How I Grade
"Should I watch this movie?"
-
a great movie
I loved it. A must-see. A perfect or almost perfect movie. These are the movies I recommend to everyone. A hard rating to earn. -
a good movie
I really liked it. Unless you hate the genre or star, watch it. These are the movies I recommend to most folks. They may not resonate like the 5-star selections, but they don’t disappoint. -
an okay movie
I liked it. I wouldn’t recommend it, but I wouldn’t recommend against it either. Most movies fall into this category. -
a bad movie
I didn’t like it. Unless you have a deep-seated love for the genre or star, avoid it. It wasn’t awful, but if I paid money, I felt burned. -
an awful movie
I hated it. Everyone involved should apologize. Another a hard rating to earn. I can forgive a movie many things. Bad acting? It happens. Specious plotting? Maybe it’s atmosphere. Gratuitous nudity? Sure. But I can’t forgive boring. When reading a 1-star review, remember: I watch them so you don’t have to.
On Grading
Let’s start with a binary scale. Gene Siskel argued a reader yearns to know: “Should I watch this movie?”1
A pragmatic approach, but one that doesn’t differentiate between movies one should see and movies one must see. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight both deserve a “Thumbs up,” but they are not equal.
Enter the star scale. I’ve encountered scales from three stars to ten, sometimes with half-stars.
But not all star-systems prove equal.
Roger Ebert hated the four-star scale his paper enforced because it presented no middle ground. However, Ebert also argued that readers dislike scales with a middle ground, but I disagree. We know what it means for a movie to be “okay.” Sometimes, instead of “Should I see this movie?” readers want to know “Will I hate this movie?” A middle ground answers that question.
Next, let’s consider the IMDb. It proffers a ten-star system. That’s a lot of stars. Perhaps too many. In 2009 the median movie score hit 6.6, implying users skew toward the upper bounds, blurring the distinction between movies that are “good” from ones that are “great”.
So if a four-star scale proves too small and ten-star scale too large, what’s ideal?
I like a five-star system. Ebert liked it too.1 It offers a middle ground (3 stars) while proffering discrete rating definitions.
And what about letter grade systems? I like them. Under the covers, they translate to five-star systems. A’s equate to 5 stars, B’s to 4 stars, and so on. I employ letter grades behind the scenes because it’s how my brain works.
So why display them as stars? Well, for one, grade definitions aren’t universal. To me, a ‘C’ equates to an “okay” movie, to others it screams burn. A 3 star out of 5 display indicates a middle-of-the-road rating.
Grading systems are hard. I think a 5-star system works best, though some of my favorite reviewers eschew grades entirely, preferring you read the review. Fair enough, but I bet they rate them behind the scenes.