My rating system uses both grades and numerical ratings as ways to categorize movies. As a way to add a form of external validity to my ratings, such as to give them context, I have included an “All-Time” Range column next to each grade. This column is based on the They Shoot Pictures Don’t They (TSPDT) top 2000 list, a list which aggregates dozens of ratings and rankings to provide a wholistic “universal” ranking.[1] Check the link to see the sources and the list proper . There you can see the actual TSPDT 2000 list along with a longer aggregated list that stretches for quite a while.
I have watched a little over a 3rd of the movies on the TSPDT top 2000 with a majority of those movies coming from the top 600. The ranges noted in the “All-Time Range” column are based on my experience of movies on the TSPDT and their general placement. My grade schema is based on what I feel is the general quality of these range. Now obviously these approximation are subjective; I disagree with the rankings in a lot of areas. However, I find myself agreeing with the general range of many movies in spite of small squabbles.
As time goes on, I’ll fine tune the ranges to be more “accurate”. This might mean extending or shortening the ranges for different “grades”. These current approximations are just that – approximations. Over the coming years my opinions will change, and my general knowledge of “acclaimed” movies along with their grades will differ. I just find this to be a good “jumping off” point.
To clarify, the all-time range can be read as an approximation of where a movie would rank if compared against every other movie ever made. A movie with a score of S+ would be one I would rank in the top 400 movies of All-Time. If you’ll notice, the total range of of my current schema goes from 1-4300. Without context, hearing a movie is top 4300 of all time lacks the impact it rightly deserves.
To give that context, here’s a graph I made outlining the number of movies released per year from 1985-2021.
As you can see the number of movies being put out have gone up at an exponential rate, with the output seeing major spikes at 2007 and then 2015 again . The average number of movies put out from 1985 to 2007 is 392.5, but the average spikes up to 2373.2 from 2008 to 2021. In total, this period spanning 36 years has accounted for a total of 44,233 movies. While, the years preceding the 1980’s had a smaller output, one has to remember that cinema as an art-form is over 100 years long.
I use the score of 8.1 or B+ as a threshold for determining whether or not a film is good enough to serve as a solid recommendation for any cinephile. I chose this value because Metacritic uses an a score of 81 as the threshold for determining whether or a film has achieved “Universal Acclaim”. On average, I’ve found that there are 30-50 movies that meet this threshold per year. In other words, if we assume that 4000 movies are released in a year, around ~1.25% are “acclaimed.” While this number is definitely subject to change as I delve into cinema, I think it’s a good starting point to give context to how the “All-Time Range” should be used in conjunction with the ratings/grades. This is also why the column only has values for the grades between B+ and S+.
| Grade | Numerical Range | All-Time Range | Traits |
|---|---|---|---|
| S+ | 10 | 1-400 | Masterpiece. These are movies that can claim to be the best of the best or the zenith of their respective genres. They demonstrate mastery of multiple elements of cinema, weaving them together to create a profound resonance. |
| S | 10 | 401-900 | Must-See. These are movies demonstrating excellence in at multiple cinematic elements but lacking the absolute refinement of masterpieces. |
| A+ | 9.5-10 | 901-1600 | Definitely Recommend. These are movies with a clear purpose and they set out executing that purpose with clinical precision, making only a few, if any, stumbles on the way. |
| A | 8.8-9.4 | 1601-2600 | Highly Recommend. These are movies that excel at demonstrating genre and demonstrate a general aptitude for using cinematic elements at pushing their stories forward. They’re either creative and missing that final element to make them stand out against peers or they’re highly polished but derivative. |
| B+ | 8.1-8.7 | 2601-4300 | Recommended. These movies innovate or demonstrate the best of their (sub)genre(s) in bursts. They usually have slight issues in narrative or don’t push any cinematic element to a more resounding level, but they possess an identity that helps them remain distinct. |
| B | 7.5-8.0 | Decent. These are movies that are good enough to watch and have a fun time with, but often have few moments to recall afterwards due to a lack of effort made at distinguishing the work in comparison to its genre peers. | |
| C+ | 6.7-7.4 | Better than Average . These are usually movies to watch in the background. They have enough going on to keep you entertained, but aren’t demanding enough to require your full attention. | |
| C | 6.0-6.6 | Average. This is where the majority of non-offensive movies end up being. They’re not a waste of time and should be fun enough, especially if you go in knowing what you’re getting. | |
| D+ | 5.7-5.9 | Worse than Average. These movies are usually okay while watching but feel unoriginal or unpolished in multiple categories. One tends to feel one | |
| D | 4.1-5.6 | Barely Functional. There is a full story told from start to end, but the use of cinematic elements in most places is severely lacking. | |
| F | <=4 | Die-Hards Only. Movies here have failed the task of presenting a narrative that can sustain an audience for most of the movie. They are usually ridden with plot holes and inconveniences and demonstrate a lack of understanding regarding one or more elements of cinema. Only super-fans or those looking for an intentionally “bad” time should watch these. |
FAQ
Q: What do you mean by cinematic element(s)?
A: I mainly use the term “cinematic elements” as a catch-all term. I take David Bordwell’s definition of of the four types of film technique as my starting point. These techniques are : mise-en-scène, cinematography, editing, and sound. [2]Bordwell, D. (n.d.). FILM art: An introduction reaches a milestone, with help from the Criterion Collection. Observations on film art. … Continue reading I consider the script as part of the elements as well, so when I refer to “cinematic elements” it’s quite literally all the moving parts of the movie and how they’re being used.
Q: What does an ‘S’ rating mean and why do you use it?
A: I’m a huge fan of Togashi’s manga Yu-Yu-Hakusho, so using S’s in my ranking system felt almost natural. In the series, the characters classify enemies by a grading scale as well; they use the S classification as a catch-all grouping for the strongest possible characters, in spite of the fact that the differences between these ‘S-tier’ characters is also vast, because the difference between an S tier and any other tier is telling.
My goal is similar here. The ‘S’ rating is meant to signify a movie is a superior work and that any film-lover should see for the sole sake of experiencing cinema at its best. These are movies that excel in their use of cinematic elements and evoke a an inexplainable transcendent feeling. Granted, I do try and disambiguate between S and S+ just to help add more clarity, but the reason I use the ranking is because I love the series.
Q: How can a movie get a 10 and receive one of three ratings?
A: The way I rate movies makes it possible that a movie can receive “over” a 10. This is because I believe that a 10 doesn’t signify perfection. If we take the idea that perfection is impossible, then only giving out 10’s for perfect movies would make the rating irrelevant; we’d never use it. My paradigm instead views the 10 as a badge signifying that a movie can evoke a certain “transformative” feeling.
Every film has a kind of these statement that its elements seek to exemplify via theme and/or evoke via emotional resonance. The best films are able to present the same in a variety of different ways, generating synergies between the elements to create brand new horizons. While I’m someone who personally likes trying to find the “meaning” in film, my ratings are more concerned with the feeling film generates by engendering certain moods or modes of engagement.
My evaluative method looks at how the cinematic elements interact among one another as they move the viewer. How does a film utilize its running time to impact its audience? Does it rely on just a narrative? Does it utilize editing to make its narrative sharper? Does its sound design betray its visual design and create a whole other level? Every decision a film makes is either supported or negated by other decisions it makes and the impact of the combination of decisions pours over into an feeling. In some sense, my rating system can be described as giving this feeling a number and explaining what the film did to engender the same.
My goal in disambiguating the levels of a ’10’ is to help viewers get a sense of what I think separates the masterpieces from the excellent. It’s hard to demonstrate what the “it” factor for the best films are and by categorizing them in such fashion and then doing a formal breakdown of what makes them “tick”, I hope to overcome the explanatory gap and cultivate a space where cinematic enthusiasm can flourish.
Q: If the “All-Time Range” column is based off an aggregate list, how can you ensure that you’re not regurgitating film canon? In other words, how do you make sure that you’re not just repeating the consensus?
A: While I think much of rating is subjective, I don’t think that means that every element of a movie is up for debate. One can dislike a movie because it doesn’t suit their tastes, but one can also recognize there are certain formal or technical markers that represent a discernible criteria by which to group releases (like I do by grades). In other words, I think the idea of fighting against the canon because it is the canon misses the point. Many times the canon gets it right because the best movies tend to have consistent formal features that can be assessed absent a subjective value judgement.
The best movies, I find at least, have their theses so tightly stuffed in every facet of their elements that no matter one’s feelings regarding them, one is able to feel the film’s presence and “energy”. It’s not a coincidence that most people who see 2001 think it has something to do with humanity’s evolution; that idea is packed into the movie’s DNA and can be felt even if the stringency of that feeling differs based on ones subjective evaluation of how effective certain elements are. In other words, I don’t think regurgitating the canon necessarily means someone is wrong or that the canon is wrong. It just means that some movies are that good.
That being said, even if some themes are immediately recognizable, the best movies tend to hit people in a variety of different ways. Based on one’s tendency to “read” into certain themes or to interpret a technique – like a cut- in one way as opposed to another, people can still come up with different opinions. So while the canon tends to have a kernel of truth, it is not the truth proper. One can find themselves more or less strongly moved by a feeling they do/do not find in a film, thus radically changing their opinion when compared against the consensus. This is how one can have different opinions from the consensus while not rendering the consensus useless.
Furthermore, just from a personal point, I’m someone who loves horror, a genre which is very much underappreciated in the canon, and anime, an medium which has been ignored by the larger bastions of media authority sans for a Miyazaki or Disney/Pixar here and there. There’s a handful of movies I’ve seen in my top 300 that don’t even show up in the TSPDT top 1000, so trust me when I say I’m not just here to repeat the common consensus for its own sake. Every opinion is mine.
Q: Most of the movies you review are rated quite highly. How can we trust your ratings when you seem to love every movie?
A: I don’t post many reviews for bad movies for a few reasons:
- Writing about bad movies feels unnecessarily rude. Movies are hard to make and tearing crews down because of a bad product leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
- Explaining why a movie is bad in technical terms isn’t too fun to read about and is hard to fit into the normal way I write reviews.
- The bad movies I would want to write about because I enjoy them – schlocky B movies, terrible cult movies, and the like – perform the poorest in terms of audience retention and engagement
That being said, this is a concern that makes sense and is one I’m working on rectifying. I’ve cultivated a list of “bad” movies I want to evaluate with some new writing styles that I think can deal with the above; be on the lookout.