Let me fill you in on something. Ratings systems suck. I am not bashing top 10s, top 5 movies of the year, or best of the year lists. I have a problem with the overly simple ratings system that many critics use to review their films. This movie is so many points out of 10, five, four, three, two, one or nil stars, or thumbs up or thumbs down is just simply a bad way to rate movies.
Thumbs up or down doesn't mean anything. How many times have you seen Roger Ebert give thumbs up to a film that he found not bad. The "oh, if you are in the mood or into that sort of thing, go see it," kind of attitude. It is like saying, if you are hungry, sure, eat something you may not like but at least you won't be hungry anymore.
the problem with the star rating system or a score based out of 10 is that you have no reference for how the film is being rated. For example lets say some new movie is given a 10 out of 10 rating and the critic had given films like The Seven Samurai, or The Godfather, or any other classic a 10... does that mean that this new film is an equivalent to classic films that inspired a 10 rating? Maybe I am over exaggerating. Maybe it's perfectly fine to rate a film 10/10 and give it the same rating as a classic that has stood the test of time. Maybe I just feel that if you give a film or anything your highest rating it not only has to be good, great, amazing but something more, something special that passes the test of time.
The stars system has the same problems as the 10/10 system. Are five star hits equally comparable to the five star classic of yesterday? I think not. The problem I have with the star rating system is that provides no depth but perfect accompaniment for movie posters, commercials and nothing else. What is deserving of a star? Maybe it's me being a glass half full of kind of guy but 3 stars out of 5 still seems like a good rating. If 3 stars is good, 4 stars is excellent and 5 stars is classic, why does 2 stars mean decent and 1 star is just bad? That system of rating seems to be off balance to me. The problem becomes worse when there are only 4 stars. I do not know if the half star is an improvement either.
Another note on the star systems. If you are like me and occasionally do the absent minded thing of trying to read Peter Travers for Rolling Stone and find it confusing how he completely rips a movie a new one and what I mean by "new one" is a new asshole and still gives the film 2 or 3 stars. I don't understand this. not at all.
In the end it is just another short cut. It's a lot like picking up the daily horoscope and realizing that every day you read the horoscope it's never anything worse than a 3 star day. How often do you see those 2 star, 1 star days? Maybe if you did you'd stop reading that horoscope? Maybe if reviewers gave worse reviews knowing that people only look at the stars then people will see less movies. I am not talking conspiracy.
a good critic is a path towards enlightenment. You don't always have to agree with the critic but a good critic can educate and create a path to a world of cinema you may have never imagined. There is a single critic I trust that employs any single type of rating system. Shame on you critics.
