Rating films out of five [Long mentalish rant]

MementoMori

I'd just like to make a point/rant about film reviewers who rate films on a scale of one to five stars.

I would argue that using a scale of one to five is a very lazy and not very useful method of rating a film.

Within the five star system there is also the possibility that a film may be awarded the infamous no stars, which only serves to confuse matters further. This means that in a five star system it can be difficult to be clear on whether a one star film is the absolute pits or merely a very very bad film.

Assuming a five star system inclusive of a no-stars bottom rating and extrapolating to a ranking system out of one hundred we could assume the following.

No Star - 0 to 9
One Star - 10 to 19
Two Stars - 20 to 39
Three Stars - 40 to 59
Four Stars - 60 to 79
Five Stars - 80 to 100

There is also the possibility of breaking it down thus

No Star - 0 to 16
One Star - 17 to 33
Two Stars - 34 to 50
Three Stars - 51 to 67
Four Stars - 68 to 83
Five Stars - 84 to 100

However I would think the first break-down would be more accurate in terms of matching people's expectations expecially with regard to the issue of zero stars/one stars, so I'll be using that to illustrate my further points. Few people would expect a one-star film to be equivalent to a rank of 33 on a scale of 100.

Now to get down to the nub of the matter - Assume we have four films - A, B, C and D. In a five star system A and B are rated as three stars, while C and D are rated as four stars. However it is entirely possible that in the out of a hundred system Film A is rated at 41, Film B 58, Film C 62 and Film D at 78. From this illustrative example it is clear that ranking films out of a hundred is a much better system.

So why isn't the system of ranking films out of a hundred universally used then? Probably because ranking the film out of five stars makes life easier than ranking out of a hundred for lazy film critics. Also if a film critic decides to give a film four stars rather than three they can always defend it on the grounds that it was a marginal decision - this is much harder for them to do when they are handing out marks out of a hundred.

I know this is a kinda mentalish, pedantic rant and it seems to be of little purpose but I would urge people to remember this rant anytime they see a critic using this lazy imprecise system. Chances are that if they use this rating system they are more likely to be a poor critic in general.

ziedth

I agree with your point in a different way,

See I rate films 0-5 but it different to the majority of hacks who use 3 out of 5 as a way of saying this film is ok/no/suit some people. Thats horse**** IMO,

My way of doing it would be as follows,

0= Awful film nothing good in it ala Date/epic movies
1= **** film for number but some good points reasons Eg Garage
2= was ok I enjoyed ETC it but could have been better Eg Die Hard 4.0
3= Good film,maybe Not for everone but good for me Eg Taken
4= Great Film but missing something What alot of people would call a 5 star film(I don't give them out to often) Eg American History X/Memento Imo now
5= Sheer classic, perfect film Eg Gladiator/Shawshank

Basq

Well written post...

.. I'd give it a 4 / 5! :P

Tusky

I dont really see the problem. Its not as if reviewing a film is an exact science. Its just someones opinion & I think its a fine system.

* - avoid
** - poor but watchable
*** - good
**** - very good
***** - classic

The problem only arising when you start to convert the numbers of stars into a score out of 100. Dont bother. Id much rather see reviews out of 5 stars, then see one film get 76 and another 74. How exactly would you calculate that so precisely ?

johnny_ultimate

While I am not a fan of ratings in general, I'd agree with Tusky that should they be used 1-5 is probably the most effective - going into percentages is a bit ridiculous (what distinguishes a 66% film from a 67% film is far less clear than what distinguishes a four and five star film). I'd rather let the review speak for itself, but a system with a small number of possible ratings is probably the easiest way to deal with things if ratings are necessary. Although the AV Club system of F-A (with minuses and pluses possible too) still gives a finite and comparable amount of possibilities, with -s and +s helping to distinguish at the different levels.

nlgbbbblth

Don't agree with marking out of five for reviews.

Out of ten is far better. 10/10 should be used very sparingly.

Pigman II

My own personal preference when it comes to rating movies is that the max you can have is FOUR stars, not 5. Then you use half-star decrements from 4 to zero giving 9 possible outcomes. But that's just me.

I think it should also be pretty much taken as read that 'zero' is a possible outcome and that 1 should not be the lowest you can give a movie (esp on such a small range of values). I mean 1 out of 100 or 1 out of 10 could prob be an acceptable minimum, but 1 out of 4 (or 5)??? Why would you award the biggest piece of sh1t you've ever seen a full 20-25% after it has just robbed you of the 90+ mins of your life it takes to watch it?

If anything a negative-scale (and custodial sentences) should be introduced to film that actually make you wish you were doing something else (eg at work, or making a sandwich, or doing your washing) at the time of viewing.

Mr. Frost

Tusky wrote: »

I dont really see the problem. Its not as if reviewing a film is an exact science. Its just someones opinion & I think its a fine system.

* - avoid
** - poor but watchable
*** - good
**** - very good
***** - classic

The problem only arising when you start to convert the numbers of stars into a score out of 100. Dont bother. Id much rather see reviews out of 5 stars, then see one film get 76 and another 74. How exactly would you calculate that so precisely ?

Not sure I agree there. Only one star between very good and classic? One star between say Serenity and Alien? Maybe mark out of six instead?!

jf852003

I really think you would be overcomplicating things by having a 1-100 scale. I have to agree with Tusky though i would call a 5 star movie excellent rather then classic. I think classic is something that can only be decided in the fullness of time.
The point of film ratings like this is so that the casual film goer can decide what film to see on a friday evening with their gf/bf from a quick read of the ticket...
...There you go, didn't want to be drawn into pedantry with my post but i guess you just can't help it

Mr. Frost

jf852003 wrote: »

I really think you would be overcomplicating things by having a 1-100 scale. I have to agree with Tusky though i would call a 5 star movie excellent rather then classic. I think classic is something that can only be decided in the fullness of time.
The point of film ratings like this is so that the casual film goer can decide what film to see on a friday evening with their gf/bf from a quick read of the ticket...
...There you go, didn't want to be drawn into pedantry with my post but i guess you just can't help it

But I think a couple might (taking into account they actually listen to critic :rolleyes:) would be more inclined to see something that got 3 out of 5 rather than 5 out of 10 (which would be similar enough). And I don't really agree with that!

JPA

Why write a post like that over numbers?
Read the review, you know the words, or just make up your own mind.

Earthhorse

I think they should use a symbol based system instead:

- Filled me with rage

- Not impressed

- Chick flick

- See this to impress your friends

- Will Ferrell isn't funny

- Worth watching

- There were knackers in the cinema

monkeyfudge

JPA wrote: »

Why write a post like that over numbers?
Read the review, you know the words, or just make up your own mind.

Exactly. If the review is well written it should tell you what a reviewer thought of the film. Ratings are pointless, I never pay attention to them.

Galvasean

I find out of five a bit too vague. Of course percentages are far too specific.
Out of ten is the system for me.

X-Calibre

5 stars is plenty for a rating system. As was said, you should know how good the movie is from the review itself, not purely based on the score. You cant call a critic lazy for using the 5 star system if they've written a good review of the film.

Personally I think its very easy to distinguish between 3 stars and 4 stars / 4 stars and 5, etc. Marks out of 100 overcomplicates things..

Cactus Col

In this years Christmas RTE guide, no film on tv over christmas got 5 stars out of 5. The highest rating any film got was 4 stars. That would have included many classics such as ET, Close encounters, and other non spielberg films.


Anyway, the ratings that are given are pointless if there is not a review accompanying them. The review is far more important than the ratings. Why did such and such a film get 3 out of 5, or 62 out of 100.

The laziness isn't so much from the critic, but can more likely be the reader's problem. Only paying attention to the rating, and ignoring the review.