My take on movie ratings

I am quite an avid cinema lover, and one or two good movies every weekend is a must for me (a habit which a lot of my friends find quite irritating at times :P) . But what defines the "goodness" of a movie? In all aspects, such a definition would be relative to the perception of the viewer.  With due respects to this perceptive relativity, before watching any film I always logon to IMDb to check out what ratings it got (if any). IMDb, the Internet Movie Database, is a 30 year old company, launched in 1990, and got acquired by Amazon 8 years later. With its huge database of movies, and millions of members (with quite a lot of them actively involved in the rating process), it indeed has the most comprehensive movies data site till date. Now IMDb follows a 10 point rating system, with 1 being the worst and 10 being the best rating for any given movie. The rating algorithm is not a simple average calcuation, but a more accurate Bayesian system which makes sure that the ratings reflect the true "value" of the movie.

I have been following IMDb ratings for quite some time, and have a self-developed thumb rule, which goes something like this:

Rating: 1-5

My opinion: Not worth watching.

Rating: 5-6

One time watch, if you are feeling really bored and have nothing to do, you may spend some bucks depending on your personal taste. These movies are usually missing in script, direction, acting, screenplay or a combination of all these critical ingredients of a good film.

Rating: 6-7

Good movies, though you can easily avoid 6- 6.5 flicks, but you may find some decently good movies between 6.6-7.

Rating: 7-8

Very good movies.

Rating: 8+

Must watch, no matter what your individual choices are, if you call yourself a "cinema lover" then you have to watch these flicks.

Now why do these ratings matter (atleast for me)?

The first thought which, quite instinctively, clouds ones judgement can be summed up in reactions like this: "Hey man! You go by ratings!!!...this implies you do not have, or rather you are incapable of forming your own opinion." Many people are quick to brand me as a "follower", and given the fact that I am a Libran, which inadvertantly is associated with being "diplomatic", hastens the formation of this particular judgemental opinion. But one thing which is not so easy to understand is the fact that good movies are good not because you think they are good, but because they score high on the basic criteria defining cinema in general. The criterion can be the story, screenplay, editing, background score/music, direction, action or a combination of these basic elements.

On individual basis, the story of a particular film might not appeal to me, or I may individually find its direction rudderless as it may not correspond with my own criterion of "film direction". But then I obviously cannot be a judge here! Unless I have an "eye for direction" my own personal comments can in no way define the directional richness of a film. My own judgement would not be absolute. But if x number of people are voting on this particular criterion, and if that x is quite large a number, then it would imply that the average statistical rating would form a definitive holistic judgement on that criterion. The accuracy of the absoluteness of the rating would be directly proportional to the number of votes involved. And that is why I feel in-sync with the IMDb ratings, specially when a lot of people have given their own personal votes reflecting their own independent judgement about the film.  With time, I have seen my own voting reflect this absoluteness, and I strongly feel I can save my time and money by following the above distinct boundaries regarding aggregate movie ratings from IMDb!