So /tv/ what criteria makes a film worthy of 5 stars?

File: 1492671161047.png (547KB, 803x627px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 803x627px

feet

Flawlessness. Therefore, I've never seen a film worthy of five stars.

>implying four stars isn't the perfect system

>1 star
You won't enjoy this

>2 Star
You probably won't enjoy this

>3 Star
You probably will enjoy this

>4 Star
You will enjoy this

>>86789849
Pretentious imbecile

File: 1474857378967.jpg (69KB, 419x610px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 419x610px

>>86789864
What about indifference, dummy?

visuals/intellectual weight/emotional resonance

>>86789922
There is no such thing

File: 9S93yfw.jpg (56KB, 431x997px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 431x997px

>>86789634
Amount of innane memes it will spawn from idiots on /tv/ with too much time on their hands

If you use a 1-5 or 1-10 rating scale then you dont truly care about rating stuff. If you really are autistic about your scores then you require a 1-100 scale. Its perfect for anyone since its still reasonable enough even if you have watched multiple thousand films and shows. However, a true rating autist uses a 1-100 scale with the overall rating consisting of at least 5 variables. If you come up with a proper weighing system then thats even better. That way you avoid having to give out a perfect score.

>>86789634
Whether it was directed by tarkovsky or not.

It has to be kino

>>86789922
2.5 stars

>>86789634
If I loved it?