Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Question of the Day: Assigning Films Stars/Grades, Good or Bad?


In lieu of movie reviews for the next month I am going to throw random crap at the wall and see what sticks in regards to piquing people's interest. I was thinking today about just how to review movies, and it got me thinking: I have never really put stars or grades at the end of my reviews, despite the fact that I inventory all of the films I see every year with a grading system, organizing each film on a spreadsheet in order of "A" films to "F" films. So, my question to you is this: Do you prefer reviews that ditch the rating system, or do you like it when critics assign a film stars or a grade?

Follow up questions: Do you find that you are more likely to skim reviews if you see stars or a grade at the top of the review, as opposed to say a film critic who doesn't adhere to any kind of ranking system, and just writes what they feel about the film? Is one way inherently better than the other? Do stars/grades have their place as a quick reference guide (I still have my little pocket book of four-star Ebert reviews that I used to take with me to the local video store)? Discuss...if you feel like it.

24 comments

  1. I much prefer reviews without grades, thumbs up or down, or stars. Ranking like that strikes me as reductive, especially given the way one can enjoy a bad film ironically, or hate a well-made film for its pretension, or react in many of the different ways that make up the raw material for a review. Doesn't ranking ruin the suspense of reading the review?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kevin, in the end analysis, I do believe a star rating is the best way to go, as it does give clarification to the summary judgement, which may not always be evident in the prose. I know some people abhor such blanket categorization, but I do believe the majority would like to see what you express in writing to translate to some kind of a grading system that divides the films. Yes, there is always the pitfall here of encouraging the "skim" rather than the full read by providing such an easy way out, but my feeling is that those who will read it will read it, and those who won't still won't.

    I hope I made sense there. Ha!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ha, already I lock horns. And with the esteemed Film Dr. no less!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I use the web site Criticker myself to rank films, but the more you rank the more it seems that the individual rankings are unimportant and vague. What separates a 2 1/2 star film from a 2 star film, or a B- from a B, and how do you apply that consistently (Or, god forbid, the 100 point system that Criticker gives you). I do keep rating films there, but not because I feel there's any scientific certainty to any of it, but because it enables me to see broader patters in my rankings.

    In other words each individual ranking is basically useless, and I wouldn't mourn their loss from th review pages. I can read well enough and any critic who can't demonstrate whether they like a film or not in their work are simply incompetent. But for personal use or as general quick reference guides they're just fine.

    ReplyDelete
  5. FilmDr:

    I agree with you. I sometimes feel like star ratings are a wholly arbitrary thing. I still read Ebert's reviews, regardless of what the star rating is; however, star ratings sometime cathe my attention, like Ebert's review for Knowing, which I have to admit I wouldn't have read if it weren't for the star rating catching my eye and getting me to think "I wonder why he's the only critic to not just like it, but give it a four-star review".

    I much prefer his Great Movies reviews, though, as I prefer the longer essay form as opposed to the succinct star/grading system. Maybe that's because I don't know how to be succinct, hehe.

    Thanks for your thoughts on this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sam:

    Yes, that didn't take long, hehe. I see what you're saying in regards to people who will read no matter what, and those who skim are bound to almost always skim. I like the star rating/grades for my own use, to job my own memory about some of the best films of the year (usually when I do year-end lists). But I much prefer the essay/in-depth look into films. I'm not saying that you can't have both -- but as for longer reviews go, I don't need a rating; but, if I was just having a conversation with you about a movie I may point out that I thought such-and-such film was "about a B"...that's where it's most useful I think.

    Your point made perfect sense, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Krauthammer:

    you say:

    In other words each individual ranking is basically useless, and I wouldn't mourn their loss from th review pages. I can read well enough and any critic who can't demonstrate whether they like a film or not in their work are simply incompetent. But for personal use or as general quick reference guides they're just fine.

    I agree. I think that the probelm arrises when critics simply do plot sypnosis mixed with who starred in the film, and let their "opinion" be spoken for my an arbitry star rating or letter grade. I'd rather they dump all the superfulous stuff and just tell me why a film they thought was a "C+" just missed the mark of being a "B". That's more interesting to me.

    I dare say that just doing plot synopsis and telling the reader who the cast and crew were, while simply giving the film a star rating or a letter grade is the laziest form of film criticism.

    But, yes, I agree with you that for personal reference it's a useful tool.

    Thanks for stopping by and commenting. Great to hear your thoughts. Good stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wow -- all of those comments came in rather quickly. Thanks for being interested enough to respond, everyone! I appreciate it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Kevin, I agree with you that it maight be a good idea to keep a record of each film's rating for yourself. I use a 5 star rating with half stars, so it gives a lot of leeway.

    I will now (finally) read your ELECTION review. I do love that film.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Haha. I was hoping you were going to comment on that review. I'm pretty proud of that one, I must say. It's one of my favorite films from 1999. I think I might do this "Question of the Day" thing more often -- I was rattling off a bunch of interesting questions today in my head, and all I kept thinking about was "I wonder what the guys in the film 'sphere would say..."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks Tony! I tend to be in that camp, too.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Good topic.

    I don't use any stars or grades for my own reviews because all too often the star or grade ends up being the thing that defines the review and/or the discussion around it. "How could you give this a B?" Or, even worse, "So Movie X gets 3 stars and Movie Y only gets 2?!?" That's not an exchange of ideas, which is what I'm looking for.

    Likewise, as others have mentioned, a grade/rating provided at the top makes the reader either lazy (they're not discovering how you felt about the movie, because they already know) or instantly skeptical. On the latter: Heck, yeah, I started Ebert's Knowing review already doubting its santiy.

    That said, ratings aren't entirely without value, as Sam points out. I've had friends request that I add ratings to my reviews so that they could use that as a guide for whether or not to see the film in the first place. (In other words: If I gave it an F, they wouldn't waste their time. If I gave it an A, they'd see it and would wait to actually read the review until later.) I understand that appeal, and I admit that here and there I've used Metacritic that way myself when I've been really busy and on the fence about seeing something. Alas, for me, the negatives outweigh the positives.

    If I added ratings, I'd lose sleep over it, trying to figure out just the right rating. It's not worth it. To me, films generally divide themselves into two camps: Worth Seeing and Not Worth Seeing. What people overlook is that a lot of terrible films are actually worth seeing for one reason or another. So how do you rate something like that?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I really don't like a rating system and prefer just to read someone's review. For example, in the Globe and Mail, the reviewer's critique of PUBLIC ENEMIES didn't really jibe with his star rating. He gave it almost top rating and yet his review seemed to suggest he wasn't crazy about it! That kinda thing drives me crazy. I'd rather go with someone like J. Hoberman who writes a straight-out review and it's up to you to decide if he liked it or not. I guess, I just like that option instead of being told straight out.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I give Jason's comment a B+.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jason:

    I loved your thoughts, here. Particularly this part:

    I don't use any stars or grades for my own reviews because all too often the star or grade ends up being the thing that defines the review and/or the discussion around it. "How could you give this a B?" Or, even worse, "So Movie X gets 3 stars and Movie Y only gets 2?!?" That's not an exchange of ideas, which is what I'm looking for.

    I couldn't agree more. I dislike it when the star rating or the grade becomes more about the film and how the reviewer felt about it. I think that happened last year with The Dark Knight.

    I too use Metacritic sometimes when I need a quick reference guide. I also like to read a wide range of opinions on a film, and those sites help sort out both sides of the spectrum.

    If I added ratings, I'd lose sleep over it, trying to figure out just the right rating. It's not worth it. To me, films generally divide themselves into two camps: Worth Seeing and Not Worth Seeing. What people overlook is that a lot of terrible films are actually worth seeing for one reason or another. So how do you rate something like that?

    Once again, I couldn't agree more. There are plenty of films that I would give a C+ or a B- to, but that I would be able to explain that there are still plenty of the things worth seeing in the film. Grades or star ratings, I think, tend to drive the review to adhere to a certain opinion. A three-star review may end up sounding like a two-star review -- and then, like you said in your previous comment, the whole thing becomes about the rating instead of the film.

    Great thoughts, Jason. I always appreciate it when you stop by.

    ReplyDelete
  16. J.D.:

    Thanks for your thoughts on this. I agree with you and alluded to your comment in my previous comment. I don't like it when the reviewers opinions seem to contradict the star rating/grade they give the film. Which is to say that it's not the reviewers fault, but it just shows how arbitrary all these ranking systems are (even thought they are fun sometimes, like year-end lists), and really all I need in a movie review is a well articulated opinion about the movie and about what it's trying to say.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Craig:

    Wait a minute...why not an A? How could you? You obviously don't know anything about talking about how to review movies.

    Ok...I know I was being sarcastic there, but I just want to make sure you know, hehe.

    Thanks for stopping by!

    ReplyDelete
  18. (Take all this with the caveat of me being a very casual film "reviewer," as opposed to the other commenters.)

    First off, I don't need a rating when I read someone else's review, although I don't mind them at all. I'll read the review either way, but as the others have said, if there is a rating, I tend to read more to see if they can back it up with their writing.

    For myself, due to some OCD quality of mine, when I review a film I urgently feel the need to give the movie a rating. I think it's just to find a way to slot movies in amongst each other and solidify for me their quality -- A is better than B or as good as C. It's just the way my brain works.

    The hardest part for me was settling on a rating system that actually meant something to me, which is why I finally went with letter grades. Those felt like they corresponded to a set standard, whilst star grades seem more abstract to me.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Troy:

    I'm with you on the OCD part of grading...using them as a way of organization. The letter grade does seem better than the star rating, but really they're all abstract and arbitrary -- we all know what quality is, and whether or not a film does or doesn't have it -- but how do you quantify quality? Quality is best explained -- not summed up by an invented ranking system (that's the teacher coming out in me...I really dislike grades in the classroom...they create all kinds of false connections with what "quality" is.)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well, it's up to you to decide if you favour a star-rating system or not. Besides, if someone doesn't uses a rating system, I won't boycott him.

    Secondly, although I use a five-stars rating (with half stars) on my blog, I always expect people to comment about what I wrote (yes, I admit that I'm kind of repeating what many have said in this blog post) instead of asking me why I gave a certain rating to a film. Therefore, the stars are used as a scale so that readers can have a little idea whether I liked a film or not after they read my thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anh Khoi Do:

    Thanks for commenting. I agree, I won't boycott anyone who uses the rating system -- I just don't personally subscribe to one. The hope for any critic, as you point out, is that the readers are always paying more attention to what the critic is saying instead of how they are grading something.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jumping back in with an important clarification ...

    Though I mention using Metacritic as a rough guide, there's a significant difference between what Metacritic does and what a critic does in assigning rankings. At least, there is for me.

    Yes, RottenTomatoes and Metacritic scores are often trotted out by people to validate or invalidate a film, in which case the debate becomes as empty as when people argue about star ratings. However, Metacritic offers a service that goes beyond the score. I don't have time to read everything (alas), so often I'll sample about five or six reviews of a film. Using Metacritic, I'll read a few raves and a few slams, and then something in the middle. This is a quick way for me to see how people at each end of the spectrum are responding.

    To be clear, I'm not against rating systems as a rule. They don't offend me. I choose not to use them for my own work because they are often counter productive. My challenge is to make sure my writing conveys my opinions on a film. If someone reads a review of mine and comes away confused as to whether I'd give it one star or four, that means one of two things: either my analysis is poorly written or, perhaps, that confusion over whether the film is tremendous or trash tells the reader everything they need to know.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jason:

    I agree with you about the "merits" of sites like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. I often use them just a way to quickly open multiple reviews to the same film. They act not as the authority on what I should see based on a percentage, but as a quick reference guide.

    I'm not against star ratings or grades, either, and I hope that I've made that clear enough in this comment sections. You say:

    If someone reads a review of mine and comes away confused as to whether I'd give it one star or four, that means one of two things: either my analysis is poorly written or, perhaps, that confusion over whether the film is tremendous or trash tells the reader everything they need to know.

    Wonderfully stated. I couldn't agree more.

    ReplyDelete