Why do I rate movies?

I recently had a nice discussion with someone about why I rate movies — and specifically what I attempt to communicate with ratings. This is a summary of that chat since I think the principle can apply to more scenarios.

Movie “quality” is notoriously contentious. People take claims about quality very personally. If I disliked a movie that they liked it’s usually not a big deal. If I thought a movie was bad that they thought was good then they are likely to get defensive.

They want to defend the movie, obviously, but they also feel their whole concept of quality is under attack. That’s far more personal.

Which brings us to movie ratings. If I rate a movie 2 out of 5 it isn’t easy to tell if I did so because I didn’t like it — or because I think it is bad.

Some people throw up their hands and simply ignore the quality discussion. Their ratings are only matters of taste. They don’t want to fight about good quality versus bad quality for whatever reason. I think that’s a fine approach.

But somewhere in me I honestly think some movies are good or bad (or both.) I like looking for good qualities and bad qualities in movies. Because I like looking for those things, I take that into account when rating a movie.

This leads to a dilemma. What do I do with a movie I think is of high quality but that I didn’t enjoy? Do I ignore how I feel about it and try to stay as objective as possible? Do I integrate my viewing experience into the rating?

I find this question a little odd, personally. To me, whether I liked a movie is a statement about its quality. I termed this “watchability” when I was discussing it the other day. I’ve also heard the term “accessibility”. But the gist is that me being able to enjoy watching the movie is a quality that I expect the movie to provide.

A clearer way to describe this is that "watchable" comes down to the question "do I want to continue?”

This is slightly distinct from a movie being able to hold my “attention” — that could influenced by how much coffee I drank just before sitting down. Sometimes I know I want to continue but I should pause and come back later when I'm in the appropriate mood.

But sometimes I don't have any reason or purpose for continuing other than to say I finished it. That latter effect is what I'd describe as "unwatchable". Consuming something in order to say you've consumed it is the lowest form of engaging with media that I can think of.

If you want to continue watching a movie because it's gorgeous, awesome. Or if it says something interesting, awesome. Or because the production design is unique, awesome. Or because it's "so bad it's good." Or whatever other purpose you find.

Something should be driving that will to continue -- and ideally that's not some weird external factor pressuring you into it.

Here's an example: I recently watched Fast Five (2011) for the first time. At the end, I didn't have a good reason for having finished it. It's not a horribly produced movie or anything. It's just... not something I really wanted to continue watching. It came and went and I'll probably forget most of it within three months.

On the other hand, I also recently watched Evil Dead II (1987) for the first time. The movie is absolutely chaotic and throughout the entire film I wanted to know what happened next. I wanted to see what strange body horror they were going to throw at me. I wanted to see Ash use his chainsaw arm again. I wanted to see more of the weird camera work and the strange sounds and the hammy performance from Bruce Campbell. Throughout the entire watch I had good answers for "why should I continue?"

This question is my overarching question when determining a movie’s rating. “Did I want to continue?” A 2 out of 5 rating is simply me noting that I didn’t really want to continue. A 4 out of 5 is me noting that I felt compelled to continue — that I must finish it.

Does that mean I think Fast Five was a bad movie? Honestly, yeah. Not because I think I’m the final arbiter of film quality. I think it was bad because it kept failing my overarching quality check.

Do I think someone who happened to like it is wrong? No, they can like whatever they want. But if they say it is a good movie then I want to know why. I don't personally think there is a "correct" way to answer questions of quality. I instead start asking "is there an answer?" Did someone keep going? Did it strike a chord with a subjective experience?

When I engage someone to talk about the quality of a movie, I am listening for how they answer "do I want to continue?" Sure, I have very strong opinions about whether I would to continue. But my overall quality judgement is there to encourage (or provoke) a conversation with someone who had a different experience than I did.

The best outcome of that debate would be to answer "yes" to more "do I want to continue?" questions. I do assert that movies are "good" or "bad". I will rate them on a silly ten point scale. I do think I can (usually) justify my reactions and ratings. But under it all, the goal is to find more excuses to keep watching.

And that’s why I bother to rate movies.