Overly Complicated Letterboxd Star-Rating Score Sheet
Plus a Love & Other Drugs Analysis
This piece is for people who use Letterboxd. I won’t spend any time here trying to convince anyone to join the movie-tracking social media. All I’ll say is that I held out for years, and am now a full convert. The biggest sticking point for me was that I would never be able to remember and log all the films I’ve already seen, and I wouldn’t want an incomplete profile, but after a few years I have a pretty accurate-seeming 752 films. It is great as a networking app, as in, you can see what your friends are watching and what they think of it.
The most duplicitous and open-to-interpretation portion of L-Box is its rating system. Five-stars, broken into halves. (So, ten stars.) Are you suppose to rate the film during the credits? The next day? Are you allowed to change your rating a week later, are scores suppose to make sense against other scores? For example, if I give both Dune Part II and some animated short-film a three-star rating, does that mean I think they’re of equal value? I realized giving films scores based on “vibe” leads to too much confusion, so I wrote up a little template which became a big template. But as I run films through it, I’ve found it actually spits out decent ratings. Here’s the template, and below a sample filled out version with the movie I watched last night, Love & Other Drugs.
The Scorecard
Each of the six categories are bell-jar’d around a rating of half-a-star. If they are executed adequately, they will award .5. If they are done really well, they can earn 1. If they’re botched, they should earn 0. In exceptional cases, they can award more than 1 or less than 0 stars. After they are added up, an average movie will be at a 3, a heinously bad one will be 0, and an exceptional one will be at a six.
Story. How was the narrative? Was it engaging, original, interesting, important? Did the plot take twists and turns that kept you engaged and surprised? Was there a moving ending?
Acting / Casting. How were the performances? Were any of your favorite actors in it? Any break-out roles for unknowns? Down the call-sheet, was the fifth or sixth billed actor any good? Did the casting director put a lot of attention into capturing the world of the film? Were the characters believable and interesting?
Direction / Cinematography. Did the film make interesting choices? Did certain shots or scenes feel out of place and disorienting, or was the whole thing very smooth and legible? Really good cinematography will never remind you that you are looking through a camera— you will just feel like you are in the world. Exceptional cinematography will make you re-think what it means to observe, will show you something basic like a sunset or the interior of an apartment in a way that changes your perception of your own world.
Did the film have a distinct voice? Did that voice mold to the world of the film, or did it get in the way and obscure the point of the story?
Inner Experience. What was your inner-monologue like during the film? Did you smile throughout the whole thing, feel very warm and hopeful about life? Did it cause you to re-evaluate your own life? If it was a comedy, were you able to forget about your stress and laugh throughout? If it was a horror, did it sustain a paranoid and stressful tone, or did you get bored?
Taste. How was the score? The soundtrack? The aura of the film? How was the title card font? The wardrobe, the set design? Was it interesting and accurate, bold and fascinating, or did it feel bland and under-considered? Did this movie have a vibe you vibe with? Or did it feel like it was aimed at a completely different demographic?
Production / Context. I went back and forth on including this one, but I think it deserves to be considered. How was the marketing of the film? Was it petty and unprofessional, like Don’t Worry, Darling ? Did everyone tell you this movie sucks, and you actually kinda liked it? Did a stranger hand you a DVD in a coffee shop and say this movie will change your life? Did it win an Oscar you don’t think it deserved, or was it independently financed? Is it a foreign film from a country you otherwise wouldn’t think about? Sometimes you watch an 80s movie with four-minutes of intro credits, but that was the style back then. Did they fall into obvious traps, or was it surprisingly timeless or modern? If you’re watching a 1940s classic, which redefined the state of cinema and influenced hundreds of directors for the last 80 years, it may be earn some extra stars just for its role in history.
Add up the points above. A completely average film will now be at a 3.
Merits / Demerits
You left this movie with some completely unexplainable plot hole. Weeks later, you can’t stop thinking about how random that one scene was, how it didn’t fit into or help the movie at all. Subtract half a star.
You find yourself thinking about it way more than you thought you would. After the movie ends you and a friend talk about it, and both realize a bunch of stuff you missed. A week later at work, you find yourself quoting it, or trying to find one specific scene on Youtube. Go back into the app and add a star. This is pretty much the highest compliment for a piece of art.
The film was unnecessarily long. Subtract half a star.
The film takes place in a neighborhood you used to live in or a setting you are very familiar with. Add a star.
You’ve never seen anything remotely like it. This is how I felt after watching Sasquatch Sunset and French Dispatch. Add half a star.
You cried:
You never cry. Maybe four times in a good year, and getting there is tough. This film healed something you didn’t know was broken: add a star
You cry weekly, are reaching for the Kleenex any time a puppy looks both ways before crossing a street. Add half a star.
You don’t cry and you don’t want to cry. You are angry at this film for making you cry. Subtract half a star, and get a therapist.
It is a filmmakers debut. Add half a star.
It is beneath the filmmaker. This is pretty much the only route to a .5 review in my book. That rating is preserved for movies which were bad, and were made by someone who knows better. Christopher Nolan is so much better than Tenet. Robert Eggers is too talented for The Northman. This is, like, the vindictive side of me. Subtract 1.5 stars.
They got something very wrong. That’s not at all what its like to live in ______, to be a ________, to experience ______. This is the Hollywood effect, it gets reality wrong. In most cases, subtract a full star. If the film was intentionally playing with reality in a way that felt well-informed, adjust accordingly.
You’ve seen way too many films with the same premise. It doesn’t feel like the director is even trying to subvert your expectations. Subtract a star.
The film is in a language you don’t speak. You spent most of the time staring at words on the bottom of the screen, and couldn’t quite tell if the characters were delivering their lines well, if it felt natural, or if there are subtle cultural references you are missing. Add half a star out of good faith.
Vibe Adjustments
Sometimes you watch a movie and just kinda intuitively think, that was a four-star film. Then you run the mouse-car moment Overly Complicated Letterboxd Star-Rating Score Sheet© and it only gets a three. The move here is to average out the vibe-score and the sheet-score. This will often be a .5 or 1 point difference— it would be really rare to think a film is a five but then the score sheet gets it a zero.
If the film ends up on a non-.5 number, like a 3.75, use your instinct on whether it’s a four or a 3.5. This is a valid way to review art— some people (myself) over rely on vibe, but I think the proper amount to trust vibe is about 5%, which is how much this adjustment allows it.
NB: A film can only get five stars if you’ve seen it more than once. This helps subvert the bias of Being In The Right Mood— the right setting, a good theater experience, etc. mouse-car recommends watching the film again in a different context. If it’s a true five-star film, it should be eminently re-watchable.
Sample: Love & Other Drugs
Story. Great narrative. The love story rotates around a thematic idea (Big Pharma / health). It is adequately structure, a bit obvious but one of those examples of how adhering to template can yield strong results.Even on a re-watch, there were moments that put me into pleasant surprise. The script had a really strong voice, especially Anne Hathaway’s character for the first half and Josh Gad’s off-brand humor. 1 full star
Acting / Casting. Anne Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhaal, what more could you ask for? Never once do you wish someone else were in these roles. The inevitably annoying Josh Gad actually kills it here, had me laughing out loud four or five times. Gyllenhaal dropped the ball in the final few scenes. He was just staying in character, to his detriment. But down the bill, there are great choices. Hank Azaria. Harvey from Suits. Even my man and old neighbor Michael Chernus has a small cameo. Extra credit— 1 star
Direction / Cinematography. It’s a pop-film, a pretty straight & narrow rom-com. Any unique or artistic choices would have felt out of place, and the DP knew this, didn’t fuck around. The voice of the film was strong, Perfectly adequate— .5 stars.
Inner Experience. This movie did what rom-coms are suppose to do. I fell in love with Hathaway, and I feared for their future, then I believed in their devotion. Right on the money— .5 stars
Taste. Mostly on the line with this, although Hathaway’s apartment is legendary. Just full of curiosity and fascination. I remembered it before even putting the movie in the player, and it actually informed my decision to rent this DVD. It’s a great apartment, up a cool alley-way. Beyond that, her wardrobe slaps. I didn’t really clock the score, and usually I leave a great movie with one or two saved songs in my Spotify. None of that here— .5 stars
Production / Context. For some reason people laugh when I mention this film. They usually haven’t seen it in a while, and they just kinda scoff at the general idea of it. I have a vague memory of someone telling me it’s outright bad. But it isn’t. It’s good! It’s a little stuck in 2010. Intro credits over a montage. Cheesy monologue which didn’t seem to recognize its own cheesy monologue-ness. Year later rom-coms would become really thoughtful and incredible, like Palm Springs or Sleeping With Other People, but we can’t expect this movie to be that. An adequate .5 stars
Current Total: 3.5
Merits / Demerits
Okay, why does Anne Hathaway have this twelve-thousand dollar apartment? And why does the “Ohio River Valley” have such massive wealth in the first place? Also, would Hank Azaria, a clinical physician, really let a pharma Rep “shadow” him and pose as an intern? These are all minor, though, and could be justified. But they just leave you feeling like some corners were cut. Minus .5
This one stands out to me among rom-coms in general. It’s not that “I’ve never seen anything like it,” but in a genre that doesn’t really appeal to me, there’s this gem. Plus .5
Did I cry? Of course I cried. Not in the obligatory final monologue, which was botched by Gyllenhaal’s acting, but when Hathaway first realizes that she loves him. She delivers an Oscar-level stare, about two seconds, which hit right where it hurt so good. Plus 1.
That brings the total to 4.5 stars, which may seem high to you, but that’s exactly what my vibe score was when the film ended. It’s Letterboxd average is three stars, Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 50%. That means I like this movie far more than the average audience-member, which feels accurate to me.
Conclusion
This may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but there’s an additional benefit to the score-sheet I want to mention. Since implementing it, I’ve found myself watching films differently. I’ve been thinking about the techniques used, noticing bold choices and dropped balls. Doing anything mindfully is usually rewarding, and I think it has helped fix the passive viewer I’ve become in the last couple years.
Spending two hours ingesting a piece of art can be a positive experience, it can also be a waste of time. Thinking critically and deeply about it afterwards definitely helps push it towards the former.