I have thought quite a bit about whether or not to introduce a ratings-system for
my reviews. There are obvious advantages and disadvantages to both having
and lacking such a system. Firstly, with a rating system, it would mean that I
would have to compare, for example, the mastery of Hemingway to a relatively
young writer such as Ammaniti. I would have to find a common scale against
which to judge mastery in both comedy and drama, both character studies and
special effects-laden epics. Could they really all be graded on the same scale?
Obviously, a rating system helps the the reader find his way around and he or
she might, after having read several reviews, understand more or less which
system is used.
`Finally, I have decided to include one for my film reviews only. There are
several reasons for this. Firstly it is a common practice amongst film critics to
award a rating on a generic scale (*-****, F-A, 0-10) and secondly I write more
film reviews than any other type of review and a rating might help people find
their way around easier. I also felt that though films may aspire to have an
artistic merit, they are more of a consumer product than for example theatre or
literature (See: ‘Art and life merge for Angelina Jolie’ for more thoughts on
that). I might include a ‘current top five of favourite reads’ or something along
those lines on the literature review main page, just to give some indication of
ranking and an alternative way, other than the archives, into the growing
number of reviews.
So: rating films. I have decided to use a four star scale, with half stars or
absence of any at all also being possible. It seems easy: rating the film you
have reviewed on a scale from zero to four stars. Let me tell you something: it
is not. Yes, they are all films, but how do you compare a World War II drama
like ‘De Tweeling’ (Twin Sisters) with a remake of a 1970s Disney-comedy such
as ‘Freaky Friday’? The only thing many films have in common are that they
are, technically speaking, films. Thus I have decided that my rating-system is
not only based on quality, but also on several other factors. Firstly, there is the
notion of the film’s pretensions. If it wants to be a comedy, there should be
quite a few laughs to be had. If it tries to blend genres, the film should not feel
like it actually is two alternating films cut together, but it should be an organic
whole. For the film to have three or more stars, it should show some sign of
intelligence from its makers: it should have something original, or an artistically
interesting element or a brilliant execution or any of these combined. The film
should give the viewer the sensation of ‘Wow. I did not expect this’, and this
obviously in the most positive sense.
I have tried to give a description of a few words to every possible rating:
**** - this film is a classic or a classic in-the-making and will become only better
with time
***1/2 – this film has something more than a good film – a sparkle.
*** - a good film: it delivers what it promises and shows some sign of intelligence
**1/2 – this is a decent film with perhaps some minor quibbles
** - this film is nothing remarkable but still OK to watch on cable, VHS or DVD as
a way to escape this brutal and vile world
* - this film pretends but does not deliver
½* - this film does not even pretend: it is an utter waist of time
zero stars – this film has no redeeming qualities whatsoever
