Thanks to
newspaper editors and an idiot populace, movie reviews are typically
accompanied by a rating of so many stars or whatnot. We’re familiar with how they show relative worth,
but what do stars even mean? People notoriously
have trouble comprehending numbers, which also goes for most reviewers. They find rating systems arbitrary and have
therefore adopted a cavalier attitude regarding something they don’t enjoy. Granted, ranking everything perfectly is
impossible, but stars aren’t necessarily pretending to do so. What they indicate are levels that quickly
reference a relative ranking while allowing variation between each. Hypothetically, any amount of numbers could
be used, and some publications even assign ratings out of 100. Practically speaking, some limit must be made
or any system will become useless.
While four stars
are usually used for movies, this amount is a bit too restrictive for me. Allmusic uses five, and I have more or less
adopted that system. From 1-5 and
including half stars, this allows nine different ratings, which is typically
enough and partially analogous to a 1-10 scale.
Episodes generally fall into one of these levels, but not all fours are
exactly the same quality. Each level has
a meaning though, which are helpfully described below.
- The top rating is reserved for
“masterpieces”, although no one actually knows what this word means. Allmusic originally called it “best of
genre”, which is closer to accurate. A
five-star movie or episode is not necessarily (or likely) perfect, but does
qualify as a shining example of its genre.
Those who aren’t fans should appreciate a five-star’s quality, or even
enjoy it while disliking other lesser examples.
A top rating does not reflect the amount of work or money put in, nor is
it a measure of popularity. Rarely are
the best examples of art also the most monetarily successful in their
time. Generally, five-stars have a feel
about them which convinces you those responsible for its creation were at the
top of their game and in command of what they are doing. Ideally, a five-star work will always draw
you in no matter your mood. It is supremely
compelling and absolutely well done, or at least has some historical importance. Many include influential with top scores, but
I do not consider that a guarantee for five stars since it need not be good at
all. While some artists in their prime
have consistently produced five-star material, experience dictates that even the
best programs will rarely create true top episodes. For television then, this is a rare rating
and cannot be awarded lightly.
- The next step down indicates a very solid
outing that has some quality which keeps it from being classic. It might reflect the best work of an artist
who is not good enough or doesn’t inspire confidence for five stars. Four-and-a-half may also be used as a
placeholder for works which will be considered for a bump to five stars later
on. Since surviving the test of time is
an important qualification for five, this rating can be used until such a judgment
becomes apparent. Even if not a true
masterpiece, four-and-a-halfs are worthwhile efforts that stand alongside if
not quite with an artist’s best accomplishments.
- Good but not great, four stars describe a
work that isn’t classic but still very entertaining. Any fan of a particular artist or show will
enjoy this effort, but probably not someone who isn’t. Four is also the ranking reserved for “guilty
pleasures”. Inevitably a reviewer will
love something more than s/he should and that many will not. Temptation must be resisted to award anything
higher in this case. Admittedly, some
four stars may already be too high, but conceding that every critic has some
personal bias is better than everyone conforming to a made up standard which
nobody actually believes. Despite a step
down from greatness, four stars is still a highly positive review.
- Unsurprisingly, three-and-a-halfs are
mostly good while being deficient in some qualities which keep them from rating
higher. Whether this counts as positive
or negative is debatable, and usually depends on the medium. For TV shows, three-and-a-half is usually
positive (corresponding to 6/7 out of 10), but for movies and music the rating
is at least partially negative. There’s
still enough to recommend three-and-a-halfs, but they don’t usually feel very
good either.
- The classic “meh” rating, three stars have
a fairly even mix of strong and weak elements that don’t overwhelm each
other. While certainly negative, three
stars never do enough wrong to warrant anything worse. Despite obvious flaws, there must be
something positive for three, and it generally can’t be too painful either.
- Now indisputably negative, two-and-a-half
starts the excruciating efforts. While
mostly uncomfortable throughout, two-and-a-half must still have something decent,
but not enough to override any crap.
That’s the key feature, since it might otherwise not seem that different
from two.
- Two stars can represent many different
things, but all of them are bad. At the
very least, two indicates a rather poor outing with practically no redeeming
features, and is normally the bottom rating for most efforts. Two stars may also be awarded for a work
under an established name that is missing key personnel or otherwise doesn’t match
earlier successes. Or it might indicate
something which fails to meet the minimum standard for its genre. While this means two stars’ quality may vary considerably,
the ranking represents a failure in some way and is absolutely not recommended.
- The final ratings take something special to
achieve. One-and-a-half is essentially
the shittier version of two-and-a-half, which either possesses something sort
of positive or just not enough negative for a one star. Even so, a one-and-a-half work is profoundly
flawed and highly painful. Because it
should be difficult for professionals to produce something so poor, these lower
rankings are rare but sadly not non-existent.
- Perhaps the “anti”-masterpiece, one star
indicates a complete lack of anything worthwhile. Not only does one not meet its minimum genre
threshold, but any person should rightfully wonder how the artist can remain
employed after experiencing such a work.
This does not necessarily mean it was made with poor quality materials
(sounds full of hiss, cheap video camera, bad animation, etc.), but rather fails
in accomplishing its alleged intentions.
Some might save zero stars for such bombs, but one is my lowest
ranking. Needless to say, one stars
should produce feelings of hatred and anger which are unmatched by most other
works. Besides not being recommended, they
should probably be removed from canon immediately, if not wiped from existence.
(Perceptions
change over time, but each ranking is designed to have no more than a half-star
margin of error. These are described as “bumps”,
and will happen fairly often. Ideally no
work will change more than this, although history shows that can’t always be
guaranteed.)
No one’s forcing
you to review, and it’s not something you have to do if you don’t want. So if you’re really going to bitch about
stars or whatever ranking system you might as well not bother. There’s no point in arbitrarily awarding ratings
and then wondering why everyone is mad you gave the latest M. Night Shymalan
movie 3.5/4 when every other critic hated it.
As long as you accept that not every work of a given rank is equal, it’s
not all that bad. Your readers deserve
knowing that you care more about this rather than fame or narcissism. There are too many smug assholes out there
who get off on sounding smart, and they have soured the public’s perception of “critics”. Maybe I’m one of those things also, but this isn’t
for my popularity. I don’t care or
expect you to believe anything I say, but it nevertheless is the truth. I’m here so this record will exist, and for
no other reason. But at least now you’ll
have some idea what I mean when I bash an episode but still give it 3.5/5.
No comments:
Post a Comment