5 (Perfect)
4.5 (Excellent)
4 (Great)
3.5 (Very Good)
3 (Good)
2.5 (Flawed but Worthy)
2 (Fair)
1.5 (Barely Sufficient)
1 (Poor)
.5 (Very Poor)
Rating "so-bad-it's-good" movies is the ultimate cinematic paradox. If you give The Room a 1/5, you're technically correct about the craft, but you're ignoring the fact that it's more memorable than 90% of "average" movies. If you give it a 5/5, you're suggesting it's a masterpiece of filmmaking.
To translate this into your specific star rating scale, here are three effective ways to approach it:
1. The "Entertainment Value" Pivot
In this method, you ignore the technical failure and rate the movie solely on how well it achieves the goal of entertaining the audience. Under this logic, a movie like The Room is a 5/5 (Perfect). Why? Because while it fails at drama, it succeeds perfectly as a surreal comedy.
The Logic: If a movie's "badness" is so consistent and unique that it provides a 5-star experience, it deserves a 5-star rating.
The Caveat: You must clarify that the rating is for the experience, not the execution.
2. The "Flawed but Worthy" Anchor (2.5)
Your scale has a perfect middle ground: 2.5 (Flawed but Worthy). This is often where "so-bad-it's-good" movies live for critics who want to remain intellectually honest.
How to use it: You acknowledge the technical "Poor" (1.0) quality but add "points" for the sheer joy it brings.
The Logic: It balances the objective failures with the subjective enjoyment, landing it right in the middle. It's "worthy" of your time, despite being "flawed."
3. The "Dual-Rating" System (The Best for Clarity)
If you want to be transparent with your audience, the most effective way is to use a slash rating. This acknowledges both the craft and the "brilliance of the badness."
Movie / Technical Score / "Enjoyment" Score / Final Verdict
The Room / .5 (Very Poor) / 5 (Perfect) / The "Golden Turkey"
Birdemic / .5 (Very Poor) / 4 (Great) / Essential Badness
Transformers 5 / 1.5 (Barely Sufficient) / 1 (Poor) / Just Boring-Bad
How to use your specific scale for The Room
If you had to pick a single number from your list, I would suggest 3.5 (Very Good).
Why 3.5? > On your scale, 3.5 is "Very Good." While The Room is technically "Very Poor" (.5), the cultural impact, the unintentional humor, and the sheer audacity of Johnny Wiseau's vision elevate it. It is a "Very Good" use of two hours, even if it's a "Very Poor" example of screenwriting.
The "Boring-Bad" vs. "Fun-Bad" Distinction
When rating, always ask yourself: "Is this movie bad because it's incompetent, or bad because it's boring?"
Boring-Bad: 0.5 Stars. (Think of a generic, low-budget action movie where nothing happens).
Fun-Bad: 3.0 - 5.0 Stars. (Think of The Room or Troll 2).
The "brilliance" of the badness usually comes from sincerity. Tommy Wiseau was trying to make a masterpiece; that sincerity is what makes it a 5-star "bad" movie.
The "So-Bad-It's-Good" Verdict Scale
5.0 / Perfect / The Golden Turkey / A religious experience of incompetence.
4.5 / Excellent / Masterpiece of Mess / Almost perfect chaos; only a few "slow" parts.
4.0 / Great / Essential Badness / A required text for any cult movie fan.
3.5 / Very Good / Group-Watch Gold / Perfect for a party with friends and drinks.
3.0 / Good / Solidly Surreal / Weird enough to be fun, but lacks "legend" status.
2.5 / Flawed but Worthy / Cult Potential / It has 2 or 3 scenes you'll remember forever.
2.0 / Fair / Mildly Amusing / You'll chuckle at a bad wig, but check your watch.
1.5 / Barely Sufficient / Accidental Comedy / Only funny if you're really trying to find it.
1.0 / Poor / Just Boring-Bad / The worst sin: it's incompetent and dull.
0.5 / Very Poor / Cinematic Purgatory / No joy. Just pain. Avoid at all costs.
It is hard. I think "Plan 9" or "The Room" are "must sees" for anyone, but giving them 5/5 like they were "Casablanca" or something just feels wrong. I tend to give the most entertaining bad movies around a 3.5 if I'm recommending for a general audience, with a note that bad movie fans will rate them higher.
Quote from: Rev. Powell on Today at 10:03:37 AMgiving them 5/5 like they were "Casablanca" or something just feels wrong.
Naturally I concur! :bouncegiggle:
But sincerely I agree with Rev's 3.5 yardstick. I just gave FANTASY OF DEER WARRIOR a 3.5, and by Bad Movies standards, it's a "must-see" on par with an Ed Wood classic. Its banality and ineptitude were grueling to endure at times, but you could say the same about MANOS - nevertheless, both are ultimately rewarding to watch if you want to laugh at a movie instead of just with it.
(A 5/5 "Good" Movie like LAWRENCE OF ARABIA or ANDREI RUBLEV can also be grueling to endure at times - but per the director's intention and with commensurate reward.)
If I'm to give a "Bad" Movie a 5/5, it needs to transcend somehow. I think I awarded a 5/5 to TEEN ALIEN in January or February of this year. It's "Bad", for sure, however on a whole different level. It's hypnotically incompetent, and joyful in its commitment to poorly achieving the stoopid thing it does.
MONSTER-A-GO-GO might be a 4.5 for sheer audacity. I really admire that damn movie though I'll probably never watch it w/o riffs ever again.