One public score.
Every input explained.

How the Film Nagar score works

Comparable public ratings are converted to a scale of 10: 4 out of 5 becomes 8 out of 10, and 80 out of 100 becomes 8 out of 10. We take an equally weighted average of the eligible providers in each group. A critic publication and a critic aggregator each count as one provider; a large vote count does not give an audience platform more weight.

This split applies when both groups have comparable ratings. When only one group is available, it receives 100% of the weight. The result is rounded to one decimal place. A single-provider score is labeled as limited coverage; no comparable ratings means no score. Provider counts describe coverage, not statistical confidence.

Which public ratings qualify?

We use published critic star ratings, identifiable critic averages and public audience averages with a known scale. External audience ratings may come from a review site or a streaming platform. We do not accept votes on Film Nagar. Every displayed source keeps its own score and scale, so readers can see agreement and disagreement.

An approval percentage is a different question from an average score. Rotten Tomatoes’ Tomatometer, for example, describes how many critics were positive; it does not become a score out of 10 in our calculation. Approval percentages can appear for context but are excluded from the Film Nagar score.

Streaming platforms and repeated ratings

Public streaming-platform customer averages qualify when we can verify them for the exact film. An IMDb score displayed by Prime Video belongs to IMDb and counts once. A separate Amazon customer rating is a separate audience input. Netflix’s personalized Match or recommendation signals are not an aggregate public review score and are excluded. Missing, inaccessible or unverified platform ratings remain missing.

We deduplicate repeated provider ratings and use one selected snapshot per provider, film and rating group. A publication’s critic review and its readers’ average remain separate. Alternate editions and remakes must be matched to the correct film before a rating can be included.

What the score cannot promise

This is a summary of the public evidence currently captured, not every review on the internet. Aggregators can include critics whose own publication scores also appear here, and audiences can rate on more than one platform. Giving providers equal weight does not remove that overlap; this is a provider-level summary, not a count of independent opinions or a scientific measure of quality.

Fixed critic reviews retain the publication or update date where available. Changing audience and aggregate scores are snapshots. The date we checked a page is kept separate from the provider’s own score date; an unknown date stays unknown. Scores can change when evidence is added or refreshed.

Six dimensions, a separate assessment

Story, direction, performances, visual craft, editing and sound need more than a single overall rating. Our written assessments synthesize substantive published criticism and film materials, with a reason for each judgment. Their scores out of 10 are editorial assessments; they are not derived from the public consensus and do not enter its calculation.

Research-based assessments identify their basis and publication date. They do not claim a first-hand screening. A screening-based review should identify its critic, version, language and any translation limitations. If evidence does not support a dimension, it remains unscored.

Context matters

A quiet drama and a large-scale action film pursue different goals. Each is considered against its intentions and cultural context. Visual craft is not a measure of budget; restraint is not automatically weak pacing. Commercial relationships must never determine an assessment or its inputs.