Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Re: .Well, Do You Think That...

Posted by RGA (R) on January 8, 2006 at 11:22:40

In Reply to: .Well, Do You Think That... posted by AudioHead on January 8, 2006 at 05:45:33:

Well I think Roger Ebert has explained the star rating system in that one should be reading the review and not just looking at the star rating. I used to be an amateur critic just for the fun of it and I used a 4 star system -- but what I simply did was rate by genre. If I gave 4 stars to Halloween that does not mean it would be equally as good as a 4 star drama. What the four stars meant was that it was one of the best films of the genre.

Later I went to 5 stars --- which was to differentiate between all the 4 star movies. A 5 star system also worked better to convert to a Letter grade set-up. Then for each star category there would be a paragraph or two outlining what a film has to ewntail to achieve that grade (similar to what a teacher in English Literature gave us as a letter grade guide -- an A paper is blah blah blah and a b paper has some elements of the A paper but is weaker here or less insightful etc.

***** = A++ or A+
****1/2 = A
**** = A-
***1/2 = B+ or B
*** = B- (Recommended)
**1/2 = C+ (Recommended rental)
** = C or C-
*1/2 = D
* = F
1/2* = F-
No Stars= F-- (filmakers should be drug out into the street and shot)

The other major problem with star ratings is many critics just have
**** excellent
*** Good
** Fair
* Poor

I find this fine but for the creation of top 100 lists the letter grade set-up provides more searchable criteria.

I can give Halloween 4 stars which I have done but Halloween for a long time was on my top 100 list. I can do an Exel search listing films that got 5 down. I have seen say 1300 films 17 films I have given 5 to (1 film got an A++) so it's just easier to top down the films.

I even though of a system out of 10 to one decimal place. So my number 8 film all time might get 9.7, one film gets a 10 etc. But it's meaningless if I'm the only person doing it.

Lastly If I ever was a critic and I decided to do what all the main critics do and go to a four star system then I would round all my 4.5 and 5 star films down to 4 but I clearly like some 4 star films far better than others.

I don't think Roger Ebert's 3.5 star rating is anywhere close to what he gives 4 stars from more serious genres. And sometimes the guy is seeing something in movies I just don;t get especially drivel like Anaconda.

I mean he gave Splash and the Usual Suspects *1/2 and Anaconda ***1/2 and if anything this should be reversed IMO. Even if you don;t like any of them -- I think the Usual Suspects deserves some filmmaking credit and performance quality marks. Anaconda is a monster movie that Ebert must have felt was doing camp to pay homage to films of that genre -- personally I thought they were going for a straight up monster movie and it stunk.

Splash had Daryl Hanah and her great hair walking the streets nude -- how is that alone not worth 2 stars? C'mon Roger.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

VH Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---