Changes to our ratings system
You might have noticed that instead of the usual star rating I gave a grade to The Fountain in my latest review. I have decided to change over to a grade system to rate films since I find it more flexible and precise. Besides, everyone uses star ratings these days and those who know me well know that I like to do things differently from everybody else (Dave (Burns) is also going to change over to a new rating system but will use the 0-10 scale (like on imdb) instead).
A = brilliant
B = good
C = fair
D = average
E = poor
F = deplorable
("+" and "-" ratings reflect the high- and low-end scales within each category, so a "B+" film equals a "very good" rating)
posted by Johnson @ 7:39 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I like the 10-is-best rating system where "5" and "6" are average or mediocre ratings - "High Avg" or "Low Mediocre".
All these Plus, Minus, Half-Star, etc - to me, they represent some kind of lazy unable-to-commit thought process - not that "I sorta like" isn't a valid judgement - but then I sit back and decide "If it's an average film, do it I like it more than most films or less?"
That's the difference between a "6" and a "5" for me.
By the way, I'm glad you're abandoning the Star system - any time I see Reds & Blacks being used, I keep thinking, "That's fine for people who read this in their cave or with all light sources shut off, but why do they make us strain our eyes trying to read? If they have something worth printing, why not print it clearly in as High Contrast as possible? Why force eye strain? Why not just print White On White if they really want us not to see something?
hi Christine
nice to see you responding. I think the half stars or "+/-" ratings are reflecting that a film is, say, better than good but not quite that good to warrant the next highest rating, say a five star or "A" or 10 out of 10. As I said in my post and as you mentioned it in regards to the 0-10 scale rating, they are just distinctions between higher and low average within each rating. So therefore I don't think it signals a lack of thought or refusal to commit yourself to a clearer rating. I also think that sometimes it just happens that your response to a film is more complex and harder to define. Personally I've decided that if I'm uncertain about how I felt about a film, I try to go see it again and get my feelings about it into focus.
Finally, I've been thinking that if your opinion of the film changes on repeated viewings (as it inevitably does, as our personalities and tastes change and evolve), it'd be nice to have the original rating and then the revised, final rating viewable, in the same way that people on the cinematheque website sometimes revise their top ten lists.
I'd love to read an essay about films you've altered your opinion over either time or repeat viewings.
PULP FICTION was a film that, thru sheer force of going to the theatre, I finally 'got'. But those first two viewings - I felt so befouled and dirty from the language alone. Six tickets later, I admitted I was a fan... that is, until I saw it on TV, and I realized I needed a large, enthusiastic crowd to enjoy PULP. Sitting quietly in front of the TV only makes me feel dirty and befouled again.
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is a totally captivating film when I see it in the theatre. On TV, however, I enjoy the story and the characters, but I can change the channel. I can get up and walk around, and do other things. But in a theatre, Harryhausen's nightmares couldn't make me budge.
AIRPLANE is a film whose layered comedy is worthy of repeat viewings, but at some point, the Law Of Diminishing Returns reveals the slow parts are too painful to endure. This is a film that begs for TV and plenty of other things to do.
Post a Comment
<< Home