Rating Comparisons

For Background

Charles Francois’ Letter Grades

A: For All Time
A-: Event
B+/A-: Near Great
B+: Must See
B/B+: Warmly Recommended
B: Recommended
B-/B: Recommended with Mild Reservations
B-: Recommended with Strong Reservations
C+/B-: On the Fence, Leaning Forward
C+: Take It or Leave It
C/C+: On the Fence, Leaning Backward
C: Pass
C-: Ugh
D+: Double-Ugh
D: Bomb
F: Burn the Negative
Walk-outs: Channel Surfing
Incomplete: Mishap/Bad Timing

Mike D’Angelo’s 100-Point Scale

100-90: Masterpiece, or damn close. Very rare.
89-80: Fanthefucktastic. Near-lock for my year-end top 10 list.
79-70: Definitely something special. Do not miss. Likely list contender.
69-60: Very good, but also flawed or missing some crucial element.
59-50: Didn’t quite work for me, but has many redeeming qualities.
49-40: Demerits clearly outweigh merits.
39-30: I really did not enjoy this picture, but talent was involved.
29-20: When will this fucking picture end. When.
19-10: Outright fiasco and/or unwatchably boring.
9-0: One of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. Very rare.
W/O: I don’t know the director and the first two reels (about 35 to 40 minutes) didn’t convince me that (s)he has it going on.

On Letterboxd, shift all of the point values up 1 (aside from 100 and 0, of course) to get my star ratings (5 for the first tier, 4.5 for the second, etc.).

Blake Williams’ Richter Scale

A+ 9.4 – 10.0 [Top 10 of All Time contender]
A 8.6 – 9.3 [Masterpiece]
A- 7.8 – 8.5 [Pretty great; Near-masterpiece]
B+ 7.0 – 7.7 [Kinda great; Contender for Top 10 of its year]
B 6.2 – 6.9 [Has a special something]
B- 5.4 – 6.1 [Solid]
C+ 4.6 – 5.3 [Doesn’t arouse any particularly strong emotions either way]
C 3.8 – 4.5 [Useless; Mediocre; Significantly flawed]
C- 3.0 – 3.7 [What a failure]
D+ 2.2 – 2.9 [What-a-failure with cheese]
D 1.4 – 2.1 [Grating]
D- 0.6 – 1.3 [Offensively horrific; Horrifically offensive]
F 0.0 – 0.5 [Worst of All Time consideration]

On Letterboxd, the tiers proceed in half points for Williams’ star ratings (9.5-10.0 for the first tier, 8.5-9.4 for the second, etc.).

Miscellanea

Dan Sallitt’s color-coded lists use the colors red, orange, green, blue, and purple in decreasing order of liking. (parentheses below indicate my corresponding rating for the objective version)

The Movie Nerd Discussion Group uses a rating system of PRO/pro/mixed/con/CON; to conflate it with the ++/+/+x/x/xx Critics Roundup scale, they are as follows:
100 points, an ecstatic reaction/75 points, positive/50 points, mixed, ambivalent or barely positive/24 points, negative/0 points, extremely negative.

The Skandies group utilizes Leonard Maltin’s 4-star scale, with no 0.5 rating. (For my own purposes, I use D’Angelo’s interpretation.)

Nick Davis’ VOR (value, originality, risk) values: 5 (Indispensable to cinephiles, even if it’s flawed), 4 (Good or bad, this is risky and original work), 3 (Try to make time, but don’t cry if you miss it), 2 (Even if it’s good, it’s hardly groundbreaking), 1 (Low ambition, little originality, easy to forget)

My Interpretation

D’Angelo’s scale is my baseline.

100 10.0, 9.9, 9.8, 9.7, 9.6, 9.5 (A, PRO, 4.0)
99 9.4
98 9.3
97 9.2
96 9.1
95 9.0
94 8.9
93 8.8
92 8.7
91 8.6 (A-)
90 8.5
89 8.5
88 8.4
87 8.3 (3.5)
86 8.2
85 8.1
84 8.0
83 7.9
82 7.8
81 7.7 (B+/A-)
80 7.6
79 7.6
78 7.5 (B+)
77 7.4 (D’Angelo pro)
76 7.3
75 7.2
74 7.1 (3.0, pro)
73 7.0
72 6.9 (B/B+)
71 6.8
70 6.7
69 6.7 (B)
68 6.6
67 6.5
66 6.4
65 6.3
64 6.2
63 6.1 (B-/B)
62 6.0 (2.5)
61 5.9
60 5.8 (B-)
59 5.8
58 5.7 (mixed)
57 5.6
56 5.5
55 5.4
54 5.3 (C+/B-)
53 5.2
52 5.1
51 5.0 (C+)
50 4.9
49 4.9 (2.0)
48 4.8
47 4.7
46 4.6
45 4.5 (C/C+, con)
44 4.4
43 4.3
42 4.2 (C)
41 4.1
40 4.0
39 4.0 (D’Angelo con)
38 3.9
37 3.8
36 3.7 (C-, 1.5)
35 3.6
34 3.5 (CON)
33 3.4
32 3.3
31 3.2
30 3.1
29 3.1
28 3.0
27 2.9 (D+)
26 2.8
25 2.7 (D’Angelo CON)
24 2.6
23 2.5
22 2.4 (1.0)
21 2.3
20 2.2
19 2.2
18 2.1 (D)
17 2.0
16 1.9
15 1.9
14 1.8
13 1.7
12 1.6
11 1.5
10 1.4 (0.0)
9 1.3 (F)
8 1.2
7 1.1
6 1.0
5 0.9
4 0.8
3 0.7
2 0.6
1 0.6
0 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, 0.2, 0.1, 0.0