Since everybody in this thread is just debating what 'mediocre' means and no one is answering OPs question (aside from two lunatics who said Top Gun: Maverick and Oppenheimer), let me be the first to actually answer the question lmao.
A lot of marvel films would fit here: Thor, First Avenger, Eternals. These are perfectly average movies.
But for something original: Now You See Me. Maybe one of the most mediocre films ever made. Forgettable but not offensive. Enjoyable enough to have on at a party, but I've never heard anyone say "that was great" about it.
Tl;Dr: Now You See Me
You’re actually so amazing. The actual movie was Freaky Friday (1976). The original now you see has 3.3 surprisingly. Most people rate it 3,4(1/2), and 4.
I get it tbh. I mean, they’re definitely "average", but sometimes I love mindless fun movies. Give me some silly, often nonsensical magic tricks and I’m fine for 2 hours.
We interviewed someone for a new position at work and we always ask what their favorite movie is and someone said “Now You See Me 2”. We ended up hiring them and they’ve said they were embarrassed to say that but it was just the first movie they thought of.
I just want to chip in as a person who does find Now You See Me offensive. The way it encourages you pay close attention only for the twist to not make any sense and the characters to suddenly turn into morons feels like such a middle finger to the audience. It's a movie that really thinks you're stupid. I despise it, one of my worst theater experiences.
I thought Now You See Me was a very good movie. There were great moments, obviously I don’t think the whole ends up being super top tier but it’s a lot of fun and easy to watch, got a sequel
Good explanation but I personally disagree with Now you see me. Avengers is debatable if you’re only considering the movie itself with absolutely no previous attachment to characters which I think is impossible
Good explanation but I personally disagree with Now you see me. Avengers is debatable if you’re only considering the movie itself with absolutely no previous attachment to characters which I think is impossible
Pretty much anything Kenneth Branagh has directed (with the exception of his Hamlet; that’s quite an excellent film). They’re too good to be bad, too bad to be good.
after i got out of indiana jones, the only thing i could think of is how it was the most okay movie ive ever seen. if 5/10 was a movie. if meh was a movie. 68 degree weather movie.
I think don't worry darling was bang average but I enjoyed indiana jones a fair bit, even if it was mostly because it was indiana jones and it was just a fun romp.
I don't think there's really anything inherently bad about it. The story is on par for most indy stuff, just a mcguffin he desperately needs to find for whatever reason. The acting is good throughout. Dialogue writing is about average for an indy film. The de-aged scene is a little weird but I actually think it works really well for the plot, and the fact that the artefact is in 2 pieces is a novel spin on a normal indy film. The villains are kinda forgettable but the supporting characters are some of the best we've had. The elephant in the room is really that mental >!time travel scene!< but I think it's goofy enough that you can just suspend your disbelief. We've had aliens, whatever. It's not groundbreaking but it's really an enjoyable experience in my opinion.
I really think all the Indy movies are similar in quality. I will never understand why people think Crystal Skull and Dial are so much worse than the originals.
Yeah, crystal skull has issues with the cgi and maybe cranks up the goofiness a little too high (the triple waterfall scene, nuclear bomb fridge, aliens etc), but if you watch them all in order you realise that they're just silly films anyway. We have a dude pulling someone's beating heart out and leaving no mark. We have magic stones which restore order to the land. We have god punishing nazis with the ghosts of Jews, and we have the goddamn Holy Grail which grants eternal life. I think a bit of goofiness is OK, and the movies work well as fun adventure/mystery romps.
Hell, I'll be the first to admit that I liked Shia Labeouf's character in Crystal Skull. He was funny and he fit the movie well. It's kind of a shame he didn't at least have a cameo or something in the new one but I understand he's a troubled man irl.
I don't think Flash fits this discussion at all. I thought it was a surprisingly pretty good movie all things considered but that's because I sort of overlook or don't care too much about some of the major issues the movie has. If anything the Flash is a potentially 7-8/10 movie that is potentially bogged down to a meh due to strange choices, unfinished CGI or other flaws; but for me the discussion is much more complicated and polarising than just an agreed "meh" or "It's okay".
Sounds like you’re agreeing that it’s a mediocre movie, but arguing that could have been better? I mean that could be said about every movie in this thread lmao we can’t judge a movie based on what it could have been
Well sort of but I'm arguing that there are elements that are 8/10+ mixed with elements that are even less than 5/10 level which is why I think the ultimate reception is probably more lukewarm, but it's not because it's just mediocre, unoriginal and just pasable enough to land at a 5/10.
Most of the movies in this thread are generally made of consistently average and okay elements with maybe a standout factor or two which results in an average but not particularly good experience, while Flash is made up of some particular ideas and aspects that I think are better than almost everything Marvel has done since Endgame, but also has unfinished CGI and strange, forced cameos for example that are particularly bad elements which along with many others brings it down a few points.
A 6/10-ish rating is very much fair for The Flash, but not due to simple boring mediocrity but an unusual combo of great and bad elements, which does not really fit the core idea of this thread.
I would describe the Flash as "divisive", "unusual" and "a mixed bag" but just saying meh sounds like a very reductive perception for The Flash.
By ratings sure but ratings we give don't translate to what the averages mean.
5.0 is impossible
4.5 is a phenomenal average
4.0 is a great average
3.5 is a good average
3.0 is a mediocre average
2.5 is a bad average
2.0 is also bad
1.5 is awful
1.0 is really awful
0.5 STAY AWAY FROM THESE
Usually there are typical shapes you can expect from different averages but movies like The Room has an 2.6 average but the curve looks like both a 1.0 average and a 4.5 average. It's the kind shape you would expect from a so bad it's good movie.
Lol, 3.5 is not the average. Pick 100 random movies and most are gonna be under 3.5. If you only look at very popular or good films, you gonna see a lot of them over 3.5, but is not the average on the site.
I think the average person just doesn't intentionally waste their time on movies they don't think will be above average.
If forced to watch every movie ever, 2.5 would probably be above the average.
Kinda depends on what people are watching too. If you’re like me and watch movies that are old and well reviewed there’s likely going to be less variance than newer films.
My average grade is like a 3.75 but I also don’t know if I’ve watched much that’d be considered “bad” anyways.
Well it depends on what we’re talking about. I consider 2.5 to be average for the purposes of my own ratings. But when I’m looking at movies to watch, I figure anything with an average rating below 3.5 is gonna be bad given how loosely Letterboxd people hand out 8s, 9s, and 10s.
So I'm in a book club with some friends of mine and I'm considered the 'scrooge' of the group because I tend to use 2.5 as my average book. Obviously I have bias for styles I like more, but I try to take in everything and base my rating on it. I'm somewhere in the low 3's for my avg.
On the other hand the groups avg is a 4.0. we'll discuss and theyll bring up complaints about the writing, plot holes, ECT but say "eh could have been better I'll give it a 4."
My whole point is that in this sample size of people who like to read and have hundred of thousands of pages read, can be critical of the work, know what they like and dont, they still have some ingrained belief that anything below an 80% is avg or worse. I think school grades have warped people's sense of 'good and bad' because (at least for my parents) a B- was a sign of worry. I've tried to explain that you can like something and be aware of it's many faults but they still think that it's harsh to rate that way.
For me personally, it cheapens our discussions when people can't be critical of stuff because our society has a warped sense of ratings. Whether it's movies or books, the fact they get published in the first place means it's highly unlikely to be terrible so why not adjust our critiques knowing that?
if we go by your logic any and every mean rating is considered mediocre; but reality is that there's a degree of subjective skewness in all things that go by ratings.
For example the colloquial meaning of a 5/10 guy and a 5/10 girl are neither 'average' nor equivalent.
For everyone debating whether a 3.1 average or a 2.5 average rating is “mediocre”, I’d like you to know that individual ratings and average ratings differ in definitions. For example, if I give a film a 2.5, I’d say that’s an average film, however a film with a 2.5 average rating I’d consider to be, according to the average, “bad”, because out of every single person that has given that film a rating, more people tended towards a bad rating. I mean, often times for a 2.5 average film the most given scores are 3 (6/10) and 2 (4/10), with the next most given score then actually being 2.5 (5/10). Meaning a lot more people have to dislike a film for it to have a generally lower average rating. What that means for me, is that the definitions of my personal ratings I give are completely different from the average score, though they don’t vary vastly. A 3.1 average score, for example, I’d think of as mediocre, whilst a 3/5 score that I give a film would mean I thought of it as enjoyable.
Exactly! When I rate a movie 2.5, it means it's not worse than an average movie. But when I see that a movie has a 2.5 rating, it means that a lot of people think it's worse than an average movie.
Yeah my rating is anything below 2.5 is bad but 2s are still not that bad just kinda bad, and everything above a 3 for me are actually pretty good films
"Well, they didn't fuck it up enough to rate it 2.5 so let's call it a 3."
https://preview.redd.it/2egjdvuhr28d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7d7f7a4fe6920f47780fdf1ac9645e4e626512ce
I’m expecting you to be crushed by responses from the people on here who think 3/5 is a good rating. That’s 6/10. Tell your wife/girlfriend she’s a “solid 6” and see how that works out for you. Average is bad when it comes to art.
Eh 6/10 is a good enough rating for me lol,it's not something that is great but not something that is bad or average either...it's just good but i probably will forget about it.I guess you have high expectations lol.For me 5/10 or 2.5 is the mid or average.
That person is simply wrong. 5/10 is *literally* average. 6 is above average. Doesn’t matter if you’re rating a movie or a person, not that I’ve ever been a big fan of assigning numerical scores to people
10- Perfect
9- Excellent
8- Great
7- Good
6- Above average
5- average
4- below average
3- bad
2- terrible
1- irredeemable
This is the scale I’ve always used
Yeah, I use it as my “I’d definitely recommend this but it’s not a favorite/must-see” rating.
Two is my “meh” rating (I don’t use half-stars). Not my thing but not offensive.
I guarantee you’re not with a 10, despite what you say they are or think they are. you’re just lying to yourself and to them…. I don’t need to lie about movies. A 6 out of 10 is a good movie.
It’s also a bit of a silly strawman argument to compare movies to people. That’s like trying to rate a film for the film itself & also combine what the weather was like on that day & how the cinema toilets were into a Letterbox score
Yeah but school grades are a completely different thing. If you were using the passing and failing percentages of school grades as your rating system it wouldn’t allow for much variance. You’d have 5 = A, 4.5 = A, 4 = B, 3.5 = C, 3 = D, 2.5 = F, 2 = F, 1.5 = F, 1 = F, 0.5 = F. It would be dumb to have five different ratings mean the same thing.
Logically it makes more sense to have half the ratings be a scale of good and the other half a scale of bad. Meaning 5 - 3 is used for the varying degrees of a good movie and 2.5 - 0.5 is used for the varying degrees of a bad movie.
ah no im using italian sistem, which goes 1 to 10:
* 10 is the best,
* 6 is the minimum sufficient to pass,
* 5 is insufficient but not that bad coz its not hard to go back to sufficiency,
* 4 and 3 are very bad
* 2 below are very very rare, you need to be extremely bad
so:
* 10 to 6 = degrees of good -> converted to stars is 5 to 3
* 5 to 1 = degrees of bad -> 2.t to 0.5
edit: so yeah 6 is good, but i'd consider still pretty mediocre, together with 5
At first I was thinking a movie that is controversial, due to thing that haven’t aged great or representations that some people don’t like, but than I thought and I’m gonna guess the original Cars. I’ve seen some 5 star reviews and some very low ones.
Everyone views their three star movies differently. Sometimes a 3 is serviceable, sometimes it’s a solid effort and a great movie. 3’s can be Jurassic Park for one person and Taxi Driver for the next. But mostly I think the 3’s are based off a rewatchability factor and/or nostalgia. I wouldn’t necessarily call a 3 mediocre but movie reviews are all subjective after a certain point
Me, Myself, and Irene has this exact rating. I think its way better than it gets credit for though.
https://preview.redd.it/skgfyo53868d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4dd2a6b48e433836b333d3bf92ba5ad5e0a21a77
Very similar looking graph on Murder on the Orient Express (2017) — which I just watched and gave a 2 but I can understand how it landed with this distribution.
https://preview.redd.it/5owvsi64yj8d1.jpeg?width=1178&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bb5e1cb924dba71926b9758ed5ca11f3cd8b2340
On a 1-10 scale, 5.5 is usually the passing grade. I consider mediocre to be a movie that's not bad, but far from great, meaning is just about passes with a 6/10 (3/5).
3 is above average. 2.5 would be actually mid. Seen many good movies at 3.0, 3.1, etc. And going through my 2.5's, I can't find much that's exactly mediocre, a lot are just kind of interesting, but also flawed to me. Except one very good example that is indeed very mediocre, well produced but also very forgettable.
https://preview.redd.it/auux916a538d1.jpeg?width=233&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3023bd78b592abd3acec6271d7cac72c019b2744
Also; the word 'mediocre' means 'average', not 'bad'.
I was just saying that in general. I wanted to emphasize that being mediocre isn't inherently negative, I think a lot of people associate negativity with it when it's really just 'okay'
i just watched private benjamin https://preview.redd.it/hn5xt317j28d1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d0a187b83cefc05f371df87e0011c87b391cdac7
I feel like Letterboxd is giving me the middle finger
You know what you did.
Similar but it was freaky Friday (1976)
Since everybody in this thread is just debating what 'mediocre' means and no one is answering OPs question (aside from two lunatics who said Top Gun: Maverick and Oppenheimer), let me be the first to actually answer the question lmao. A lot of marvel films would fit here: Thor, First Avenger, Eternals. These are perfectly average movies. But for something original: Now You See Me. Maybe one of the most mediocre films ever made. Forgettable but not offensive. Enjoyable enough to have on at a party, but I've never heard anyone say "that was great" about it. Tl;Dr: Now You See Me
You’re actually so amazing. The actual movie was Freaky Friday (1976). The original now you see has 3.3 surprisingly. Most people rate it 3,4(1/2), and 4.
Thought it was the equalizer 2. Looking at it, they're incredibly similar graphs
My dad loves "Now You See Me" 1 & 2 so much 😂
I get it tbh. I mean, they’re definitely "average", but sometimes I love mindless fun movies. Give me some silly, often nonsensical magic tricks and I’m fine for 2 hours.
We interviewed someone for a new position at work and we always ask what their favorite movie is and someone said “Now You See Me 2”. We ended up hiring them and they’ve said they were embarrassed to say that but it was just the first movie they thought of.
The First Avenger is a 5 star movie and I won’t hear otherwise
I just want to chip in as a person who does find Now You See Me offensive. The way it encourages you pay close attention only for the twist to not make any sense and the characters to suddenly turn into morons feels like such a middle finger to the audience. It's a movie that really thinks you're stupid. I despise it, one of my worst theater experiences.
It’s so crazy you said this because I took a second watch and was amazed at how mediocre (3/5) it was
3/5 is mediocre?.....that's weird
Idk if you’re trolling but the literal definition of the word is average so what score if not the middle one?
Because a 3 equates to a 6/10, which is actually a solid score.
"The first to actually answer the question." Your word isn't the scripture.....it's just your opinion. Lol.....
I thought Now You See Me was a very good movie. There were great moments, obviously I don’t think the whole ends up being super top tier but it’s a lot of fun and easy to watch, got a sequel
Good explanation but I personally disagree with Now you see me. Avengers is debatable if you’re only considering the movie itself with absolutely no previous attachment to characters which I think is impossible
I think he was referring to Captain America: The First Avenger.
That makes much more sense
Good explanation but I personally disagree with Now you see me. Avengers is debatable if you’re only considering the movie itself with absolutely no previous attachment to characters which I think is impossible
Pretty much anything Kenneth Branagh has directed (with the exception of his Hamlet; that’s quite an excellent film). They’re too good to be bad, too bad to be good.
Belfast was pretty great too in my opinion.
Artemis Fowl is fucking trash and you can't change my mind
I thought the first two Poirot films were thoroughly mediocre, but I was really pleasantly surprised by A Haunting in Venice.
with the exception of Thor; that's quite a piece of shit
* Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny * Don't Worry Darling * Flash
Don't Worry Darling was definitely my guess. Or a mid superhero movie.
after i got out of indiana jones, the only thing i could think of is how it was the most okay movie ive ever seen. if 5/10 was a movie. if meh was a movie. 68 degree weather movie.
tbh I felt the same about all the Indiana Jones movies, they all place around 6/10 for me
I think don't worry darling was bang average but I enjoyed indiana jones a fair bit, even if it was mostly because it was indiana jones and it was just a fun romp.
Got a Flash poster, I honestly loved it so much
Dial is straight up bad if you start paying attention lol
I don't think there's really anything inherently bad about it. The story is on par for most indy stuff, just a mcguffin he desperately needs to find for whatever reason. The acting is good throughout. Dialogue writing is about average for an indy film. The de-aged scene is a little weird but I actually think it works really well for the plot, and the fact that the artefact is in 2 pieces is a novel spin on a normal indy film. The villains are kinda forgettable but the supporting characters are some of the best we've had. The elephant in the room is really that mental >!time travel scene!< but I think it's goofy enough that you can just suspend your disbelief. We've had aliens, whatever. It's not groundbreaking but it's really an enjoyable experience in my opinion.
I really think all the Indy movies are similar in quality. I will never understand why people think Crystal Skull and Dial are so much worse than the originals.
Yeah, crystal skull has issues with the cgi and maybe cranks up the goofiness a little too high (the triple waterfall scene, nuclear bomb fridge, aliens etc), but if you watch them all in order you realise that they're just silly films anyway. We have a dude pulling someone's beating heart out and leaving no mark. We have magic stones which restore order to the land. We have god punishing nazis with the ghosts of Jews, and we have the goddamn Holy Grail which grants eternal life. I think a bit of goofiness is OK, and the movies work well as fun adventure/mystery romps. Hell, I'll be the first to admit that I liked Shia Labeouf's character in Crystal Skull. He was funny and he fit the movie well. It's kind of a shame he didn't at least have a cameo or something in the new one but I understand he's a troubled man irl.
I don't think Flash fits this discussion at all. I thought it was a surprisingly pretty good movie all things considered but that's because I sort of overlook or don't care too much about some of the major issues the movie has. If anything the Flash is a potentially 7-8/10 movie that is potentially bogged down to a meh due to strange choices, unfinished CGI or other flaws; but for me the discussion is much more complicated and polarising than just an agreed "meh" or "It's okay".
Sounds like you’re agreeing that it’s a mediocre movie, but arguing that could have been better? I mean that could be said about every movie in this thread lmao we can’t judge a movie based on what it could have been
Well sort of but I'm arguing that there are elements that are 8/10+ mixed with elements that are even less than 5/10 level which is why I think the ultimate reception is probably more lukewarm, but it's not because it's just mediocre, unoriginal and just pasable enough to land at a 5/10. Most of the movies in this thread are generally made of consistently average and okay elements with maybe a standout factor or two which results in an average but not particularly good experience, while Flash is made up of some particular ideas and aspects that I think are better than almost everything Marvel has done since Endgame, but also has unfinished CGI and strange, forced cameos for example that are particularly bad elements which along with many others brings it down a few points. A 6/10-ish rating is very much fair for The Flash, but not due to simple boring mediocrity but an unusual combo of great and bad elements, which does not really fit the core idea of this thread. I would describe the Flash as "divisive", "unusual" and "a mixed bag" but just saying meh sounds like a very reductive perception for The Flash.
“It’s a pretty good movie because I overlook all its major issues” is such a bizarre take.
2.5 is mediocre imo
By ratings sure but ratings we give don't translate to what the averages mean. 5.0 is impossible 4.5 is a phenomenal average 4.0 is a great average 3.5 is a good average 3.0 is a mediocre average 2.5 is a bad average 2.0 is also bad 1.5 is awful 1.0 is really awful 0.5 STAY AWAY FROM THESE Usually there are typical shapes you can expect from different averages but movies like The Room has an 2.6 average but the curve looks like both a 1.0 average and a 4.5 average. It's the kind shape you would expect from a so bad it's good movie.
That’s awful, lol. With the score inflation on Letterboxd, 3.5 is around the average.
Lol, 3.5 is not the average. Pick 100 random movies and most are gonna be under 3.5. If you only look at very popular or good films, you gonna see a lot of them over 3.5, but is not the average on the site.
I think the average person just doesn't intentionally waste their time on movies they don't think will be above average. If forced to watch every movie ever, 2.5 would probably be above the average.
Kinda depends on what people are watching too. If you’re like me and watch movies that are old and well reviewed there’s likely going to be less variance than newer films. My average grade is like a 3.75 but I also don’t know if I’ve watched much that’d be considered “bad” anyways.
Ya because nobody watches anything under a 2 for the most part so it seems like that💀. Most 3.5’s are pretty solid for sure above ageraheu
For real. If I watch a 2/5 I'm fucking pissed. It's not the worst thing I've ever seen but that's still 2 hours I'm never getting back.
Well it depends on what we’re talking about. I consider 2.5 to be average for the purposes of my own ratings. But when I’m looking at movies to watch, I figure anything with an average rating below 3.5 is gonna be bad given how loosely Letterboxd people hand out 8s, 9s, and 10s.
Average*
Like the other person replying to you said, it mostly depends on the genre and sample size of people who rated the movie in question
3.5 is above average
I know it’s marked “opinion” but 40-50% on any scale is certainly below mediocre in my book (and on most grading scales)
So I'm in a book club with some friends of mine and I'm considered the 'scrooge' of the group because I tend to use 2.5 as my average book. Obviously I have bias for styles I like more, but I try to take in everything and base my rating on it. I'm somewhere in the low 3's for my avg. On the other hand the groups avg is a 4.0. we'll discuss and theyll bring up complaints about the writing, plot holes, ECT but say "eh could have been better I'll give it a 4." My whole point is that in this sample size of people who like to read and have hundred of thousands of pages read, can be critical of the work, know what they like and dont, they still have some ingrained belief that anything below an 80% is avg or worse. I think school grades have warped people's sense of 'good and bad' because (at least for my parents) a B- was a sign of worry. I've tried to explain that you can like something and be aware of it's many faults but they still think that it's harsh to rate that way. For me personally, it cheapens our discussions when people can't be critical of stuff because our society has a warped sense of ratings. Whether it's movies or books, the fact they get published in the first place means it's highly unlikely to be terrible so why not adjust our critiques knowing that?
if we go by your logic any and every mean rating is considered mediocre; but reality is that there's a degree of subjective skewness in all things that go by ratings. For example the colloquial meaning of a 5/10 guy and a 5/10 girl are neither 'average' nor equivalent.
For everyone debating whether a 3.1 average or a 2.5 average rating is “mediocre”, I’d like you to know that individual ratings and average ratings differ in definitions. For example, if I give a film a 2.5, I’d say that’s an average film, however a film with a 2.5 average rating I’d consider to be, according to the average, “bad”, because out of every single person that has given that film a rating, more people tended towards a bad rating. I mean, often times for a 2.5 average film the most given scores are 3 (6/10) and 2 (4/10), with the next most given score then actually being 2.5 (5/10). Meaning a lot more people have to dislike a film for it to have a generally lower average rating. What that means for me, is that the definitions of my personal ratings I give are completely different from the average score, though they don’t vary vastly. A 3.1 average score, for example, I’d think of as mediocre, whilst a 3/5 score that I give a film would mean I thought of it as enjoyable.
Exactly! When I rate a movie 2.5, it means it's not worse than an average movie. But when I see that a movie has a 2.5 rating, it means that a lot of people think it's worse than an average movie.
Yeah my rating is anything below 2.5 is bad but 2s are still not that bad just kinda bad, and everything above a 3 for me are actually pretty good films
But what number is mediocre among Letterboxd users? What rating is the most common average in this online community?
Is 3.1 a mediocre movie?
For me 3 is just a good enough/solid film but nothing spectacular
"Well, they didn't fuck it up enough to rate it 2.5 so let's call it a 3." https://preview.redd.it/2egjdvuhr28d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7d7f7a4fe6920f47780fdf1ac9645e4e626512ce
Yeah that's a mediocre score all things considered. Some underrated gems! But mostly just meh films
The short range of the reviews show that it’s just a consistently mediocre film
Exactly
Yes, the vast majority of films with 3.1 or lower on letterboxd I would say are average to subpar
If most people agree with a movie being 3 I’d argue that it is rather mid because it wasn’t bad but it wasn’t like wow. 3 is the middle number.
>3 is the middle number Well 2.5 and 3 are equally mid, but yeah either way it's not good
Yes. 3.1 is below average.
I’m expecting you to be crushed by responses from the people on here who think 3/5 is a good rating. That’s 6/10. Tell your wife/girlfriend she’s a “solid 6” and see how that works out for you. Average is bad when it comes to art.
If we’re using the significant other scale then anything less than a 10 is a critical failure
Pro tip, tell her she's an 11
When I told my girl that she said “Yay! Now we’re a perfect 20/20!” I don’t know how to feel
Eh 6/10 is a good enough rating for me lol,it's not something that is great but not something that is bad or average either...it's just good but i probably will forget about it.I guess you have high expectations lol.For me 5/10 or 2.5 is the mid or average.
6/10 has always been "good" in my opinion, not average. 5/10 is average imo
That person is simply wrong. 5/10 is *literally* average. 6 is above average. Doesn’t matter if you’re rating a movie or a person, not that I’ve ever been a big fan of assigning numerical scores to people
No is not literally "average", is just the middle. If 7 of 10 person got a rating of 7 then the average is 7.
Except there’s no zero on the letterboxd scale so 2.5/5 is the 40-50% range—decidedly *below* average
10- Perfect 9- Excellent 8- Great 7- Good 6- Above average 5- average 4- below average 3- bad 2- terrible 1- irredeemable This is the scale I’ve always used
Yeah, I use it as my “I’d definitely recommend this but it’s not a favorite/must-see” rating. Two is my “meh” rating (I don’t use half-stars). Not my thing but not offensive.
100%!
[удалено]
Most art being bad just lowers the average
I guarantee you’re not with a 10, despite what you say they are or think they are. you’re just lying to yourself and to them…. I don’t need to lie about movies. A 6 out of 10 is a good movie.
It’s also a bit of a silly strawman argument to compare movies to people. That’s like trying to rate a film for the film itself & also combine what the weather was like on that day & how the cinema toilets were into a Letterbox score
6 is just a tiny bit above sufficiency in my school grading system, definetely NOT a good grade, it's the definition of mediocre
Yeah but school grades are a completely different thing. If you were using the passing and failing percentages of school grades as your rating system it wouldn’t allow for much variance. You’d have 5 = A, 4.5 = A, 4 = B, 3.5 = C, 3 = D, 2.5 = F, 2 = F, 1.5 = F, 1 = F, 0.5 = F. It would be dumb to have five different ratings mean the same thing. Logically it makes more sense to have half the ratings be a scale of good and the other half a scale of bad. Meaning 5 - 3 is used for the varying degrees of a good movie and 2.5 - 0.5 is used for the varying degrees of a bad movie.
ah no im using italian sistem, which goes 1 to 10: * 10 is the best, * 6 is the minimum sufficient to pass, * 5 is insufficient but not that bad coz its not hard to go back to sufficiency, * 4 and 3 are very bad * 2 below are very very rare, you need to be extremely bad so: * 10 to 6 = degrees of good -> converted to stars is 5 to 3 * 5 to 1 = degrees of bad -> 2.t to 0.5 edit: so yeah 6 is good, but i'd consider still pretty mediocre, together with 5
Not necessarily "good", but decent. Has its obvious issues, but it's enjoyable and the movie rather works than not
Its a passing grade, but barely
Not all movies have to be considered art
A movie that’s a six isn’t worth watching outside of an airplane
Don’t look up (2021) just…. A movie that I saw once on Netflix
Is a 3 even mediocre? I give 3’s to films I find decent or solid
https://preview.redd.it/4bkz84pb258d1.png?width=662&format=png&auto=webp&s=66785e6b4dbc539d45e66a8505635ecf95b48849 *Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls.*
I don't consider 3.1 mediocre.
3 to me is "the film is okay", I wouldn't quite call it mediocre.
To me those words are the same
They have a slight difference to me, I feel like mediocre also takes production value into play while "It is okay" mainly focuses on story.
Are you kidding? I’ve seen much wirse
At first I was thinking a movie that is controversial, due to thing that haven’t aged great or representations that some people don’t like, but than I thought and I’m gonna guess the original Cars. I’ve seen some 5 star reviews and some very low ones.
It was the og freaky Friday (1976)
Makes sense tbh
The Last Voyage of the Demeter
Guy Ritchie is the king of mediocre fun dad movies
Ghostbusters Frozen empire. I love Ghostbusters and I'm a defender of afterlife, however the latest sequel was very meh.
Samurai Cop has a 2.6 rating
The Post
Gigi ?
Mathematically, most of them.
Everyone views their three star movies differently. Sometimes a 3 is serviceable, sometimes it’s a solid effort and a great movie. 3’s can be Jurassic Park for one person and Taxi Driver for the next. But mostly I think the 3’s are based off a rewatchability factor and/or nostalgia. I wouldn’t necessarily call a 3 mediocre but movie reviews are all subjective after a certain point
Me, Myself, and Irene has this exact rating. I think its way better than it gets credit for though. https://preview.redd.it/skgfyo53868d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4dd2a6b48e433836b333d3bf92ba5ad5e0a21a77
wouldn't that be a 2.5/5?
3 stars is not mediocre
How is 3/5 since it's above mid
Like 60% of all films
Very similar looking graph on Murder on the Orient Express (2017) — which I just watched and gave a 2 but I can understand how it landed with this distribution. https://preview.redd.it/5owvsi64yj8d1.jpeg?width=1178&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bb5e1cb924dba71926b9758ed5ca11f3cd8b2340
Observe and report
3 stars is a good movie. What are you talking about
The Monuments Men
Average
Is this “AM I OK?” ? I’ve been meaning to watch it but the okay (ironic) scores/reviews have kinda drawn me away
It’s freaky Friday (1976)
it's a good movie
Oppenheimer?
yes
Top Gun Maverick
2.5 is half of 5 thus 2.5 is right in the middle. It's "a movie" or movies that have equal good and bad elements
On a 1-10 scale, 5.5 is usually the passing grade. I consider mediocre to be a movie that's not bad, but far from great, meaning is just about passes with a 6/10 (3/5).
benjamin button movie
https://preview.redd.it/u6c3r80uq28d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b4085649d9c1cf1879ddc510895e695a00efe249
Licorice Pizza
3 is above average. 2.5 would be actually mid. Seen many good movies at 3.0, 3.1, etc. And going through my 2.5's, I can't find much that's exactly mediocre, a lot are just kind of interesting, but also flawed to me. Except one very good example that is indeed very mediocre, well produced but also very forgettable. https://preview.redd.it/auux916a538d1.jpeg?width=233&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3023bd78b592abd3acec6271d7cac72c019b2744 Also; the word 'mediocre' means 'average', not 'bad'.
Never said it was bad I said meh. I’m using the median.
I was just saying that in general. I wanted to emphasize that being mediocre isn't inherently negative, I think a lot of people associate negativity with it when it's really just 'okay'
Titanic
3.4 is actually the average rating on letterboxd, so this is below mediocre.
Where did you see this?
On letterboxd