I'm the exact opposite. I struggle to get through 90% of movies regardless of how good people think they are, especially since they only keep getting longer and longer.

Hell, the only movies I can get through are the ones that are so bad they're actually interesting

Huh. 90% of the time I'm like "this is a bad movie"

I did a Final Destination marathon recently to prep for Bloodlines.
While all the movies have their flaws and weaknesses, FD4 was garbage. Even as a easy to please person I couldn't handle it.

Genuinely terrible, I am shocked they wanted it to be the last one in the franchise, to the point they called it "The Final Destination"

Somebody needs to introduce Thomas here to MST3K. There is no better teacher than experience.

And that's awesome!

But please, don't rate the movies you watch 9/10. For those of us who watch most movies, an average of 90% is inarguable insane.

I'm so moved by this post that it consider writing a review of 5/10. Fortunately, I don't have enough to say to reach that IMDb character limit so 7/10 and no comment.

Oh and tv shows...if you're giving every episode 9/10, please stop, some of us are watching these things a decade later and it's best to know if it's actually worthy a 9.

That's also when reviews come in handy, because the reviews become our research. We don't write review for you, don't take it personally.

It's ok to be baffled. Some of us are used to seeing out the answer rather than post our brain droppings.

Turns out I had more to say than I thought.

✅ No spoilers.

Hey, one of my cringe memories that randomly pops up when I try to go to sleep!

"So what did you think, pretty good right?"

"Ahahah what??? No, it was shit!"

It was Wild Things, feel free to confirm that it was indeed shit.

Enjoying a movie, having fun watching it, is not an indication of its quality. It is acceptable to enjoy bad movies, nothing wrong with that, I've watched plenty of movies I consider as bad but still had fun and a nice time watching them.

Defining the quality of a movie by the enjoyment you had is like defining the quality of a painting by how realistic it is. A painting might be good even if it is surreal, unrealistic or abstract, and a realistic painting might be crap, so the quality of the painting is not tied to simply how realistic it is. The same way there are movies that are fun and enjoyable but not "good", and there are movies that bore most people and are a master piece.

While with a painting defining the quality is simpler (simpler yes, but not simple) as it is the creation of one person normally, for movies it gets incredibly complex as there's so much to measure and its the work of so many people; the script, the acting, the photography, the score, the directing, the stunts, makeup and dressing, FX, ... There's a lot that can be good and a lot that can be bad in the same movie.

At least that has always been my perspective, I have no issues admitting to not liking something despite how good it was, and loving something that I knew was not good. Some examples that come to mind: I love the matrix movies, love watching them, yes, in plural, that doesn't mean the second and third are good. It feels like there were too many issues in them to make them good, but I still had a good time watching them. On the other hand, I feel like a movie like 2001 is of unquestionable quality, yet I always feel somewhat bored watching it and would rather do something else.

To have no opinion other than gratefulness is... Concerning.

This is why I hardly ever recommend movies.

My criteria pretty much boils down to "did it hold my attention" during the runtime?"

A "good" movie holds my attention An "ok" movie doesn't hold my atttention 100% A "bad" movie 'pushes' my attention away