How Our Scores Work
The Celluloid Score is our own composite rating — an average of up to four clearly labelled inputs, shown transparently on every scored film page.
Take the Celluloid Editorial Rating and Metascore as-is (already 0–100). Convert Letterboxd to a 0–100 scale by multiplying by 20, and IMDb by multiplying by 10. Average the available inputs and round to the nearest whole number. For example: 90 + 88 + (4.2 × 20 = 84) + (8.1 × 10 = 81) averages to an 86% Celluloid Score. Missing inputs are omitted, never replaced with zero.
Hindi / Bollywood exception: those titles use reliability weighting — Letterboxd and Metascore count more and IMDb counts less when it looks brigaded — so the composite can sit below a naive average. Details on the scoring policy.
| Component | Scale | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| Celluloid Editorial Rating | 0–100% | The named editor’s 0–100 assessment. It is an editorial rating, not a percentage of multiple critics. |
| Audience Snapshot | 0–100% | An informational sentiment snapshot. It is displayed separately and excluded from the Celluloid Score because market coverage and sample provenance vary. |
| Metascore | 0–100 | A weighted average of critic scores. 81+ is Universal Acclaim, 61–80 is Generally Favorable, 40–60 is Mixed, below 40 is Overwhelming Dislike. |
| Letterboxd Rating | 0–5 stars | A five-star average rating, with half-star precision, in the tradition of personal film-diary rating scales. Converted to a 0-100 scale by multiplying by 20. |
| IMDb Rating | 0–10 | A ten-point average rating reflecting broad, long-running audience sentiment. Converted to a 0-100 scale by multiplying by 10. |
Why combine several inputs instead of picking one?
No single number captures everything worth knowing about a film. A movie can be a critical favourite that general audiences find slow, or a crowd-pleaser an editor finds formulaic. Combining editorial judgment, critic aggregation and two public rating traditions smooths out any one input's blind spots — and every input is still shown individually, so you can see exactly where the sources agree or diverge, not just the final blended number.
How is this different from Rotten Tomatoes?
Rotten Tomatoes answers what share of critics were net-positive. Celluloid Score answers whether the title is worth watching after blending four labelled inputs, then names who should skip it. We cite RT-style critic percentages only as our own editorial rating or as third-party text — never as a Tomatometer we do not own. If you need the binary badge, use RT. If you need a decision, start here. Full comparison: How the Celluloid Score works.
What happens when an input is missing?
We omit it. A regional film with no Metascore is averaged from the inputs that exist, provided we still have two real values including an editorial rating. We do not invent a Metascore, and we do not render “unscored on Metacritic” as a moral failing — it is usually a coverage gap. Review Pending means we have not crossed that floor yet.
Who should skip this composite?
Skip it if you only want one critic’s voice (read the review, use the Editorial Rating), if you need opening-weekend gross we have not published, or if the film has not screened. Do not treat a missing Celluloid Score as a zero. The not-for line on each title page is part of the method — ignore it and the number will mislead you.