Badmovies.org Forum

... on a scale from 0 - 5? For example, would you rate Plan 9 from Outer Space 5/5, or 0.5/5 with the .5 for "entertainment value" ?

At IMDb, Plan 9 is rated 4/10, Tommy Wiseau's The Room scores 3.6/10, Troll 2 even lower: 2.8/10 while Pieces (1982) enjoys a solid 6.1/10 rating. How low or high would you rate these examples? Is it even possible to rate entertaining badness?

It's always an issue, but I always give really fun bad movies like PLAN 9 or THE ROOM a high rating, though not as high as true classics (like maybe 4/5).

For run-of-the-mill kind of fun bad movies, I give them an average rating (2.5-3), realizing that they will only appeal to people like us.

If I'm giving a rating specifically for this board, I might bump the ratings up 0.5-1 stars.

I reserve truly low ratings for movies that are both badly made AND boring.

I always thought it was a crime that PLAN 9 was not on the 1000 Movies to See Before You Die list. Every movie fan should see it at least once.

I'm always bemused by imdb (or anywhere) reviewers who will give a movie a really crappy rating out of 10, then sign off the review with something like "but hey, it was fun to watch, I couldn't stop laughing at it" or "but at least it never got boring!" etc...to me things like that are all that matters.

PIECES is a 9/10 for me. THE ROOM at least a 7.

I would rate them from 1 underpants to 4  :wink:

THE LOST EMPIRE was the first truly so awful it was awesome movie I ever watched.  I gave it a 2/10 on the good movie scale and a 10/10 on the bad movie scale.

I get your point but I guess most people just couldn't post something like that together without the fear of losing credibility:

Schindler's List 5/5
The Room 5/5

The Room is objectively a bad film but subjectively "we" enjoy it because it is terribly brilliant. Bad film: 0/5 + Terribly brilliant: 5/5 = 2.5/5? It is kind of conflicting no matter how you approach it  :bluesad:

true... the concept of giving an artistic endeavour a numerical rating can fall apart quite easily. it's probably better to just use words!

I do them all the same scale. I only write reviews here and its badmovies.org so ...

I'd create a rubric. One of the factors would be "held the audience's attention." A movie which was completely inept, but entertaining, would still get some points from that category.

I would go with that. PLAN 9 would get a 5/5-as it is hilarious from beginning to end, and stuff like the ATOMIC BRAIN- a 2/5, because it has random acts of stupidity (i.e.- the girl meowing like a cat -scene) to 0/5, such as total boredom- as in the Jayne Mansfield bomb SINGLE ROOM FURNISHED.
And yet there is stuff like BRIDE OF THE MONSTER which is actually very good in spots, with Lugosi doing such a bang up acting job in a no-budget shlocker that if the role had been given to-say-Dean Jagger- would be virtually forgotten today. Think not? How many folks regard NIGHT OF THE GHOULS with almost the same cast in as high Bad regard? In fact-most of Wood's junk is just that. The SINISTER URGE or JAIL BAIT is dull. Ed Wood's best loved films had a memorable name or face- Lugosi, Tor Johnson or Vampira...the rest are mildly amusing at best.

If a movie entertains me, then it's a good movie.  it did it's job. 

I can understand that if a movie entertained me for the wrong reasons it shouldn't get a perfect score, but it still gets a good one.