I love the website Letterboxd because I love using it to share my opinions about films and reading other people’s opinions about films, whether they differ from my own, make me look at certain films in a new way, or just make me laugh (there are a lot of funny people on Letterboxd). And like many Letterboxd users, I also like to rate films with stars. The way that everyone uses stars on Letterboxd obviously differs from person to person, but I’m someone who probably puts way more thought into it than the average person.

I know film is subjective, but in order for me to rate films, I kind of have to trick my brain and pretend they are objectively good or objectively bad. Otherwise I won’t feel like I have a strong enough opinion to write a proper review and I won’t have enough confidence to give them a definitive rating. To help my brain do this, I have to have a clear understanding of what makes a movie good or bad. What makes a movie deserve five stars? What makes a movie deserve zero stars? And everything in between, like what the difference is between three stars and three and a half stars. Those differences can be subtle and sometimes it’s a challenge to reach a satisfying conclusion with my rating, especially since there are thousands of different films out there and no two films are alike. But I do actually have a very nerdy mental process for this that I utilize every single time I watch a film, and in this article I’m going to share what that basically looks like.

Side note: If you’re a normal filmgoer who doesn’t rate films with stars and you just watch movies the way you’re supposed to by saying “I liked it” or “I didn’t like it,” I know star ratings may seem a bit arbitrary and all the effort I put into them might seem like needless work that ruins the fun of watching films, but just for the record, I very much enjoy doing this. I’m a film nerd. Writing reviews and rating films stimulates my mind in the best possible way and you should understand that this is literally my hobby. I do not get bored doing this and it never feels like work. And I think most Letterboxd users will agree with me on that. I mean it’s not like we’re getting paid to talk about movies. We do it because we love it.

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Masterpiece

Is it possible for a movie to be flawless? I don’t know. But it doesn’t matter because that’s not the point of the five-star rating. I never seek perfection when I watch movies because that inevitably leads to disappointment. In fact I can point out flaws in many of the films that I have rated five stars. But the difference between the flaws in a five-star movie and the flaws in every other movie is that five-star movies are so well-written, so well-directed, do such a good job captivating you from start to finish and do such a good job achieving what the filmmakers set out to achieve that they are essentially immune to being hindered by nitpicks because all the most important things about the film are executed smoothly.

⭐⭐⭐⭐½ Almost a Masterpiece

Films I rate four and a half stars are usually would-be masterpieces that are held back by one or two major issues. Sometimes that can be an unbelievable character or plot element, sometimes it’s overly formulaic writing, and sometimes the reason can be abstract and hard to explain. I gave Jonathan Glazer’s The Zone of Interest four and a half stars despite there technically being nothing wrong with the story, the believability of the characters or the creativity of the filmmaking. Why? I found the experience of watching it to be more passive than actually engaging. Although that was a film about Nazis so can you blame me?

⭐⭐⭐⭐ Excellent

Films I rate four stars are usually the kinds of films that I would never call a masterpiece but are often still cleverly written and consistently entertaining throughout. Films like Barbie, Girls Trip, School of Rock and Lady and the Tramp are some examples of this. All great films that I love! But none would be my first choice for the Cinema Hall of Fame.

⭐⭐⭐½ Good

I often give three and a half stars to films that are very clearly contrived, not particularly subtle, not particularly creative and usually try harder to entertain you on a surface level than immerse you in something deep, but despite all of this, they still manage to be well-made enough to provide a satisfying experience.

⭐⭐⭐ Not Bad

I usually end up giving this one to films that are close to being good but either waste a lot of their potential or are weighed down too much by something like weak writing or a significant lack of depth. A lot of these films I can still enjoy at times, like The Phantom Menace and The Super Mario Bros. Movie for example. But very few join the ranks of my favorite films of all time.

⭐⭐½ Above Average

The halfway point from five stars to zero stars and the most middling possible rating I can give a film. Appropriately, this is often designated to films that I feel are roughly half good and half bad. Sure, there are a lot of entertaining moments in films like The Shaggy Dog, Snakes on a Plane and Quantum of Solace that give them a slight edge above mediocrity, but those films also contain just as many generic and poorly executed moments.

⭐⭐ Mediocre

These films are usually the bare minimum of a competently made film. They do their job as pieces of entertainment, but often in the most unimaginative, predictable and safe way. I don’t often hate these, but they do often disappoint me.

⭐½ Watchable

These ones usually have only one or two things like a good actor or good production design going for them in an otherwise low-quality film.

⭐ Below Average

Doesn’t even meet the requirement for being mediocre because there are too many things about it that are just outright bad. Often painful experiences but with a glimmer of entertainment value. For example, I gave one star to the 2019 Lion King remake because even though the whole story was devoid of creativity, the CG animation was technically impressive.

½ Barely Watchable

Welcome to the bare minimum of watchability. Almost no redeeming value and often too incompetently written and directed to enjoy on any deep level, and yet I still spare them from zero stars because I can’t quite look away completely. Whether the reason for that be Dwayne Johnson’s charisma, a really attractive actor or just the burning train wreck effect of watching some unfunny and cringe-worthy comedy like Strays or The Bubble.

NO STARS Bad

While I make it a rule never to give any stars to short films, music videos or stand-up comedy specials (and I’m inconsistent on documentary specials), if you ever see a feature film on Letterboxd that I have watched but did not give any stars, you know I thought it was the worst of the worst. These films have no redeeming value whatsoever and I can’t think of a single reason to even watch them. This rating is very rare and it only happened a few times in my life, but it absolutely can happen. I gave zero stars to Plan 9 from Outer Space, Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li, Rock-a-Doodle, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze and Yoga Hosers and that’s currently it. Some of those films I haven’t watched in a long time so maybe I would rate them higher if I gave them another chance, but for now, these are the furious five of bad films for me. Sorry Kevin Smith.