I use the 5-star system for my reviews but that's only because of Letterbox having 5 stars available with 0.5 being the worst. There was a year where I didn't bother doing grading and then I brought it back the next year. I feel like it forces me to rank my top films according to grades and there's a part that thinks I'm being more generous than I should on some reviews.
If you have to rate a film, I'd prefer a grade. Once I see three stars, I automatically think 75%, a C, and now have a reason to take a movie off my overloaded cinematic to-do list. Since I read your reviews from beginning to end (skimming when it's a movie I think I'll see), I don't need the rating as much as others might.
As to "Duck Season"--I find it a shame that Fernando Eimbcke has only made three features, and that the third, the very charming "Club Sandwhich," is very hard to find. It was on Amazon Prime for a very short period of time. There was a time that a director of that quality would be able to make a film every year or two.
I want stars. I am programmed to look at them. A four-star movie, even if I don’t like it as much as the reviewer, can’t be a bad movie. I look at stars before seeing a movie. I will not watch one below three stars. Also, your ratings have been spot on for me for many years. By the way, the way you insulted bad films was priceless.
I don't pay much attention to the stars rating - mostly because they seem more personally subjective to the reviewer than the review itself which gives the reader room for interpretation and her/his own predilections. I kinda like the Little Man as I can project on him my own impression (of him).
I like the star system. Thumbs up/Thumbs down is too simplistic. If I see, say, 2 1/2 stars I probably think 'meh.' I might see it, I might not depending. It would also be handy, I think, to say up front where it's available. I neither have every channel nor do I plan on switching in and out of channels. If I know that, for instance, it's on Paramount + I won't bother reading it.
I like the star system. Letter grades would be okay too. Although I read your entire review, the rating helps me decide whether to watch the movie or not. I know that I’m unlikely to like anything that gets 2 stars or less and will almost certainly like a 3.5 star or more movie. Those between these two ratings will require greater scrutiny of your review as well as those of other critics. (Although I read every review in The New Yorker, half the time when I’m done reading them I have little clue as to whether I would like the movie or not! ) Thank you for your insightful reviews and please keep an overall rating system.
Christgau kinda has this figured out. He gives "A"s, a B+, and then a variety of other grades like "Turkey" or "Dud". Google "christgau grades 90" to find it.
I prefer the star system over letter grades. I find they give me more context rather than giving the whole thing away. For example, seeing 2 1/2 starts makes me more interested to read the review to find out how you got there vs. seeing a C (or worse) makes me feel like I don't need to bother.
I like some type of rating system. Too many increments is not helpful, nor necessary. A binary system is too crude. I think your one-to-four system is good. It is helpful to me to look at ratings. While I don't rely on them 100%, with so much content available it is helpful to me to look at ratings to guide me about what to watch. The IMdb user rating is something I'll refer to. If a rating is below 6.0 I think it's a good bet the film is not very good. And if it's over 7.0, it maybe worth watching. That's assuming enough people have rated the movie. Your rating system on new and old movies is also helpful to me calling attention to films I should look out for on the streaming services. (I have been to the movie theatres only three times since COVID.
I think people are too busy to read every film review. I personally only read 3 stars and up. I can barely get through all of my emails and newspapers as it is! I personally loved "The Little Man" and generally want to know if a movie might be worth watching before I read a review. I read the negative ones only for occasional comic relief.
I like the idea of grades. But stars are okay too.
Sometimes (often) I am pressed for time. I will skip the * and ** star reviews and spend time reading the *** and **** reviews because - honestly - those are the movies I will probably go out of my way to find and watch.
Grading (A, B, C, D, F) might be a more nuanced way to let me know what you think of a film.
Good or bad, over the years I've come to trust your ratings to line up with my own tastes. If you change it, there's no historical context. It doesn't mean I don't use and value your whole review to help me make choices. I see they have different purposes - the review helps me understand what I might want to know about the film, expanding my perception, while the rating is more of a comparison tool. Based on the review I may choose to override your rating . I felt the same about the great Roger Ebert's reviews - while often binary, up or down - he offered to share his rich understanding of the film, and let us make up our own mind.
I use the 5-star system for my reviews but that's only because of Letterbox having 5 stars available with 0.5 being the worst. There was a year where I didn't bother doing grading and then I brought it back the next year. I feel like it forces me to rank my top films according to grades and there's a part that thinks I'm being more generous than I should on some reviews.
If you have to rate a film, I'd prefer a grade. Once I see three stars, I automatically think 75%, a C, and now have a reason to take a movie off my overloaded cinematic to-do list. Since I read your reviews from beginning to end (skimming when it's a movie I think I'll see), I don't need the rating as much as others might.
As to "Duck Season"--I find it a shame that Fernando Eimbcke has only made three features, and that the third, the very charming "Club Sandwhich," is very hard to find. It was on Amazon Prime for a very short period of time. There was a time that a director of that quality would be able to make a film every year or two.
I want stars. I am programmed to look at them. A four-star movie, even if I don’t like it as much as the reviewer, can’t be a bad movie. I look at stars before seeing a movie. I will not watch one below three stars. Also, your ratings have been spot on for me for many years. By the way, the way you insulted bad films was priceless.
Flaws and all, I think the star system is useful and should continue.
Dump the "stars", read the review. You can't be that busy not to read...
I don't pay much attention to the stars rating - mostly because they seem more personally subjective to the reviewer than the review itself which gives the reader room for interpretation and her/his own predilections. I kinda like the Little Man as I can project on him my own impression (of him).
I like the star system. Thumbs up/Thumbs down is too simplistic. If I see, say, 2 1/2 stars I probably think 'meh.' I might see it, I might not depending. It would also be handy, I think, to say up front where it's available. I neither have every channel nor do I plan on switching in and out of channels. If I know that, for instance, it's on Paramount + I won't bother reading it.
I like the star system. Letter grades would be okay too. Although I read your entire review, the rating helps me decide whether to watch the movie or not. I know that I’m unlikely to like anything that gets 2 stars or less and will almost certainly like a 3.5 star or more movie. Those between these two ratings will require greater scrutiny of your review as well as those of other critics. (Although I read every review in The New Yorker, half the time when I’m done reading them I have little clue as to whether I would like the movie or not! ) Thank you for your insightful reviews and please keep an overall rating system.
Christgau kinda has this figured out. He gives "A"s, a B+, and then a variety of other grades like "Turkey" or "Dud". Google "christgau grades 90" to find it.
https://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/bk-cg90/grades-90s.php
I prefer the star system over letter grades. I find they give me more context rather than giving the whole thing away. For example, seeing 2 1/2 starts makes me more interested to read the review to find out how you got there vs. seeing a C (or worse) makes me feel like I don't need to bother.
I like some type of rating system. Too many increments is not helpful, nor necessary. A binary system is too crude. I think your one-to-four system is good. It is helpful to me to look at ratings. While I don't rely on them 100%, with so much content available it is helpful to me to look at ratings to guide me about what to watch. The IMdb user rating is something I'll refer to. If a rating is below 6.0 I think it's a good bet the film is not very good. And if it's over 7.0, it maybe worth watching. That's assuming enough people have rated the movie. Your rating system on new and old movies is also helpful to me calling attention to films I should look out for on the streaming services. (I have been to the movie theatres only three times since COVID.
I'm here for your thoughts, not the rating. I'd rather decide from the review/discussion whether I might or might not like a movie.
I think people are too busy to read every film review. I personally only read 3 stars and up. I can barely get through all of my emails and newspapers as it is! I personally loved "The Little Man" and generally want to know if a movie might be worth watching before I read a review. I read the negative ones only for occasional comic relief.
I lived in San Francisco for many yearsa and always loved the Little Man reviews. So glad he is still with ys.
D. Johansen Harris
I like the idea of grades. But stars are okay too.
Sometimes (often) I am pressed for time. I will skip the * and ** star reviews and spend time reading the *** and **** reviews because - honestly - those are the movies I will probably go out of my way to find and watch.
Grading (A, B, C, D, F) might be a more nuanced way to let me know what you think of a film.
Good or bad, over the years I've come to trust your ratings to line up with my own tastes. If you change it, there's no historical context. It doesn't mean I don't use and value your whole review to help me make choices. I see they have different purposes - the review helps me understand what I might want to know about the film, expanding my perception, while the rating is more of a comparison tool. Based on the review I may choose to override your rating . I felt the same about the great Roger Ebert's reviews - while often binary, up or down - he offered to share his rich understanding of the film, and let us make up our own mind.