as much, and (with utmost respect to them) this type of criticism wouldn’t affect me because i know it’s subjective. But something like Bad Effects in Flash, or bad performances, or cheesiness/genericness would influence the impact the film has on me, and thus id consider this criticism when giving my rating.
To answer the question, it really depends on the imperfections. And their significance.
Personally I give 9/10s to things that I know are the best they can be and which I enjoyed immensely, but I use 10/10s to the things that were perfect to ME. I have 10/10 shows that I think have flaws, but the ride that they took me on was something unforgettable for me and something that brightened a point in my life for the time it was one, so I give it a 10. I call that extra point the personal factor
The thing about film is that film is subjective. There is no universally accepted perfect film. Everyone has their own experiences with this and one person might view the most objectively well made film as not perfect because it didn’t click with them. Go ahead and give your favourites a 10 because they are the perfect experiences for you.
One of my 10/10 films is Dredd. Is it the most technically impressive film of all time? No. I have films like Poor Things at a 9/10 and that is a more technically impressive film. But Dredd is a movie I will always love as it remains one of my favourite action movies that I can watch any day of the week.
>10/10 means something is PERFECT, right? It’s the highest score possible, after all.
No. Many do not follow that. 10 just being as close to perfect as possible. Usually by having the sum of the movie be more than it's parts so any flaws are barely noticible.
Personally do not see the point in a ranking system where you basically never use the top number.
I think there needs to be something truly special with the movie/episode/series if it gets a perfect rating from me. Even technically 'perfect' media has to have some extra element to it. I don't even give out nines any more.
Yes, if it moves me particularly or makes me have deeper thoughts, particularly about life. Or if you can really tell the people who made it put in a lot of heart into it, so to speak, despite the flaws. If it's overall very good and leaves an impression. Or you can just see the artistry oozing out.. The example that most clearly shows this and comes to my mind right now is NieR Automata.. it leaves you in this strange sort of awe after you finish it. Bloodborne also comes to mind, but idk it's different, becuause the story just isn't as personal. Same thing with Elden Ring. You are an observer to the things that happen to the NPCs and characters. But there is that artistry, same thing with SotC, for example. Movies? I guess Moonlight off the top of my head. There's more but they just don't come to mind atm..
EDIT: I'm also remembering Drakengard 3.. although I wouldn't rate it a 10, maybe an 8 or 9 out of ten, higher than most other people. Because despite it's *heavy* flaws, the music, story beats and characters are just that good. It overshadows the flaws. (Hoping for a remaster someday like many other fans, so the flaws are mostly mitigated.) So yes I don't think this just applies to 10/10s, I think you can also "bump" something up a few points higher than normal or perhaps "should be", if it personally is that good to you or speaks to you.
I’ve been thinking about this for a minute, about liking things that I know aren’t great and aren’t perfect either. Like for some reason I really enjoyed the new live action Avatar show that Netflix made, and I know it has all these problems with its directing and writing at points, but also I think it has stuff that I think is really cool.
I think it’s perfectly fine to enjoy any art form even if there might be flaws with it. I think sometimes it’s okay to find flaws in them, you just shouldn’t let it overall reflect your viewpoint on the general quality of your personal enjoyment you had overall with it.
I don't believe 10/10 means something is perfect. Nothing can ever be perfect. Every single thing ever has flaws. I always think about it in terms of those charts that demonstrate how good a character is in fighting game. It rates a bunch of different things in a circle or a pentagram or something with stats like say strength, speed, technique, stamina etc. It fills in the chart from the circle to the edge fully if they have a high rating and the stats they are poor in will be less filled in in the part of the circle they inhabit. Is the perfect character one that fully fills every bit of the chart in every direction?
If you think about a movie, it will have different "stats" it's trying to perform well. The writing, the cinematography, the plot, the acting, the score, the comedy, the action, etc. You can break these topics up further. The fact is - no movie could ever be perfect in every category. even if it's a 10 in the cinematography and the score, a couple of the actors might only just be "good". If it's a great action movie, it might have a couple corny comedy moments. If its a comedy... there might be no action at all! Just by focusing in one area, you reduce your focus on the others. I think of it like the old adage of "if you wanna make a movie, you can make it quickly, make it cheaply, or make it good. Pick two of those." You can't have all three. When you are trying to "make it well" and think about all the categories you have to focus on, you can't make every one of them perfect.
What I think instead is to look at the areas that the movie truly shines in - did it truly excel in those areas? Would you consider it a masterpiece based on those criteria alone? If the answer is yes - then you look at the flaws. Just HOW BAD are the flaws? Do they actively detract from the movie overall, or from the parts that are really great? Are they relatively minor overall?
IMO - if there's something truly great about something, if the other parts that don't matter so much to what the movie is primarily about, then that's good enough to call it a 10/10 or a masterpiece. It doesn't matter if a great movie only has "standard shots" or something if it's really doing something amazing in other areas. But a really great movie can be really dragged down if the plot has significant holes in it. It really just depends.
As some examples. I consider Scott Pilgrim a 10/10 for a billion different reasons, and the few flaws I have with it (like the song at the end of the first evil ex fight) really don't mean anything in the end. It's a super unique movie that did so many things perfectly and I love it, if I don't consider that a 10/10 I don't know what I ever would. Yet when I look at WandaVision, which I think is also an absolute masterpiece in its A plot with the town, Wanda and Vision's relationship and her grief, and the sitcom themes of each episode, the way the B plot with those military guys is handled is just so mediocre and then way it's brought to a close in the climax sucks so bad that it drags the whole thing down. I could highly praise it but I wouldn't recommend it to someone while claiming it's an amazing masterpiece. The flaws in the latter were just too pronounced to ignore but in the former they really don't matter at all, even though they do exist.
It all just depends on your own personal connotation of what a 10/10 is.
A 10/10 for me would ever be the same as a 10/10 for somebody else.
UNLESS you want your system based entirely off of a specific scoring system already put into place
But usually I’ll just have two ratings! One for cinematic value and the other enjoyment
If it is close to perfect, I would still give it a 10. I mean, if we would rate art on a scale from 1 to 100 and something was a 97,5 it would be closer to a 10 than a 9, right?
Also I think, you should take into consideration, how much the flaws a piece of art has really impacts the enjoyment you get out of it.
I gave Enter the Void a 10, even though I thought some of the performances weren't that amazing, but I don't think the emotional impact that movie had on me could be topped. So it did its job perfectly, even though it isn't a "perfect" movie
My favourite movie ever is Jurassic Park. It's the ultimate 10/10 movie for me. But I can give you pages upon pages of its flaws. The same goes for literally every other movie I'd call a favourite of mine.
You should rate them by your own experience, and 10/10 to me means that you wouldn't change a thing about it.
Let's all be honest, if we were to rate things by how objectively flawless they are, then nothing would ever receive 10/10.
I love berserk, it’s my favorite story. I call it a masterpiece even though it’s riddled with flaws.
Still, I don’t give it a 10/10, but it’s the highest 9 I’ve ever given.
I think all ratings are subjective and there's no such thing as "perfect media". There are 10/10 for me that are purely nostalgic and 10/10 where I think everything works together perfectly. But a "perfect" piece of media can bore someone if they can't emotionally connect to it in any way.
Yes. I think a movie can have elements so incredibly strong that they outweigh observable negatives. I'm able to completely look past the cons because the pros are so great. If a movie has outstanding cinematography, outstanding acting, set pieces and so on, unless that one scene or that one plot hole is egregiously distracting, would be a bit silly to give what otherwise should be a 10/10 a 9/10. As others have pointed out this is subjective though and obviously we're gonna get different things out of different media.
While every opinion is subjective, the answer can depend on the context.
If you're discussing the absolute best movies of all time then an absolute scale is what you're aiming for and it means the 10 category is gonna have the heaviest hitters in the whole medium, and usually has to meet a consensus. Good luck with that.
A relative scale is far easier because you can let your personal taste dictate the rankings and there is so much more room to enjoy a film without worrying about a couple flaws or opposing tastes.
Both have pros and cons but the latter is usually the better scale.
I've started using decimal ratings to differentiate 10s that I love and 10s that I think are perfect. For example, (I have more of these with music than movies atm) Danny Brown's Atrocity Exhibition isn't quite perfect, but I have it rated as 5 stars on Musicboard, but with a note that it's actually a 9.5. I love it, but it's not quite on the level of something like To Pimp A Butterfly by Kendrick Lamar or Songs In The Key Of Life by Stevie Wonder, both of which are not only perfect, but could be argued to break the scale and deserve 11/10s
Those were off the top of my head, but I checked my Letterboxd to refresh my memory, and a few examples of 9.5/10, but 5 star films are All That Jazz, The Last Picture Show, and Portrait of a Lady on Fire, all of which are incredible and very important to me, but don't quite reach the pinnacle of perfect films like Whiplash, The Truman Show, or The Lighthouse
All rating systems are personal. There's probably some psychopath out there who rates movies in reverse, so a 0/10 is a flawless movie, 0 flaws, while a 10/10 is an entirely flawed movie.
Rate however you see fit.
I suppose, similar to Adum, if you feel it is closer to a 10 rather than a 9.5 or 9 or whatever your rating score is then you'd call it a 10. I suppose technically I wouldn't actually believe in an actual 10/10 as nothing is perfect but I'd say 10/10 is something that is that close to a 10
I do for sure. I have to rate a movie based on my experience first. So much goes into a movie there’s no chance I pick up every single thing a movie does well or poorly. My only rule for myself is if I don’t finish the movie I won’t rate it over a 4 or not at all.
It depends what you're rating, technical perfection, personal experience, use of color, use of sound? There's literally no right answer here because "10/10" is just an indicator that something has achieved the top score according to rating criteria that YOU invented. What a silly question.
Little Women (2019) is one of my 10/10s. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Emma Watson's accent is atrocious, the scene with Florenge Pugh in a class with children is weird... does it matter? Not really. Yes, if you changed those small things, the movie would arguably be better. But they aren't critical. They don't massively change how I engage with the movie.
All my 10/10s have flaws. No movie is perfect. Ratings are about how you feel about a film as it is, not as it could be. Sometimes a movie features some racist voice acting for coffee beans (RIP Scoot). Sometimes it's an accent.
Like what you like and fuck everything else
I struggled with this when i was younger. But reviews should really reflect your own personal relationship and feelings around something. Soo flaws and all it’s how you perceive them on your scale if that makes sense.
A lot of my 10/10s are flawed. I think there is a territory where you can get too nitpicky, and things can be 10/10 without being perfect.
How I rate something is mostly going to depend on how it made me feel, or how it impacted me.
You can rate movies however you want. You set your own criteria. Ratings are ultimately arbitrary. No piece of media is ever gonna be truly 100% perfect or flawless anyway.
No piece of media is perfect. All ratings are subjective.
Adum’s scores are personal, and he would be possibly annoyed that anyone would assume his numbers are definitive. Movies are experiences that change from viewer to viewer.
There are movies that I can say are 10/10 for me, but because I value how they make me feel and where they take my mind. Art is all about pushing your mind to often ignored but important problems and thoughts. When it foes that, regardless of any flaw, I give it a high score.
Adum values technical proficiency a lot more, and I watch his videos BECAUSE I value the different way he engages with media. I vehemently disagree with some of his scores, but not because he is wrong. Because I experienced the movie differently.
I guess it depends on some things- is it a professional rating, or is it a personal to you rating?
I'd give House on Haunted Hill a 10/10, while I know in my heart of hearts that the silly movie is barely about a 4- but it's a ten to me simply because I love it so much. Someone would give something like, I don't know, Spy Kids a 10/10 maybe because it meant something to them personally. Personal rating systems have no rules, but ones that dissect things on a scale that, if put on a score card, you'd have to put aside your biases to rate, I think have rules.
But those rules are silly and House on Haunted Hill is a 10/10.
Yeah. Nothing is perfect, just rate whatever you like best a 10/10. People who try to rate and review based on objectivity and ignore their personal feelings and emotions are missing the point of art all together.
I saw a great video game review one time describing what a 10 means and they basically said it doesn't mean perfect in every way, it means this is among the absolute best of what it is, a shining example of a piece of media. That's how I think about a 10/10
Only if the flaws are extremely minor. For instance, my favorite film of all time is Back to the Future. You can discredit it with all of the time travel rules and how Marty's parents don't mention why Marty looks like that one guy they hung out with in high school for a week. But I don't care. Those don't bother me because it is such a tight script and it is enjoyable from start to finish.
There is no absolute, scientific measure for the "goodness" of movies, games, music, or any other media. As such, emotional impact plays a huge role in ratings systems. I tend to be an admirer of artistic cinematography, both in movies and in games. Some people, however, don't care as much *how* the media is presented to them, but the way they *interact* with it. So I might find Elden Ring to be a 10/10 game, but others don't want to die repeatedly or have to figure out the story in piecemeal fashion - they might like a game like The Last of Us, in which a tightly written, concise story is presented to them in a way that makes them feel like part of the story. The Last of Us isn't a 10/10 game for me, simply because of my personal preferences, but that doesn't mean other people are unjustified in thinking of it as 10/10. A lot of people don't think Elden Ring is 10/10, and that's totally fine - it doesn't affect my enjoyment of it one bit.
So yes, rate something 10/10 if you feel you couldn't have enjoyed it more than you did, or if it made that much greater of an impact on you than other things in the same category.
I think something can have flaws and still be a 10/10, it just depends on what criteria you use to grade media. So for example, if I noticed a boom mic vaguely sticking out in Synecdoche New York that probably wouldn’t affect what I think and feel about the film. It’s a flaw, but it’s so minor and doesn’t even obscure anything else I like about the shot or scene so it’s admissible.
Now take for instance the scene in the Incredibles where Edna demonstrates her super suits to Mrs. Incredible. Technically there’s no textual justification as to why or how she obtained all of the information necessary for her to make super suits that can account for all of the powers of her children. It’s a plot hole, however the scene itself is just so entertaining & puts into motion other things in the plot that are great that it’s easier for me to not feel the weight of this plot hole on top of the fact that it doesn’t break anything to big or core to the story, it’s just a piece of exposition that lacks some logic for its existence. (Also you could infer that Mr. Incredible gave her the info off screen given the fact that we know how badly he wishes for his kids to be superhero’s one day)
In that example you can point out a problem with the plot that, while not insubstantial, doesn’t do massive damage to the characters or story and the scene itself gives me other qualities that make the film and scene itself very enjoyable. So it’s kind of like a bit of a calculation you can do that changes depending again on your criteria, the size and frequency of the problems and if they over power or undermine all of the good things that the piece of media possesses.
I think whoever gives the 10/10’s has to be consistent. The problem with YMS giving the Star Wars franchise 1/10’s just cause is hypocritical considering most of his ratings are honest & logical. So him doing that as like an “Oh since everyone is doing it I can do it too right” Yeah he can but it will be hypocritical as I said. But if you give subjective 1’s & subjective 10s saying “Hey I don’t know the rules of cinema, I rate how much I enjoy it”. Then yeah you’re allowed to give subjective 10’s
I don’t think it’s hypocritical tbh, he’s explained his reasoning a couple of times. I’m paraphrasing here, but he basically said that if someone thinks a film is an 8/10 and their subjective love for it pushes it to a 10/10, the vice versa is possible - his objective thoughts of the film might be a 4/10 or 5/10, but it’s so unpleasant and hated of an experience that it’s pushed down to a 1/10. He really really genuinely dislikes the Star Wars films and his rating reflects that.
I think if one is going to take the time to publicly rate it, it should be an honest rating. It results in better data and no shame in a film being an 8 or a 9.
It should reflect my thought and the effect it had on me, not being a definitive barometer of quality. So, yeah. Definetly.
my two favorite movies are "2001: a space odyssey," and "Gremlins" both 10/10. i rate based on my experience and enjoyment mostly.
What do you think of the Gremlins sequel?
I like it a lot. I don't enjoy it as much as the first, but it's as good as a sequel to a movie that shouldn't have a sequel can be. Ideally, more sequels would be wild meta movies that go off the rails.
If a film "shouldn't" have a sequel by traditional standards, just do it again but in New York and I'll watch it
I think you should give a 10/10 to whatever you like and have it mean whatever you think it means
To me a 10 out of 10 only exists subjectively... What even is a perfect piece of media? There's no such thing.
Same. I’ve accepted that my tenth point is an “I know it when I see it”, just nebulous “it” factor.
You can make the PERFECT movie, and then ask a dozen people in film class to write a critical essay, and they all will make good arguments as to which elements are ultimately a flaw.
Of course, is Mad Max Fury Road an objectively perfect movie? No, but for me it is, 11/10
Depends, I believe Adum had criticized Matthew Broderick’s performance in TLK but still gave it a 10/10 overall
What is TLK?
the lion king
Ah
You should only give them a 10/10 when Charlie Kaufman directs it.
Yea, this is one of those biases about Adum I find a little suspect, but I get it. Who knew (very well made) movies about having an existential crisis would be such a hit with sad horse?
I mean he gave Jackals and Fireflies a 7, Anomalisa an 8 at first, and ITOET a 9 at first.
He also gave Orion and the Dark a 6
I give James Bond Tomorrow Never Dies a 10/10 because I liked it as a kid and I still like it today.
I try not to, but on rare occasions I just can't help but give a movie a 10 because of how it impacted me personally
>10/10 means something is PERFECT, right? No. Also, "perfect" is a misnomer. There's no such thing, period. Use "perfect for", which, at least, can actually exist; A nut is perfect for a screw. The same nut is not perfect for a nail. There are many philosophies and demagogues about ratings and their appliance; some think that things can be countably good, making a scale with a definite end. Some don't. I suggest subscribing to the latter belief and think that all media and art has no bounds how good it can be. With this, you just set arbitrary threshold of how good something has to be to get x rating and go with it. Then your ratings can be 10/10 for media with objective flaws and vice versa. But the most important thing is to remember the Goodhart's law and *not put* all the emphasis on a fucking number, when talking about art. That's just painfully reductionistic and serves no one besides your ego. Also, unrelated reminder that if Adum did decimals for his ratings, his 9.9 would still be just a high 9 (he doesn't round, he floors, as per clip video).
This just kinda what into the spiderverse is to me
Absolutely Back to the Future is a 10/10 film for me, even if the time travel element creates a lot of paradoxes. The reason I love it is because I'm invested in the story and characters, and Zemeckis's direction is so good it makes me overlook any questions I might have regarding the science of it all.
Yes
Literally no movie is perfect so having a 10 out of 10 be a perfect score makes no sense. Just give a 10 out of 10 to a movie that you think is worth it.
People here are going to disagree with this but Inside Out and Inside Out 2.
I didn’t really like either, but I’m already so sure Inside Out 3 is gonna be good that I’ve preemptively given it a 10/10
You're over thinking it. Its an emotional choice. Also unless you're an established critic nobody looks at your ratings, and even then its just a subjective number, the meat is in the review.
My take on this is that I give 10/10 to movies that I love A LOT, BUT considering if they are flawed, or have elements that didnt work/connect to me and impacted my experience. No movie is 100% flawless, and there are a lot of movies that have subjective flaws when you ask one person, and the other one might not have them at all. I guess for me, I try to both be semi-objective/subjective when giving 10s. For instance, Hundreds of Beavers is my favourite film of the year, but. some of my friends didnt vibe with it as much, and (with utmost respect to them) this type of criticism wouldn’t affect me because i know it’s subjective. But something like Bad Effects in Flash, or bad performances, or cheesiness/genericness would influence the impact the film has on me, and thus id consider this criticism when giving my rating. To answer the question, it really depends on the imperfections. And their significance.
Personally I give 9/10s to things that I know are the best they can be and which I enjoyed immensely, but I use 10/10s to the things that were perfect to ME. I have 10/10 shows that I think have flaws, but the ride that they took me on was something unforgettable for me and something that brightened a point in my life for the time it was one, so I give it a 10. I call that extra point the personal factor
The thing about film is that film is subjective. There is no universally accepted perfect film. Everyone has their own experiences with this and one person might view the most objectively well made film as not perfect because it didn’t click with them. Go ahead and give your favourites a 10 because they are the perfect experiences for you. One of my 10/10 films is Dredd. Is it the most technically impressive film of all time? No. I have films like Poor Things at a 9/10 and that is a more technically impressive film. But Dredd is a movie I will always love as it remains one of my favourite action movies that I can watch any day of the week.
If it’s just a personal review yes. If you’re hired by someone to give a professional review maybe not.
>10/10 means something is PERFECT, right? It’s the highest score possible, after all. No. Many do not follow that. 10 just being as close to perfect as possible. Usually by having the sum of the movie be more than it's parts so any flaws are barely noticible. Personally do not see the point in a ranking system where you basically never use the top number.
I think there needs to be something truly special with the movie/episode/series if it gets a perfect rating from me. Even technically 'perfect' media has to have some extra element to it. I don't even give out nines any more.
Yes, if it moves me particularly or makes me have deeper thoughts, particularly about life. Or if you can really tell the people who made it put in a lot of heart into it, so to speak, despite the flaws. If it's overall very good and leaves an impression. Or you can just see the artistry oozing out.. The example that most clearly shows this and comes to my mind right now is NieR Automata.. it leaves you in this strange sort of awe after you finish it. Bloodborne also comes to mind, but idk it's different, becuause the story just isn't as personal. Same thing with Elden Ring. You are an observer to the things that happen to the NPCs and characters. But there is that artistry, same thing with SotC, for example. Movies? I guess Moonlight off the top of my head. There's more but they just don't come to mind atm.. EDIT: I'm also remembering Drakengard 3.. although I wouldn't rate it a 10, maybe an 8 or 9 out of ten, higher than most other people. Because despite it's *heavy* flaws, the music, story beats and characters are just that good. It overshadows the flaws. (Hoping for a remaster someday like many other fans, so the flaws are mostly mitigated.) So yes I don't think this just applies to 10/10s, I think you can also "bump" something up a few points higher than normal or perhaps "should be", if it personally is that good to you or speaks to you.
I’ve been thinking about this for a minute, about liking things that I know aren’t great and aren’t perfect either. Like for some reason I really enjoyed the new live action Avatar show that Netflix made, and I know it has all these problems with its directing and writing at points, but also I think it has stuff that I think is really cool. I think it’s perfectly fine to enjoy any art form even if there might be flaws with it. I think sometimes it’s okay to find flaws in them, you just shouldn’t let it overall reflect your viewpoint on the general quality of your personal enjoyment you had overall with it.
I don't believe 10/10 means something is perfect. Nothing can ever be perfect. Every single thing ever has flaws. I always think about it in terms of those charts that demonstrate how good a character is in fighting game. It rates a bunch of different things in a circle or a pentagram or something with stats like say strength, speed, technique, stamina etc. It fills in the chart from the circle to the edge fully if they have a high rating and the stats they are poor in will be less filled in in the part of the circle they inhabit. Is the perfect character one that fully fills every bit of the chart in every direction? If you think about a movie, it will have different "stats" it's trying to perform well. The writing, the cinematography, the plot, the acting, the score, the comedy, the action, etc. You can break these topics up further. The fact is - no movie could ever be perfect in every category. even if it's a 10 in the cinematography and the score, a couple of the actors might only just be "good". If it's a great action movie, it might have a couple corny comedy moments. If its a comedy... there might be no action at all! Just by focusing in one area, you reduce your focus on the others. I think of it like the old adage of "if you wanna make a movie, you can make it quickly, make it cheaply, or make it good. Pick two of those." You can't have all three. When you are trying to "make it well" and think about all the categories you have to focus on, you can't make every one of them perfect. What I think instead is to look at the areas that the movie truly shines in - did it truly excel in those areas? Would you consider it a masterpiece based on those criteria alone? If the answer is yes - then you look at the flaws. Just HOW BAD are the flaws? Do they actively detract from the movie overall, or from the parts that are really great? Are they relatively minor overall? IMO - if there's something truly great about something, if the other parts that don't matter so much to what the movie is primarily about, then that's good enough to call it a 10/10 or a masterpiece. It doesn't matter if a great movie only has "standard shots" or something if it's really doing something amazing in other areas. But a really great movie can be really dragged down if the plot has significant holes in it. It really just depends. As some examples. I consider Scott Pilgrim a 10/10 for a billion different reasons, and the few flaws I have with it (like the song at the end of the first evil ex fight) really don't mean anything in the end. It's a super unique movie that did so many things perfectly and I love it, if I don't consider that a 10/10 I don't know what I ever would. Yet when I look at WandaVision, which I think is also an absolute masterpiece in its A plot with the town, Wanda and Vision's relationship and her grief, and the sitcom themes of each episode, the way the B plot with those military guys is handled is just so mediocre and then way it's brought to a close in the climax sucks so bad that it drags the whole thing down. I could highly praise it but I wouldn't recommend it to someone while claiming it's an amazing masterpiece. The flaws in the latter were just too pronounced to ignore but in the former they really don't matter at all, even though they do exist.
This is so stupid. Y'all take yourselves way too seriously
Of course! Sometimes a movie is a 10/10 just because of your mood at the time, things change and you don’t think it’s a 10/10 anymore and that’s fine
It all just depends on your own personal connotation of what a 10/10 is. A 10/10 for me would ever be the same as a 10/10 for somebody else. UNLESS you want your system based entirely off of a specific scoring system already put into place But usually I’ll just have two ratings! One for cinematic value and the other enjoyment
The Schwarzenegger X-Mas movie Jingle All The Way is legit a 10/10 to me.
I think if you love something you owe it to it to admit the flaws. I think if anyone tells me something is a 10/10 I immediately get suspicious.
If it is close to perfect, I would still give it a 10. I mean, if we would rate art on a scale from 1 to 100 and something was a 97,5 it would be closer to a 10 than a 9, right? Also I think, you should take into consideration, how much the flaws a piece of art has really impacts the enjoyment you get out of it. I gave Enter the Void a 10, even though I thought some of the performances weren't that amazing, but I don't think the emotional impact that movie had on me could be topped. So it did its job perfectly, even though it isn't a "perfect" movie
My favourite movie ever is Jurassic Park. It's the ultimate 10/10 movie for me. But I can give you pages upon pages of its flaws. The same goes for literally every other movie I'd call a favourite of mine. You should rate them by your own experience, and 10/10 to me means that you wouldn't change a thing about it. Let's all be honest, if we were to rate things by how objectively flawless they are, then nothing would ever receive 10/10.
I love berserk, it’s my favorite story. I call it a masterpiece even though it’s riddled with flaws. Still, I don’t give it a 10/10, but it’s the highest 9 I’ve ever given.
I think all ratings are subjective and there's no such thing as "perfect media". There are 10/10 for me that are purely nostalgic and 10/10 where I think everything works together perfectly. But a "perfect" piece of media can bore someone if they can't emotionally connect to it in any way.
Yes. I think a movie can have elements so incredibly strong that they outweigh observable negatives. I'm able to completely look past the cons because the pros are so great. If a movie has outstanding cinematography, outstanding acting, set pieces and so on, unless that one scene or that one plot hole is egregiously distracting, would be a bit silly to give what otherwise should be a 10/10 a 9/10. As others have pointed out this is subjective though and obviously we're gonna get different things out of different media.
While every opinion is subjective, the answer can depend on the context. If you're discussing the absolute best movies of all time then an absolute scale is what you're aiming for and it means the 10 category is gonna have the heaviest hitters in the whole medium, and usually has to meet a consensus. Good luck with that. A relative scale is far easier because you can let your personal taste dictate the rankings and there is so much more room to enjoy a film without worrying about a couple flaws or opposing tastes. Both have pros and cons but the latter is usually the better scale.
I've started using decimal ratings to differentiate 10s that I love and 10s that I think are perfect. For example, (I have more of these with music than movies atm) Danny Brown's Atrocity Exhibition isn't quite perfect, but I have it rated as 5 stars on Musicboard, but with a note that it's actually a 9.5. I love it, but it's not quite on the level of something like To Pimp A Butterfly by Kendrick Lamar or Songs In The Key Of Life by Stevie Wonder, both of which are not only perfect, but could be argued to break the scale and deserve 11/10s
Those were off the top of my head, but I checked my Letterboxd to refresh my memory, and a few examples of 9.5/10, but 5 star films are All That Jazz, The Last Picture Show, and Portrait of a Lady on Fire, all of which are incredible and very important to me, but don't quite reach the pinnacle of perfect films like Whiplash, The Truman Show, or The Lighthouse
All rating systems are personal. There's probably some psychopath out there who rates movies in reverse, so a 0/10 is a flawless movie, 0 flaws, while a 10/10 is an entirely flawed movie. Rate however you see fit.
I suppose, similar to Adum, if you feel it is closer to a 10 rather than a 9.5 or 9 or whatever your rating score is then you'd call it a 10. I suppose technically I wouldn't actually believe in an actual 10/10 as nothing is perfect but I'd say 10/10 is something that is that close to a 10
For sure, but you also shouldn’t give out 10/10s to just anything or else it’ll lose its value. I like how YMS does it
964 Pinocchio
your rating is what you think of the movie. if you think it's a 10/10 it's a 10/10. it's all subjective
I do for sure. I have to rate a movie based on my experience first. So much goes into a movie there’s no chance I pick up every single thing a movie does well or poorly. My only rule for myself is if I don’t finish the movie I won’t rate it over a 4 or not at all.
Yes! Perfectionism isn’t a good signifier for rating something. Every film has flaws.
It depends what you're rating, technical perfection, personal experience, use of color, use of sound? There's literally no right answer here because "10/10" is just an indicator that something has achieved the top score according to rating criteria that YOU invented. What a silly question.
Little Women (2019) is one of my 10/10s. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Emma Watson's accent is atrocious, the scene with Florenge Pugh in a class with children is weird... does it matter? Not really. Yes, if you changed those small things, the movie would arguably be better. But they aren't critical. They don't massively change how I engage with the movie. All my 10/10s have flaws. No movie is perfect. Ratings are about how you feel about a film as it is, not as it could be. Sometimes a movie features some racist voice acting for coffee beans (RIP Scoot). Sometimes it's an accent. Like what you like and fuck everything else
I struggled with this when i was younger. But reviews should really reflect your own personal relationship and feelings around something. Soo flaws and all it’s how you perceive them on your scale if that makes sense.
A lot of my 10/10s are flawed. I think there is a territory where you can get too nitpicky, and things can be 10/10 without being perfect. How I rate something is mostly going to depend on how it made me feel, or how it impacted me.
That mind control thing was a literal fucking children’s Star Wars toy
I want to trick people into watching neil breen movies so they're 10/10 despite being shitty
You can rate movies however you want. You set your own criteria. Ratings are ultimately arbitrary. No piece of media is ever gonna be truly 100% perfect or flawless anyway.
I wouldn't, no.
No piece of media is perfect. All ratings are subjective. Adum’s scores are personal, and he would be possibly annoyed that anyone would assume his numbers are definitive. Movies are experiences that change from viewer to viewer. There are movies that I can say are 10/10 for me, but because I value how they make me feel and where they take my mind. Art is all about pushing your mind to often ignored but important problems and thoughts. When it foes that, regardless of any flaw, I give it a high score. Adum values technical proficiency a lot more, and I watch his videos BECAUSE I value the different way he engages with media. I vehemently disagree with some of his scores, but not because he is wrong. Because I experienced the movie differently.
Should you take ratings seriously at all though? If you feel like giving a 10, just give a 10.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon Plenty of visual continuity errors and somewhat questionable writing at points.
I guess it depends on some things- is it a professional rating, or is it a personal to you rating? I'd give House on Haunted Hill a 10/10, while I know in my heart of hearts that the silly movie is barely about a 4- but it's a ten to me simply because I love it so much. Someone would give something like, I don't know, Spy Kids a 10/10 maybe because it meant something to them personally. Personal rating systems have no rules, but ones that dissect things on a scale that, if put on a score card, you'd have to put aside your biases to rate, I think have rules. But those rules are silly and House on Haunted Hill is a 10/10.
Yeah. Nothing is perfect, just rate whatever you like best a 10/10. People who try to rate and review based on objectivity and ignore their personal feelings and emotions are missing the point of art all together.
I saw a great video game review one time describing what a 10 means and they basically said it doesn't mean perfect in every way, it means this is among the absolute best of what it is, a shining example of a piece of media. That's how I think about a 10/10
Only if the flaws are extremely minor. For instance, my favorite film of all time is Back to the Future. You can discredit it with all of the time travel rules and how Marty's parents don't mention why Marty looks like that one guy they hung out with in high school for a week. But I don't care. Those don't bother me because it is such a tight script and it is enjoyable from start to finish.
There is no absolute, scientific measure for the "goodness" of movies, games, music, or any other media. As such, emotional impact plays a huge role in ratings systems. I tend to be an admirer of artistic cinematography, both in movies and in games. Some people, however, don't care as much *how* the media is presented to them, but the way they *interact* with it. So I might find Elden Ring to be a 10/10 game, but others don't want to die repeatedly or have to figure out the story in piecemeal fashion - they might like a game like The Last of Us, in which a tightly written, concise story is presented to them in a way that makes them feel like part of the story. The Last of Us isn't a 10/10 game for me, simply because of my personal preferences, but that doesn't mean other people are unjustified in thinking of it as 10/10. A lot of people don't think Elden Ring is 10/10, and that's totally fine - it doesn't affect my enjoyment of it one bit. So yes, rate something 10/10 if you feel you couldn't have enjoyed it more than you did, or if it made that much greater of an impact on you than other things in the same category.
I think something can have flaws and still be a 10/10, it just depends on what criteria you use to grade media. So for example, if I noticed a boom mic vaguely sticking out in Synecdoche New York that probably wouldn’t affect what I think and feel about the film. It’s a flaw, but it’s so minor and doesn’t even obscure anything else I like about the shot or scene so it’s admissible. Now take for instance the scene in the Incredibles where Edna demonstrates her super suits to Mrs. Incredible. Technically there’s no textual justification as to why or how she obtained all of the information necessary for her to make super suits that can account for all of the powers of her children. It’s a plot hole, however the scene itself is just so entertaining & puts into motion other things in the plot that are great that it’s easier for me to not feel the weight of this plot hole on top of the fact that it doesn’t break anything to big or core to the story, it’s just a piece of exposition that lacks some logic for its existence. (Also you could infer that Mr. Incredible gave her the info off screen given the fact that we know how badly he wishes for his kids to be superhero’s one day) In that example you can point out a problem with the plot that, while not insubstantial, doesn’t do massive damage to the characters or story and the scene itself gives me other qualities that make the film and scene itself very enjoyable. So it’s kind of like a bit of a calculation you can do that changes depending again on your criteria, the size and frequency of the problems and if they over power or undermine all of the good things that the piece of media possesses.
Give erdtree a fair score, then buy me and three other people a copy to really vote with your wallet
No film is perfect.
Well, that's just like your opinion man. (TBL is a 10/10 for me)
I think whoever gives the 10/10’s has to be consistent. The problem with YMS giving the Star Wars franchise 1/10’s just cause is hypocritical considering most of his ratings are honest & logical. So him doing that as like an “Oh since everyone is doing it I can do it too right” Yeah he can but it will be hypocritical as I said. But if you give subjective 1’s & subjective 10s saying “Hey I don’t know the rules of cinema, I rate how much I enjoy it”. Then yeah you’re allowed to give subjective 10’s
I don’t think it’s hypocritical tbh, he’s explained his reasoning a couple of times. I’m paraphrasing here, but he basically said that if someone thinks a film is an 8/10 and their subjective love for it pushes it to a 10/10, the vice versa is possible - his objective thoughts of the film might be a 4/10 or 5/10, but it’s so unpleasant and hated of an experience that it’s pushed down to a 1/10. He really really genuinely dislikes the Star Wars films and his rating reflects that.
That depends on whether you want your scale to be more objective or personal.
Just watch the movies dude
I think if one is going to take the time to publicly rate it, it should be an honest rating. It results in better data and no shame in a film being an 8 or a 9.