Paul Walter Hauser Gives His Own Movie 3.5 Stars on Letterboxd: ‘What’s Wrong With Giving an Honest Rating?’

https://variety.com/2024/film/news/paul-walter-hauser-letterboxd-ratings-1236236548/

20 comments

  1. 7/10 is a solid film, most people would be happy for that rating.

  2. >Hauser replied: “If I think The Shawshank Redemption and Schindler’s List are 5/5, and Richard Jewell is not a perfect movie/bonafide classic, what’s wrong with giving an honest rating? It’s a good film that is definitely worth watching. A 3.5 out of 5 is not a slight. It’s reality.”

    Totally reasonable, and he’s right.

  3. I just adore this guy, he is really a standout in everything he’s in and seems like a lovely fellow 💖

  4. His logic, while honest, is flawed. He’s comparing apples to oranges. On his scale, a five is Shawshank and a 1 is let’s say, Madame Web. Well where does that leave Shrek or Infinity War? The best animated film would still not be in the same stratosphere as Schindler’s List.

  5. Well he wasn’t able to say his lines as fast as Jamie Taco so clearly can’t be a 5/5

  6. He’s right, Richard Jewell isn’t a 5/5 but it’s a good movie and a return to form for Eastwood, who also had another decent film around the time (though unfortunately no one saw it) called The Mule

  8. With that cast, it must have been hard not to make it an ironic comedy

  10. If he said his lines faster it could have at least been a 4/5, the friggin’ jabroni

  14. Is that Stingray?!? Well, I’m definitely watching whatever this is, now.

  16. I’m more interested in watching it now than I would’ve been. At least he’s honest about his thought process.

  18. His performance is a 5/5, though: I KNOW guys like Richard Jewell, who look up to the cops and the cops laughs in his face and that makes him look up to the cops all the more for their good judgement, and work harder so he can be in their shoes for once.

Comments are closed.