That's what some people tell me. Maybe I do. I look myself up in Metacritic, which compiles statistics comparing critics, and I find: "On average, this critic grades 8.9 points higher than other critics (0-100 point scale)." Wow. What a pushover. Part of my problem may be caused by conversion of the detested star rating system. I consider 2.5 stars to be thumbs down; they consider 62.5 to be favorable. But let's not mince words: On average, I do grade higher than other critics.
Now why do I do that? And why, as some readers have observed, did I seem to grade lower in my first 10 or 15 years on the job? I know the answer to that one. When I started, I considered 2.5 stars to be a perfectly acceptable rating for a film I rather liked in certain aspects. Then I started doing the TV show, and ran into another wacky rating system, the binary thumbs. Up or down, which is it?
Gene Siskel boiled it down: "What's the first thing people ask you? Should I see this movie? They don't want a speech on the director's career. Thumbs up--yes. Thumbs down--no." That made sense, but in the paper it had the effect of nudging a lot of films from 2.5 to three stars. There is never any doubt about giving four stars, or one star. The problem comes with the movies in the middle. Siskel once tried to get away with giving thumbs up to a 2.5 star movie, but I called him on it.
The only rating system that makes any sense is the Little Man of the San Franciscio Chronicle, who is seen (1) jumping out of his seat and applauding wildly; (2) sitting up happily and applauding; (3) sitting attentively; (4) asleep in his seat; or (5) gone from his seat. I asked Chronicle film critic Mick LaSalle to read the mind of the Little Man, which he does at the end of this entry.
The blessing of the Little Man system is that it offers a true middle position, like three on a five-star scale. I curse the Satanic force that dreamed up the four-star scale (at the New York Daily News in 1929, I think). It forces a compromise. So why don't I simply drop the star ratings? As I have explained before. I'd about convinced my editors to drop them circa 1970, when Siskel started using them. To drop them now would be unilateral disarmament. Do editors even care about such things? You're damned right they do.
But forget ratings systems altogether. What inclines me to tilt in a more favorable direction? I submit the following possibilities:
1. I like movies too much. I walk into the theater not in an adversarial attitude, but with hope and optimism (except for some movies, of course). I know that to get a movie made is a small miracle, that the reputations, careers and finances of the participants are on the line, and that hardly anybody sets out to make a bad movie. I do not feel comfortable posing as impossible to please. Film lovers attend different movies for different reasons, all of them valid; did I enjoy "Joe vs. the Volcano" more than some Oscar winners? Certainly.
2. Directors. There are some who make films I simply find myself vibrating with. I will have difficulty in not admiring a work by Bergman, Altman, Fellini, Herzog, Morris, Scorsese, Cox, Leigh, Ozu, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Keaton...and to borrow an observation from my previous entry, I haven't even reached directors under 60.
3. I feel strongly about actors I admire, watching their ups and downs and struggles to work in a system that often sees them only as meat. Example. I opened my review of "The Women" this way: "What a pleasure this movie is, showcasing actresses I've admired for a long time, all at the top of their form. Yes, they're older now, as are we all, but they look great, and know what they're doing." Yes, I really believe that. I interviewed Candice Bergen for the first time in 1971. God, she was wonderful. I mean as a person. She was one of the most beautiful women in the world, and she married Louis Malle, and was happy. Louis Malle was beautiful too, if you know what I mean, and a great filmmaker. She fell in love with both her head and her heart. I felt a particular pleasure in seeing her and that whole cast together.
4. Once the scent of blood is in the water, the sharks arrive. I like to write as if I'm on an empty sea. I don't much care what others think. "The Women" scored an astonishingly low 28 score at Metacritic. "Sex and the City" scored 53. How could "The Women" be worse than SATC? See them both and tell me. I am never concerned about finding myself in the minority.
5. I have sympathy for genres, film noir in particular. I am almost capable of liking a movie simply for its b&w noir photography. I like science fiction. Ed Harris has a new Western coming out named "Appaloosa." I'll like it more than the Metacritic average. You wait and see.
6. In connection with my affinity for genres, in the early days of my career I said I rated a movie according to its "generic expectations," whatever that meant. It might translate like this: "The star ratings are relative, not absolute. If a director is clearly trying to make a particular kind of movie, and his audiences are looking for a particular kind of movie, part of my job is judging how close he came to achieving his purpose." Of course that doesn't necessarily mean I'd give four stars to the best possible chainsaw movie. In my mind, four stars and, for that matter, one star, are absolute, not relative. They move outside "generic expectations" and triumph or fail on their own.
7. I have quoted countless times a sentence by the critic Robert Warshow (1917-1955), who wrote: "A man goes to the movies. The critic must be honest enough to admit that he is that man." If my admiration for a movie is inspired by populism, politics, personal experience, generic conventions or even lust, I must say so. I cannot walk out of a movie that engaged me and deny that it did. I must certainly never lower it from three to 2.5 so I can look better on the Metacritic scale.
I cringe when people say, "How could you give that movie four stars?" I reply, "What in my review did you disagree with?" Invariably, they're stuck for an answer. One thing I try to do is provide an accurate account of what you will see, and how I feel about it. I cannot speak for you. Any worthwhile review is subjective. If we completely disagree, my words might nevertheless be useful or provocative. If you disagree with what I write, be my guest. If you disagree with how many stars I gave it, you can mail your opinion to where the sun don't shine.
* * *
The Little Man Explained, by Mick LaSalle, film critic, San Francisco Chronicle.
The meanings of the various Little Man icons have been subject to interpretation, even here at the Chronicle.
First, the easy ones:
Little Man #1: THE LITTLE MAN JUMPING OUT OF HIS SEAT CLAPPING: This is reserved for hands-down great films. But it also, in practice, ends up going to A-minus films, because we don't have the equivalent of a three and a half star rating. With A-minus it can go either way. Basically, I try not to give this rating unless I love it.
Little Man #2: THE CLAPPING LITTLE MAN: This is a definite endorsement. No B-minuses here. This is telling people that they will enjoy this movie. So anything that's definitely good and definitely not great resides here.
We'll skip little man #3, save him for the end, and go to...
Little Man #4: THE SLEEPING LITTLE MAN: This is instruction not to go. Definitely bad, definitely not worth seeing. But maybe, just maybe, there's a single decent scene in there (there usually is), some glimmer of something that might have been.
Little Man #5: THE EMPTY CHAIR: This doesn't mean, of course, that the critic actually left. As you know, we can never leave. But it means that the movie is a complete bomb with nothing redeeming about it. However, in some cases, the extent of the awfulness can give the movie a kind of purity -- like, say, Bo Derek and Anthony Quinn in "Ghosts Can't Do It." This is probably why the kiss-of-death rating is actually not this rating but the SLEEPING little man rating. Some people actually like the idea of going to EMPTY CHAIR movies.
Which brings us to the ambiguous one . . .
Little Man #3: THE "ALERT" LITTLE MAN: Because we don't have half-stars, the Alert or Interested Little Man takes up the mid-range and is used for everything from almost-OK-but-not-quite to almost-no-good-but-not quite, which is actually quite a wide range. Every so often, an editor decides that the Interested Little Man should be considered a positive review, the equivalent of a two-and-a-half star rating, and that's actually how I try to use it -- for reviews that are, on balance, positive, but the buyer should beware. A decent but unexceptional genre film would come into this range. If it doesn't transcend the genre, it will mean that someone not drawn to the genre wouldn't like it; hence the Interested Little Man.
The temptation is to overuse this rating as a way of being wishy-washy, but it's worth remembering that for the reader, it's the most disappointing rating, in that it's journalistically the least interesting. It gets used a lot, because in reality a lot of movies end up in this zone, but it can't be used as an excuse for indecisiveness.
I think that about sums it up.
* * *
Ebert again: It is a splendid system, but Mick wisely observes a problem with the middle position: People don't like it. Maybe Siskel was on to something: Up or down, yes or no? I think Mick LaSalle would join me in asking: Have you considered actually reading the review?
I think the Netflix scale provides adequate flexibility:
One star: Hated it
Two stars: Didn't like it
Three stars: Liked it
Four stars: Really liked it
Five stars: Loved it
You could argue that this scale has been biased toward more positive than negative reviews in order to move more rentals. Also, it is unsatisfying to be unable to award no less than one start to a movie you absolutely despise. But on a Netflix scale of one to five stars, I give the Netflix scale four stars.
My theory would suggest a #8: Yes, 2007 was about as great a year for movies as we've seen this century, but don't discount the enthusiasm of a movie lover who was benched for the first time in his 40-year career and came back to the game at a high point.
Roger, your experience seems to have erased that cynicism so many critics I know have toward their jobs -- not that you ever had it to begin with. As someone toiling in a freelance capacity at the bottom of the totem pole for 12 years, I don't take a single assignment for granted, whereas full-timers frequently complain to me about the animated, slapstick, horror or generic films they're "sentenced" to review that week. Give me a break!
You've clearly been reinvigorated about the prospect of good movies, and you seem more inclined to reward them when they occur (translating not only 3 1/2-star movies into 4's, but also iffy choices like Rendition and The Golden Compass, which might not have received the benefit of the doubt before).
Perhaps your faithful readers haven't noticed a simultaneous uptick in adversarial reviews toward films that seem to have been made without a conscience -- your negative dismissals of those films have gotten more polarized as well (such as Step Brothers, a movie that's not nearly as anti-humanistic as you interpreted it to be).
When people ask me how you're doing since the surgery, I can only point to your recent output of reviews. The sheer number is an encouraging sign, but the feistiness in both directions assures me you're doing better than ever.
Peter
Gee, you must really get sick of talking about the star system? I've been a regular reader of yours for only about 2 years but I see the topic come up time and time again.
For me the stars mean very little, I come for the review but I don't read them all. Howvere sometimes the star rating will lure me in, if it's out of step with the critical majority or the highest or lowest rating, just so I can find out your reasons why. I am always satisfied with your reasons too. While I may not agree with your opinions from time to time I can be sure they are 100% your opinions unlike some of your peers.
8. Studies show our dispositions grow sunnier with age.
Sure, they have their theories for why this is. But I say it's because as the ol' flesh machine ferments, our triglycerides steadily rise, which, for all the trouble they cause, are also positively correlated with good moods!
Have you considered actually reading the review?
Ha, a perfect closing line.
Unfortunately, I refuse to read movie reviews until after I have seen the film; there are far too many details given out in any critics' review for me to not feel robbed in some way of the movie-going experience. This quirk also extends to an avoidance of theatrical trailers of films I've long been eagerly anticipating.
But those middle numbers don't pose conundrums for me anyway because I'm media avoidant, and thus I reserve my theater outings for only the most highly rated films by you and the members of the Sun-Times online.
Come to think of it though, your thumb system has come in handy when I developed this nasty little habit of going through bargain DVD bins. They may be used and a decade old, but they fit into my poor college student budget quite nicely. I'll go home with a stack of little movies I've never heard of that proudly proclaim on the covers: "Two thumbs WAY up!"--a single phrase and the only one I'm going on when I shell out those hard earned dollars to buy some battered-looking DVDs otherwise blind. And then I'll get around to watching them maybe a few months later when I'm bored and too poor to go to the movies (or utterly unmotivated by whatever slasher flick is making the rounds), at which time I get to watch something overlooked or long forgotten, like The Doctor or Game 6 or something.
In Ebert's thumbs we trust.
I get sick of the star rating argument and agree people don't see it as relative. One of my hometown papers switched to the letter-grade system. Imagine if you had to deal with THAT ("Why do some movies get an 'A' and some an 'A+'?").
That said, some critics baffle me. Leonard Maltin rarely gives 4 stars out, sometimes not even once a year, and passes out LOTS of 2.5 star reviews. I think there is unspoken pressure to be selective with those 4-star handouts; I love it when a critic, like yourself, just goes with the flow and instinct.
Although you may have caught Gene giving a 2.5 star movie a thumbs up, you did the same for "Rent."
You mention how you called out Siskel for giving a movie 2.5 stars and a thumbs up, but you did that with "Rent."
I'd like to say that I haven't been debating this event for almost three years in my head, but I have. I found it so odd, because every other 2.5 movie you gave a thumbs down and I was just confused. I hate to sound like a contrarian because you loathe the four-star scale, but I am sure you have a reasonable explanation. This is not a challenge of knowledge, just a desire to hear your thoughts. Or maybe I missed something you said in the blog about this situation.
Ebert: True, and baffling. I read my review and then went back and viewed the review from the Ebert & Roeper archive, and I seem to be making similar points in both. My TV review was 2.5 stars in all but the direction of the thumb. I must have been assaulted by a Brain Cloud.
I've been reviewing science fiction and fantasy literature over at my site for the last 7 years now, and I use a five star scale. I explain my usage of ratings as follows: "There's debate among critics over the validity of using a rating system; if doing so trivializes the art of reviewing itself. I don't think it does as long as ratings aren't taken more seriously than they are meant to be. I've used them since my fanzine writing days in the 80's. To me, they're just a form of visual shorthand. Readers may read my reviews in their entirety.... But when they're out shopping, they're more likely to remember, Oh yeah, here's that book Wagner gave four stars. So that's the function ratings serve for me, and unlike the readers on Amazon who think five stars is what you give everything, my use of ratings, I like to think, has a lot of nuance and reflects my own critical philosophies. For instance, it would be a mistake to think that any book with less than a four star rating isn't worth bothering with. Hopefully, in context with the written reviews they accompany, my ratings can help you decide if my opinions are helpful to you in making your own reading choices."
While reading this, I couldn't help but remember your review of "Ratatouille" last year which you gave 4 stars: I was intrigued, and wondered why the movie rang such a positive bell in your accord. But, after some time of musing, I remembered a comment - from you or someone else, I cannot recall - that mentioned how the movie gently slapped all critics on their hands a reminder of to criticize is to love, not hate, what one critiques.
In truth, I've noticed that you do tend to give more positive reviews than the average critic, and while the star system is a nice visual reminder of your personal reception, I always find the actual review much more moving and affective. Your reviews always reflect your love of cinema, which really is the essence of film criticism. It's greatly disheartening to see a negative review for the sake of negativism, snark for snark's sake, and so on. So while the stunningly negative review is amusing once in awhile (your Spider-man 3 review comes to mind), we all go to movies for the same elements - engaging entertainment.
Honesty is key, even if it means getting comments on Rotten Tomatoes like "I can't believe you liked ____ and so." So yes, the star system and thumbs up, thumbs down system are fun to see, but the greatest essence of criticism is, as you said, to discuss, question, and express our thoughts about a movie to the best of our communicative ability.
I have learned about movies from reading your reviews. They have helped me to judge for myself what distinguishes a great movie from a good or mediocre one. I respect the art and I am often inspired, uplifted, entertained and improved by movies. The more we encourage the good ones the more we all benefit. I'm a retired teacher. Over the years, I found myself mellowing towards my students and my evaluations became more positive. Some things were important and were worth rating and others were petty details. I found myself trying to point the way to a better result rather than criticizing students for not measuring up. I wonder if as one becomes more confident, being "hard to please" is a pose that one can shed. One's reputation is established and one can simply give an opinion without worrying how this opinion compares with any others.
Thanks for all your work in this field. You are a magnificent teacher.
I'd like to think it's because you're not a cynic. Perhaps not all film critics are, but you wouldn't know it reading them. The distinct thing that makes you the sole guy I trust, is because you don't whine. Your wit can be biting, even harsh, but it is never malicious. We need less of the cynics, less cows piling on the heard (as you wrote about earlier before), and more guys who SEE the movie (preferably alone and without previews) and give it its fair shake.
You have mentioned a couple of times a list of directors that you consistently love: "Bergman, Altman, Fellini, Herzog, Morris, Scorsese, Cox, Leigh, Ozu, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Keaton"... but with the caveat that you haven't gotten to "directors under 60".
I would love to hear your thoughts on your favorite up-and-coming directors... or, alternatively, favorite directors who are working in mainstream Hollywood these days. (are there any favorites there?)
My apologies if this has been covered here in the past... perhaps it has. I admit that I didn't take the time to search your archives before posting.
Also: I've loved your reviews for years... and now that I've found your blog, I'm really enjoying the more informal dialog that take place here as well! Thanks!
I suppose if you don't watch too many movies, a mere up or down would suffice for whether to see it. But that middle rating is important, because I probably do want to see a movie that is good with reservations or bad with reservations if it's a director or actor I like.
For instance, a 2.5 rating for A Mighty Wind tells me I should see it, because I like the Guest/McKean/Willard/O'Hara/Shearer, etc ensemble, but not to expect to too much. Perfect.
Whereas, say a 1.5 rating on Be Cool tells me that even though I loved Get Shorty, Be Cool will still suck. That's good information to know before committing a couple hours to it.
Roger, I do wonder though: How many movies do you watch with an audience, and do you think that affects your reviews when you do? As an example, I'm sure that I enjoyed a movie like Barber Shop a whole lot more because I saw it with a primarily African American audience, and the enthusiasm was tremendous. Also, a venue like EbertFest enhances the enjoyment of certain films, because the audience is primed and ready to like them.
PLEASE - don't give up the star system! Either that - or back to the "binary thumbs"...
I too, used to think that rating systems like that is a bit too simplistic, and I wanted to know *why* I should or shouldn't watch a movie.
But by now, after many, many years of reading your reviews, I *trust* you, and I don't need a "justification" for the rating anymore.
If you tell me a movie is worth watching - I will take your word for it, and take the plunge.
Yes - there will be disagreements (me sometimes thinking - "well, that one wasn't really all THAT great"), but the opportunity of watching a movie with a fresh, unbiased attitude it's worth those minor let-downs.
I *don't* want to know the story-line, I *don't* want to know which scene to watch out for, and I *don't* want to know which surprises to brace myself for.
All I want to know is whether I should "risk" it - and spend my next two hours with.
After that, I can make up my own mind about what was great and what wasn't.
Of course - for a newer audience it can be quite helpful to have a detailed and reasoned critique - to find out *why* they should trust your opinion in the first place.
I've had quite a few arguments with some "intellectual" friends, who refused to take your reviews seriously, because all they knew about you were the thumbs up/down quotes, and they considered your opinion to be just as binary. Until I made them actually READ the reviews. And then, all of a sudden, they realized that those thumbs/stars were just a culmination of very thorough and intelligent analysis, and not the result of a coin-flip... ;)
So, yes, keep the detailed reviews for the newer fans, and for the older ones who know and trust you, a simple "try it" or "don't waste your time" is all we need...
I have noticed withe age I enjoy movies I would not have enjoyed 10 years ago. I am not sure if it's softening up? As a younger man I was much more critical. I'm ok with stars, I do like the letter grade system but like what was said whats a C and what's a C-. I struggle with the critics that rubber stamp crap movies, movies made for a pay check without any thought to quality, "88 Minutes" and "Bangkok Dangerous. I used to see Bill Diel listed on any movie that couldn't get a respectable critic. "Problem Child 5, 4 stars says Bill Diel of the .....". I always wondered if Bill Diel was a real person, truly liked these films or was a complete sellout. Any rating system is truly off. Comparing films by ratings which are different genres is tough, I would give "City Lights" and "Groundhog Day" both 4 stars but "City Lights" is a far superior film. I don't envy "good" critics because you have to back up the ratings by writing a review. A good review always has evidence of the ratings, thats why good criticism is fun to read.
Lot of random thoughts there...sorry, its late...
I think my advice will remove much of this confusion:
Perhaps there should be a single movie review template. In the template, various nouns, adjectives, and adverbs have been left out, giving the template the appearance of an unfinished "Ad-Lib Story". The reviewer possesses several boxes, each box labeled after a genre of film. Each box is full of slips of paper; on each slip of paper is an adjective, adverb, or noun. The reviewer randomly selects a slip of paper and inserts the the randomly word into the corresponding blank in the review. Once all blanks have been filled in, you have the movie review!
The film is given a star rating in the following way:
A tumbler similar to the one used in the Powerball lottery is used. In the tumbler are little balls; the balls have various fractions of the image of a star printed on them: one ball might have half a star, while another ball may have a whole star. Four balls are distributed by the machine at random, and the sum of their stars is tallied: .5 stars + .5 stars + .5 stars + 1 star = 2.5 stars!
Kevin B O'Reilly- I HATE the Netflix ratings system. There is a huge middle ground between "Liked It" and "Didn't Like It". There are also a handful of films that I'd like to rate "Loved It Plus" or some other transcendent superlative.
Mr. Ebert- I decided years ago that many of your 2.5 star reviews were a pretty safe bet for good entertainment at the theater. Unfortunately, sometimes you give out just a few too many plot points for my taste, so I like to get the gist of your reviews and then read them in detail after I've seen the movie for myself.
I've often wondered why you used four stars and not five, so thank you for explaining why. When you use a five star category (with half stars included) I'm pretty sure you can erase most that ambiguity you get from 2 and 1/2 star films or 3 star films. But then again things can get ridiculous, like Pitchfork which will often review an album and give it a 6.7 or a 7.3 (It baffles me how they come up with those things). Maybe Gene Siksel was on to something.
"I cringe when people say, "How could you give that movie four stars?" I reply, "What in my review did you disagree with?" Invariably, they're stuck for an answer."
This is a great point and often find myself in the opposite camp. I agree with your reviews majority of the time, but the few instances that I found myself strongly disagreeing were with you it was because a lack of stars (Home Alone, Usual Suspects, Untouchables) but I still couldn't find a single thing to disagree with (Although I would finds things that seemed overlooked).
I'm also inclined to admit that certain films are made for me and certain others just aren't. A film like "The Women" isn't for me, even with your three star approval. But something like "Ghost Dog: Way of The Samurai" is, but I'm willing to understand why you would give both films three stars even though I probably won't be watching "The Women" anytime soon.
Either way, it's the transparency of your reviews that make them accessible even when I don't totally agree.
One of the things I've always admired most about your writing, Roger, is the complete absence of B.S. I really admire a man who knows thousands will read his positive review of Garfield or Stepford Wives, but will not change it or force himself to think otherwise and mark the star ratings down. Do I always agree with your reviews? Of course not. But I'm very thankful there's still at least one critic out there who can have the balls to be in the minority, and not seem to care.
cheers
KZ
"The empty chair" made me wonder something that you probably get asked a fair lot, too: Have you ever left any movie? I'm not sure whether it'd be appropriate or not to mention the film's title but, you know... Have you?
Ebert: Very, very rarely. When it happens, I am honor bound to say so in my review. Even with an abysmal movie, I stay put, because I'm getting ammo!
One other thing I always wanted to ask; what about the "Great Movies" section? I've always sorta considered that when a film was put under "Great Movies" it got an unofficial fifth star. Is there any truth to that?
Ebert: Never thought of it that way, but why not? Sometimes a movie becomes a Great Movie even though I have bypassed other titles that were higher on that year's "best 10 list." Proof that lists are flawed. Perhaps also an indication that Great Movies expand and merely very, very good movies tend to remain fixed.
People over think this rating stuff WAY WAY too much
Trying to qualify how good a film is excatly is pointless, you either like it or you don't (and more or less than other films).
I've continued to watch/read Roger Eberts reviews over the last decade , because I more or less agree with him (and can see were he's coming from if I don't)...not because he agrees with most critics
It may be fun to give out stars or letter grades, but they are not very important. If I see that Roger has given a film 2.5 or even 2 stars, my first reaction will be, "that film must not be good enough to see." All of a sudden I start to read the review and notice that Roger has said a couple of good things about it. Roger may point out that the film has at least one good character or memorable performance. Maybe that performance would be worth looking at. Perhaps the actor or actress who did the performance may have a bright future in film or television and will be worth watching in the future incase they give other great performances.
Even if Roger has given a film 2.5 stars, it doesn't mean it is not worth our time. As we all know, it is what the critic has written that is important.
I'm a stay-at-home film critic, which basically means I write film reviews and never get paid for it. The stars are an interesting guideline but in reality they don't mean doodly-squat. I hate the idea of trying to make reviewing movies into a science, trying to calculate what is good and what is bad by some weird mathematical scale. However, I admit I derive a wicked joy in watching Netflix try to pin down my movie tastes based on the DVDs they've shipped to my house. Yes, I admit I find a sense of satisfaction when my varied tastes in film leave Netflix offering me a suggestion list that includes The Killing Fields, Booty Call and a nine-hour documentary about the women of the Spanish Civil War.
I've had Netflix for five years and, in that time, I only took them up on one of their suggestions once, that was The Pawnbroker with Rod Steiger, which I liked, but it somehow Netflix now think I might like Sophie's Choice, Schindler's List and Never Give a Suck an Even Break.
But I digress, I apologize for using Roger's blog to vent my spleen.
As for the stars, I would love to chuck the whole stinkin' system out the window and just let the reviews speak for themselves. There have been times, Roger, when I read your reviews and I lower the page quickly so that I cannot see how many stars you've given. I want to read what you thought first, rather than begin with the stars and expect a positive or negative review.
You know what's funny about Leonard? He passes out four stars like CANDY to older movies, even to badly flawed and dates movies, movies I'd consider B or B plus, some I'd consider C plus and some almost total junk, but is very, very stingy when it comes to newer films.
He also has the constant habit of giving great reviews to movies but give them only three stars and a half. For instance, he gave La Dolce Vita 3 and a half despite practically crowning it a masterpiece.
He does that. Alot.
Good lord! I had no idea the rating system was this screwy until I thought back over the years. Long ago, my local paper had a 1-5 (5 being best, no half's) rating. The local reviewer was pretty darned good and would have been a worth seat companion to either Siskel or Ebert. Then something changed. Worthy man was bumped up to run the entertainment department and a couple of fakers came in. Basically, if they had seen a movie, they were qualified to be reviewers for the masses. The rating system then went to a 1-4 (4 being best but with half's allowed). At least they were all locals as I think some of the films (no, a lot if not most) will view different by location depending on economics, education, ethnicity and other variables. So someone from NYC or LA is not going to feel a film the same way as small town Iowa. Just as women see films differently than men. Then the paper got cheap and picked up reviews off the wire-hokey reviewers at that. I gave up on the local entertainment reviews about 10 years ago. (Just as I did the restaurant reviews, when the old guy started praising coney islands and fast food chains-yuck). Now I see so many reviewers rating from 1-10-which makes ten the best. You can also put a 1/2 in there. I don't mind having half's. But we need some consistency. A 2 1/2 for a kiddie flick might be okay for the kiddie-but not for the parent who has to sit thru it. But a 2 1/2 for an adult film (non-XXX rated)as long as it has something terrific about it, works for me. One fantastic performance will often save a movie for me. Sometimes it's a performance, sometimes the cinematography, many times it's the soundtrack. 2 1/2 is the minimum rating of a 4 star spread that I will lay down some bucks for. But I always check the online sites and filter out the wanna be reviewers. I have about 10 who I trust and just check the ratings-never the reviews-until after I have seen the actual film.
Maltin's book is good to check for viewing on the tube as the tube is cheap but my time isn't-but I would never use his reviews for laying down actual cash at a theatre. And there are others who are considered top-line reviewers that I just don't understand at all.
I also remember some reviewers a while back giving no stars or numbers (the Detroit Free Press and News used to do this). I can name at least a handful that were beyond bombs. Can you give a negative number or star to a movie?? And does anyone remember the rating system the Catholic church used or may still be using condemning films?? Forgive me Father, but I went to see Rosemary's Baby when I was 14-maybe that is why I am destined for the fiery flames. Can I bring my favorite videos with me? Thumbs Up! 4 Stars! A+! A 10! Whatever works.Just give me a decent seat and can the commercials.
Hey Roger,
I am a longtime reader/fan of yours (I sometimes find my reading of your reviews to be better than the films themselves) and I am myself an aspiring filmmaker (I write reviews as a hobby to fall back on for a career if need/change in desire dictates)...
I currently rate movies on your star scale. I for one BELIEVE in the power of "relative" star grades (not ABSOLUTE, nor too tough). I too find myself giving a "ridiculous" amount of positive ratings. This goes back to when I was 13-15 years of age and all my friends were older, and I saw "every" movie in theaters and/or video and would recommend everything as if it was the newest masterpiece to grace cinema history and had to be gushed over (we're talking things which time and a change in taste/maturity? have caused me to reevaluate).
I love your scale, and have adapted it for "5-star" websites such as Flixster where (under the screen ID of "magnolia12883") I write capsule/full length reviews of just about every film I see (and I'm going back to review films from memory/as I rewatch them too). Basically, for your edification, it breaks down like this:
5-stars = 4-stars = Great (best of its type/year; i.e. MAGNOLIA, THE DARK KNIGHT, IN BRUGES, BLACK SNAKE MOAN, GOODFELLAS, CASINO, NIXON, NASHVILLE, JUNO, BABEL, SHORTBUS, to name a few)
4-stars = 3.5-stars = Very Good (a fine example of its type; typically an honorable mention; i.e. BURN AFTER READING most recently, and previously PINEAPPLE EXPRESS, BUG and CRASH (1997))
3-stars = Good (recommended for its type/genre) (at this point, the ratings are a 1:1 ratio; i.e. anything from TRAINING DAY to THE KINGDOM (2007) to THE HAPPENING and IRON MAN)
2.5-stars = Above Average (not quite recommended, nor without merit; THE STRANGERS,
2-stars = Fair/Average (not a bad movie, but not good either; just "ok"; i.e. anything from SAHARA and VAN HELSING to THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (2004) and THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1970s original))
1.5-stars = Weak (this is where the badness starts; well-made junk; such films as SAW and, most recently, HARSH TIMES)
1-star = Poor (not good enough to be entertainingly bad, nor truly awful, but sometimes offensive: HAROLD & KUMAR ESCAPE FROM GUANTANAMO BAY, BECAUSE I SAID SO, etc.)
.5-stars = Bad (a wretched excuse for a film; often badly made, offensive and/or incompetent; i.e. A DIRTY SHAME, BALLISTIC: ECKS VS. SEVER, NACHO LIBRE, ALL THE KING'S MEN (2006), TIDELAND, etc.)
Zero stars = Horrible (the bottom of the barrel: not well-made, offensive, stupid AND meretricious/evil; i.e. BLESS THE CHILD, WOLF CREEK, NORBIT, PLUTO NASH; not many make this illustrious list)
Gotta be honest here and report that I have trouble seeing the forest through the trees when it comes to a strong director. Scorsese, Altman, PT Anderson, Oliver Stone and Spike Lee (among many others) can do seemingly no wrong in my eyes. On the other hand: It took much resolve (as well as the shock of how bad they were) to give such negative scoldings to filmmakers like Terry Gilliam (TIDELAND), Steven Zaillian (ALL THE KING'S MEN), John Waters (A DIRTY SHAME) and Dennis Hopper (CATCHFIRE/BACKTRACK) but enough is enough!
While I'm here: any advice to someone who wants to be a film critic (potentially) on a professional level but hasn't a clue how to get their foot in the door?
This is just why I simply read your reviews and ignore the stars. Whatever the arguments in favour of the star system, it is fundamentally too narrow a view to take and is an unimaginative compromise to lazy minds who do not want to read.
For instance - 'Before Sunrise' got three stars on your website, while 'Titanic' got four. 'Titanic' bored me to death with I think was inherent fakeness. 'Before Sunrise' left me in a state of mild awe, like I had seen something very precious that lived for just a moment. And I would later smile at breakfast remembering some of the dialogues in the movie or wanting to go walk the streets on Vienna.
I am sure for many people ‘Titanic’ is a great movie. And so like in many other things, it comes down to individual taste. Stars merely on their own are grossly misleading.
PS: Searched your review on 2001: A Space Odyssey yesterday. And later watched the film. Loved it! Six stars!
I understand that your' star rating system is relative, but how you can deny that you allow your' star rating system to determine the direction you point your' thumbs, is beyond me. If a movie shoots for the stars but falters in certain areas is it still worth a visit to the movie theater? Can it really be broken down to "Ebert says The women is worth the trip to the theater but The Life Aquatic, War of the Worlds or Full Metal Jacket is not". You defended your stars system admirably but leave one to make certain assumptions where your' thumbs are concerned.
Do you take into account the many levels that a movie succeeds on or is the one primary criteria whether or not the movie "works" . In your' review of The Life Aquatic you write of the movie not "working" but follow that by saying it does many other things "can't it just exist". That is the closest you ever came to showing us your' true criteria for turning your' thumbs skyward. Are not there many special movies that do not necessarily "work" but still deserve to be seen for at least attempting to take the viewer places most movies dare not go.
Roger, your blog continues to give us valuable information and insights.
I detest the star-rating system, mostly because that's all anyone cares to look at. When a new movie is coming out, people will always say to me, "Well, Ebert gave it 3 stars, but Phillips only gave it 2 and a half." As if that half-star difference really meant anything. But what did each man actually say about the movie?
I enjoy it when critics do beyond the boundaries of the star-rating system; Dann Gire, for instance, awarded the 1997 re-release of "Star Wars" with 4 and a half stars. I cannot disagree with that assessment, based on pure moviegoing enjoyment.
Strangely enough, while I hate star ratings, I LOVE top-ten lists. I keep a running tally of mine throughout the year. (Right now, "WALL-E," "The Dark Knight" and "Hellboy II" are at the top.)
I've always thought that unlike most other things, movies are one of those mediums that we go into without really knowing if we'll like it or hate it. It's a gamble. In many cases, it's hard to tell until it's all over with, or after repeated viewings.
Other things are often predictable: food, drink, a bike ride in the park. But as entertainment, it's difficult to go into a film without having a back and forth struggle between understanding "what's going on in the film," to "do I like what I am seeing?" It can take hours, or even a lifetime, to fully compose a critical opinion. I suppose when the audience role of being "entertained" and the role of being "critical" blur together harmoniously, then you've got a great film on your hands.
I'm trying to learn the craft of writing good movie reviews, and really enjoy and appreciate this journal.
The essential problem with stars, and even with the SF Chronicle's system, is that a movie that will have one person jumping up clapping will put another one to sleep. My solution is to end reviews with a quick, bulleted "Recommended/Not Recommended" section. Most of the time, it's my favorite part of the review to write.
I'm trying to learn the craft of writing good movie reviews, and really enjoy and appreciate this journal.
The essential problem with stars, and even with the SF Chronicle's system, is that a movie that will have one person jumping up clapping will put another one to sleep. My solution is to end reviews with a quick, bulleted "Recommended/Not Recommended" section, addressing who is going to like this particular film, and who is going to hate it. Most of the time, it's my favorite part of the review to write.
I've often found myself at odds with people who think I'm being too generous with a film. I too have genre- and director-related weaknesses; I don't think it's in me to give any Tim Burton film less than 3 stars (with the exception of Planet of the Apes, which I feel deserves no more than 2.5).
For the record, Mr. Ebert, I agree that The Women is vastly superior to Sex and the City. I gave the latter 1.5 stars and the former 3.
first let me state for the record that i make a point of reading all of your reviews, regardless of the star rating or even whether i have any interest in the movie in question; i (like -- i presume -- many of your readers) just find you an interesting and informative writer.
i think that star ratings are mostly silly (in the same way that the oscars, box-office returns, and daily presidential campaign tracking polls are) if taken at face-value, but provide for some interesting and fun speculation when i'm trying to figure what might have prompted you to make a particular call.
an example: for years i've operated under the ironic interpretation that a 2-star rating from you is more of an endorsement than 2.5 or even 3 stars. those middle-of-the-road grades tend to be reserved for middle-of-the-road fare that serves its purpose (more or less) as megaplex fodder; the 3-star rating i've noticed is often given to high profile prestige pictures that you feel just don't live up to the hype (e.g., the LoTR films), but aren't badly made. i'm generally disappointed when i see 2.5 or 3-stars in the headline, because the accompanying review is maybe a little less fun to read; i sense the movie just didn't engage you enough to inspire your literary muse.
on the other hand, 2-star reviews are often the most interesting to read because they tend to be the ones where you're in obvious conflict over what you've seen. your reaction was not a good one, but it was strong enough to make you think deeply about why you didn't care for it, and the beloved first-person narrator comes out in these reviews. i sense that these are movies that have stayed with you after you've left the theater and which made you think more than most do (even if you decided you didn't like what you were thinking about). i think i first noticed this way-back-when on a Coen brothers movie (the Hudsucker Proxy) where you rhetorically argued with yourself on whether to give it 4 stars or no stars -- you ended "splitting the difference" and gave it 2. from then on, my eyes light up when i see that particular (and seemingly rarest) rating.
it's a wildly unscientific observation, but it seems that when a director makes a movie that you give 2 stars, they're prone to follow it up with a 4-star picture (i'm thinking again of the Coens, who next made Fargo; also, David Lynch finally broke through with you after you gave Lost Highway 2 stars and then gave 4 to his next two in a row! digression: part of me has been dying to know what you made of INLAND EMPIRE, or if you ever got around to it).
anyhow, for this reason alone, i implore you (not that you have a choice): keep the stars. i anxiously await your next 2-star review.
Roger:
I don't think the star system is entirely worthless. The four star system really does have a middle ground--two stars. I've been a reader of your reviews for years, and, in general, you seem to give two stars to movies that succeed up to a point but are beyond that unexceptional. Two and a half star movies are those that intrigued you but never quite come together (The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou; O Brother, Where Art Thou). Three star movies work, though they may have some noticeable flaws (The Matrix). Three and a half star movies are very successful at what they set out to do, but they might have some shortfall that keeps them from being completely successful (Collateral, for example is excellent right up until it receycles the shootout on a train scenario so many other films settle for. In Bruges (to which you gave four stars), by contrast, is able to have a final showdown that depends entirely on the characters involved).
That is, at least, how I've been interpreting your ratings all these years. Sometimes I like a movie a little more than you did, sometimes a little less, but more often than not I agree both with your review, and the rating that accompanies it.
Mr. Ebert, I have been a regular reader of yours for over twenty years now. One of the reasons I first took to you so much was because you gave so many movies four star reviews. Compared to reviews I was reading at that time by critics who seemed snobbish and took every opportunity to badmouth most films, you seemed to truly like movies. Why devote a whole career to doing something you don't like to do? I love the fact that you are "such a pushover". Even when you unfavorably review a film, your love of cinema still shines through.
I always feel that critic ratings only make sense if you have general alignment with the likes and dislikes of the critic. For instance, in my case I tend to agree a lot with James Berardinelli -- he and I both have engineering backgrounds which I think is the main reason. If I just went by the star ratings, I would often think Roger was off base. However, I enjoy reading Roger's reviews more than the reviews any other critic. He provides insight and information that is tough to replicate and impossible to boil down to a numerical rating.
The star system is a fuzzy version of the grading system we all lived with for many years of our lives - namely A to F grades we received in school. So I've always thought critics should use these well known letter grades and add in pluses and minuses when they feel it is appropriate.
Yes Roger, you use too many stars. Most movies are in the C+ to C- range, with lots of B's and lots of D's and few, perhaps even very few, A's and F's. Siskel's observation that people want to know whether to go see a film or not, hence the yay/nay of the thumbs, does not solve the problem that many films fall in the middle range of being average, ordinary, okay. Should a critic recommend a C film or not? There is no easy answer to this question, and pointing a thumb up or down only forces the critic to suppress any ambivalence he may feel about recommending the film or not. Stick a letter grade on every movie you review, and the reader/viewer then decides whether that grade is high enough for him to go and see the movie or not. But you are right about one thing, it is best to ignore ratings entirely, and just read the review.
As one of the people behind the rating system at Netflix, I want to say thanks to Kevin for the thumbs up on our rating scale. Yes, it is slightly biased in favor of positive ratings, but since people seek out movies they are likely to enjoy, that makes some sense.
A system like Netflix's is quite explicit about what the stars mean -- how much did the viewer enjoy the movie? (This is complicated by the fact that enjoyment is mixed up with lots of other factors, but let's not get into that.) Using these ratings to decide whether or not to see a movie can be challenging. The average rating for "Cowboy Bebop" is 4.6 stars (out of 5). Who are those people who rated it? Are those raters somehow representative of the population as a whole, or is this a movie for a specific audience? What is that audience? Am I in that audience?
A critic's rating is, I think, a mix of a many things: Is it a good movie? Did the critic enjoy it? Does the critic think the target audience will enjoy it? Unlike a simple Netflix customer rating the critic's rating is given with the audience in mind, even while it reflects the opinion of the critic. Anybody can have an opinion, but the critic has to have a lot more.
Roger, this article summarizes perfectly why I have always enjoyed and appreciated your criticism over that of most of your colleagues. Your enthusiasm for film always shows through, while many critics give the impression that their time would be better spent doing anything other than seeing another film. In a world where more and more "professional" critics are losing their jobs to internet movie blogs and news sites, yours is still the first opinion that I seek out.
My main gripe with star ratings is that, too often, one star is the lowest rating possible. I've read dozens of reviews that have nothing good or positive to say about the movie, yet there's that star right below the title.
Aren't stars a measure of merit? Does the film earn its stars? If so, then the lowest rating, for films with no merit, should be zero stars. If the first star is free, then a two-star movie only earned one star. Sounds pretty shabby.
The best review system I know uses no stars, no percentages, and no cute illustrations. Those just give the reader a very crude summary without having to read a word of the review. What's the point in typing all those useless words?
My favourite reviews can be found in Vancouver's Georgia Straight (www.straight.com). No stars, so I guess you'll just have to read them... Or not.
Ebert: On my scale, 1/2 of one star is the lowest rating. I also give zero stars, but reserve that rating for movies I feel in some way or another are a transgression against humanity, if that doesn't sound too lofty.
The star or any other rating system has never been perfect.
People like me might prefer the 10 point system like IMDB, then lots of my beloved films would be floating between 7-8 and still hard to make the call. OK, you could always move on to the 100 point system, but it would be just ridiculous to judge whether the movie equal to 73 or 76.
Anyway, I really think movie experience has been materialized a lot by the always defected star rating system.
Roger, you just might be the most even-handed critic I've ever read or seen out there.
It has gotten to the point where I can go see any movie, and almost every time, correctly predict which star rating you might rate it, simply given my familiarities with your ways of thinking and writing (yet still, they are merely educated guesses--I have found myself to be surprisingly correct most of the time, call it an unforced hobby).
Your reviews seem to be based on mood, while correct me if I'm wrong, Gene Siskel's attitude seemed to be more of a reflection of technicality, he seemed to judge films based upon what they did or did not do according to his personal tastes. While on the other hand, you seem to judge each film for its own merits, though both Gene and yourself occassionally drifted with your emotions, despite the product (Note, this is just a broad observation--both yours and Gene's approaches to reviewing were vastly varied and unique).
If I may say so, I often feel that your "three star" rating, is like the two-star rating of everyone else. You often give three stars to films which (in my own words), you feel pity or sorry for. They weren't quite great, but you just had to hand it to them for trying. While "three and a half" is reserved for movies you have a peculiar, if perhaps misplaced affection for (in other critic's views not my own). Other critics might view them as severly flawed, throughout the past you seemed have shed some light on special performances, nuanced techniques or either a special kind of viewing experience (critics hated Gene Hackman's "Heist"--I think you gave it ***1/2 Stars at the time).
You also seem to give movies "4 Stars" that nobody else would ever consider giving 4 Stars, simply because the films execute everything well without stumbling much. EX: "Spider-Man 2", "Batman Begins", "Michael Clayton" or special artsy stuff like "Moolaade" or "Walkabout". And yet, you consider each film to be of a similar quality, merely separated by subject matter. You resist from assigning classes, leagues or categories. Each movie is unique. Of course there are many films I've felt you've completely not given due, thats to be expected. You once rewrote a review for "Groundhog Day" after reconsidering its charm and originality.
I think this is a good thing. You have a fresh way of looking at things. Its simply not fair to cling to a rigid set of checks and balances which can't be broken, and its far better (and much more fun) to watch each film anew with an unspoiled outlook. There are far too many critics, bloggers, writers out there who have to remind the readers that they are in fact Juliard Grads who've seen everything under the sun, including Fellini, Godard and Ford in every single review they write about. You're not one to brag and that's what I admire most about you and your writing. In the end, you're just like the rest of us, and average moviegoer. Unlike some, you don't have to remind us of your brilliance every single time. Sometimes you can just say whats on your mind.
I noticed earlier that the "X-Files: I Want To Believe" received surprisingly low scores on Rotten Tomatoes and most critics' circles. You were one of the few critics whom I felt actually got it right, got it absolutely right. You understood that the movie didn't necessarily have to be a certain thing, but instead, it was an expression of a sort of spirit, which if, to appreciate the film you'd otherwise have to be inclined or make an effort to be a part of. You understood that, even though you might not be the biggest fan of the show.
Thanks to you, I think I'll check out "The Women" this weekend; despite negative feedback or any otherwise predispositions.
P.S.: (Are there any special kinds of movies you have an affection for, genres you enjoy more than others? Do you have any favorite "bad" movies that aren't a part of any canon but you simply enjoy for being what they are? I for one am a fan of the many great Disney films. "Beauty and the Beast" and "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" are pretty great and entertaining. And, even though its a terrible movie I still like "Repo Man" with Emilio Estevez and I find "Big Trouble in Little China" entertaining as hell. You sure don't have to have a PhD or Pulitzer (no offense) to know that.)
I propose decimal places to the tens of thousandths. Surely that would numerically represent the literal reviews.
I'd argue that the real issue isn't with your approach to movies so much as a problem with Metacritic. You mention yourself that there is some uncertainty when you have a 2.5 star review. You consider it a "thumbs down," some others do not. I'm sure it's also fair to say that while some reviewers give out four-star reviews for those movies they consider great, others reserve the four-star for those they consider near perfect.
So what happens when you take review scores from dozens of different critics, each with his or her own preferences and scales, and try to cram it into a one-size-fits all measuring system? Well, you get a pretty murky view of a movie's quality and a bunch of silly statistics such as "this reviewer scores 8.9 points above the average." That really only means something within the scope of Metacritic's rating system. By that logic, I should be considered a very wealthy man, due to all of the property and houses I've purchased with Monopoly Money.
Dear Mr. Ebert,
Two points: First, having just moved back to the States from Coburg, Germany where I lived for the last eight years, I read your reviews there online as only a vague guide as it did not address how I could see the films due to the dubbing for virtually everything that I saw there. This dramatically changed the experience, sometimes for the better, so that due to my initially limited German, 'fantasy' films like Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, returned me to the state of being a child and hearing a great story before being tucked into bed. The star rating became a true guide to simply thumbs up or thumbs down. However, I was, occasionally, able to see films in English with subtitles and it was then that I realized how different a film I might be seeing from what you experienced in the States. Thus walking out of the film 'The Golden Compass' and truly being flabbergasted thinking, literally, "How could you give that movie four stars?" It remains the high water mark in terms of my having a very different opinion of a film from yours. It was only doing research later that I noticed that the running time that you listed was almost ten minutes longer than that listed for the film that I saw. So whatever was done to get the film sent out early so that it could be dubbed/subtitled was clearly done before the final cut was finished, making the answer to your question, "What in my review did you disagree with?" - I saw a different film.
The second, and far more important, point is that I must agree with you completely that: "(Candice Bergen) was one of the most beautiful women in the world." Still is. When I first moved to Brooklyn in 1984, I went to The Next Wave Festival at BAM for a performance of Meredith Monk's "The Games" and walked out at intermission, turned, and found myself next to a goddess shimmering and very pregnant (with her daughter Chloe) in a turquoise gown. She radiated such health and happiness that this vision remains to me, to this day, the golden standard not just of womanly beauty, of human beauty, in all its potential.
Even though you were in minority and i disagree with your ratings when i read your review,it looks justified.Some movies like..
Fight Club,
Reservoir Dogs,
Dead Poets Society,
A Clockwork Orange,
Full Metal Jacket,
Motorcycle Diaries...
As a (less than stellar) former high-school English teacher, I can empathize with the dilemma here. The grading systems in most schools suffer from the same problems, especially in subjects like writing or art classes where the grades are always ultimately a subjective judgment on the part of the teacher rather than an "objective" ideal that would be truly fair to the students.
Movie ratings must inevitably fall prey to the same curse, as the reviewer can't in good faith just tabulate numbers and use a slide rule to derive a score. After all, the whole point of reading a review is to access the reviewer's (theoretically) greater knowledge base of the ins and outs of movie meaning and context, thereby adding depth and meaning to the reader's decision on whether to watch a movie or not. This means that the reviewer's likes and dislikes must enter the equation as these feelings form the perceptual filter that influences all of that contextual knowledge. As long as both the reviewer and the reader are conscious of this inherent bias, the review should achieve its desired result.
I know that I personally disagree with you more often than not, but I also know where and how we are likely to disagree and can still use your reviews as very accurate gauge for how much I will like or dislike a movie. Ultimately, the only real use I have for the actual star ratings that you give a movie are as a curiosity after I have seen the movie to determine how far apart our views were.
One thing in your article caught my eye, and I just had to say something about it - your statement that you have a sympathy for certain genres, especially noir. I am the same in this respect. Noir is, in fact, my favorite genre, and for the past couple of years I've tried to broaden my knowledge of it (I recently started watching those Noirs directed by Otto Preminger, starting with the great Laura).
What's more, in my university theses - that I'm starting to work on nowdays - I'm working on noirs, specifically on differences and similarities between noirs directed by native Americans (Welles and A Touch of Evil is my prime example here) and noirs that were directed by immigrants (Billy Wilder and Double Indemnity - my all time favorite noir - is the prime example I use here) in matters regarding the function of the law and human nature.
My point is that I really identify with your sympathy for noir.
And in a little offtopic: last week I received your book about Scorsese, which I bought through Amazon, and I absolutly loved it. Ran through it in less than a week, and just loved it. Thank you for this great book and the great reviews and interviews included in it.
I had never sympathized with the reviewer on the ratings question until I had to deal with it myself, when I began writing a movie review for a web publication. While I was busy trying to hammer down my argument, there was this stupid distraction hanging in the air: "is loathing the movie but enjoying some salvageable parts a D? Maybe a D minus?"
I found myself in greater conflict with the rating system than the movie I was trying to understand my reaction to. What an incredible waste of energy that was.
As a reader I STILL react to ratings in an instinctive way, and I often react to the rating before I ever read the review, and I'll often AVOID seeing these ratings if I want to see the movie, so I'm not influenced in some way to either have high or low expectations.
The Inlander of Spokane used a rating system which I found very useful, although I'm not sure they originated it:
The turkey symbol: which meant the movie was useless to the reviewer
A videocassette: which meant that you shouldn't waste your money going to the theater on this one, but you can spend a few bucks to see if it's your thing.
A hand signal which is not necessarily to be confused with a certain hand signal which happens to be trademarked by a certain person who helped popularize its meaning that one enjoyed a movie: A qualified positive review.
A diamond: A pinnacle of whatever the reviewer goes to movies for.
There are still holes in this system, though (some movies are actually better on videocassette (er, sorry, DVD... er, sorry, Blu-ray) than in the theaters, according to some. Many said Moulin Rouge was more manageable on the small screen, for example).
The basic battleground, as much as a reviewer would love for it to be for the essence of cinema, is more the battle for the reader's attention. And if a rating happens to make the reader angry, they may actually be more likely to read the text to see what the argument for or against the movie is.
Roger, you may have a higher average now because you've learned to avoid the ones you know you'll hate. You still see some of them anyway, but can you honestly say you seek out the bad ones? I doubt it, you're not that kind of critic. You seem to want to find the best, not crush the ones you feel are bad. If the movie harms you, you sometimes to try to hurt it as much as it hurt you, which can occasionally backfire as you've pointed out. But you don't make a living taking cheap shots at films you don't like, unlike other critics which seem to enjoy the nitpicking, petty reviews that I tend to hate to read.
Criticism itself has become a bit of an entertainment piece on its own. I have to admit when a movie that I want to fail fails, it can be enjoyable to see it eviscerated by someone I trust to do it right. I probably would never deign give my money to a lazy moviemaker anyway, so I experience it vicariously through someone who actually had to sit through two hours of pointlessness, and enjoy that person's righteous anger. I'm often drawn to the bad reviews, I think, which to me illustrates the point that the critic's review itself is entertainment.
In this sense, this may open things up a bit wider than a free press society may find comfortable, since the line between journalism and entertainment is blurred already. I leave you to figure out what I'm getting at, I just hope society as a whole will never go that far.
For now I have to remind myself that reading the review for both good and bad movies is the goal, not the stupid stars, because when I put a lot of thought into a review, that's what I'm hoping the readers will do for me. Even if they disagree.
Mr. Ebert, if I had to give one reason for why your reviews are generally more positive than those of most other critics, from my perspective it would be your incredibly extensive experience: all those thousands of movies you have seen.
I think, taking my own experience into account, that the more movies you see, the more you like movies. The people I know who only see two movies a year will not be satisfied unless those two movies are the very best, the most impressive of the year. Those of us who feel a little disappointed when we "only" see two movies a week, on the other hand, don't need to be shocked to the very core by every one of them.
When I go to the cinema to see a movie that is on that dangerous middle ground between remarkable and unremarkable, I never feel like I wasted my money or my time, or think back to all the things I could have been doing: I was told a story, and I can appreciate the individual achievements of the movie -which, as mentioned above, can be a single scene, or one good actor's performance, or one stylistic choice- even if the overall piece isn't particularly memorable.
Of course, we all agree, what matters most in the end is that you describe the movie fairly so that the reader can judge whether he will like the movie regardless of whether you did, and you truly achieve that above all your competitors.
Well, this brings me to the subject of why I like movie reviews. I like to read them when a movie sucks, period. When I go and see a movie and I feel disappointed and frustrated afterwards, I find consolation in reading Ebert's review on it, laughing "together" on how terrible the movie was, shaking our heads in amused disbelief (even if not at the same time and place). That is, if Roger also hated the movie. What if he liked it? Then I say "C'mon, gimme a break" while reading the review. Reading a review you disagree with is not great satisfaction.
What if we both liked the movie? Then I'm off to reading one page of praise, nodding along somberly while reading. Okay, but it's not much fun either. Good news is not news, as a rich and famous guy said once.
It's all very logical when you read reviews for "consolation". And I'll never read a review for giving me advice on whether I should see a movie I haven't yet seen. All reviews contain spoilers, no matter how carefully written.
So bad movies are fun to read about, :-) so I hope Roger will keep'em coming!
A good friend of mine will ask me to look up a movie review; invariably I use your website, or if it's an older movie, Leonard Maltin's guide. I'll find it and start to read the review, and my friend will stop me and say "just tell me how many stars he gave it". I told him years ago that even Maltin's two or three sentence review can tell him more than a star rating ever could, but he insists on just wanting to know "how many stars, Wade".
I remedied the headache (mine, not his) by buying him a couple of guidebooks. I doubt he's read one word of the reviews.
I was comparing some of the movies on your Great Movies list with the original reviews you gave them. One that really surprises me is your original review of "Unforgiven." Initially you gave it 3 stars, and you didn't speak too favorably about it on Siskel & Ebert either, giving it what I would consider a mild Thumbs up. However, the film did make your Great Movies List. Did you have a change of heart after watching it again, or am I missing something?
Also, Are there any movies you can think of off the top of your head that made you completely rethink your initial review after seeing it for a second time or possibly just years later? This actually recently happened to me when I saw the 2004 documentary "Control Room" again.
Ebert: I was correcting my earlier opinion. On additional viewing, "Unforgiven" was a Great Movie.
Your 1972 review of Chaplin's 'The Great Dictator' was a suprise to me, and later you included it in the list of 'Great Movies'.
Do you feel that many old films makes u to rethink ?
One that really surprises me is your original review of "Unforgiven."
If I remember correctly, I think Roger had given a middling "thumbs up" review to Unforgiven on the show. Then at the end of the year it turned up on his ten best list at which time he explained that at the time of the initial release he was distracted by his upcoming nuptials, saw the film again later and was able to appreciate it.
I actually like the star system. It's nice when browsing your reviews to see 'oh, he liked that one a lot!', or 'wow, he hated this one, I'd better read the review'. In that respect it's definitely a handy tool for a database as large as yours.
Here's what I do. I see just about every movie you gave 4 stars to (long ago I found that we had similar taste in movies -- so why not let you do the screening for me?). I read your review *after* I see the movie. I love doing it that way. You always have great insights.
I don't think it has anything to do with "getting older" and acquiring a sunnier disposition. I think we've just gone through 3 or 4 years of particularly strong movies.
I prefer the 4 star system because people want a "yes" or "no". 3 means it's good, 4 is great, and everything under 3 cannot have "good" describe it. A 2.5 can have "good parts" or "rewards", but 2.5 out of 4 to just about anyone means that it shouldn't be seen unless it's something you really, really want to see, or maybe wait for video.
In the last few years, I've given more than 20 movies a 4 star grade every year. Usually I'm at no more than 15 or so, except for maybe two or three different years in the 90's.
And Roger reflects this trend. Go to the archives and punch up all the 4 star movies of the 90's and then of the 00's, and try to tell me this isn't some kind of special decade, with 2002 as the catalyst year, with a grab bag of documentaries, foreign films, independent gems, and Hollywood blockbusters sprinkled on every year's list.
I think a lot of critics don't fully open themselves up to a movie. They sit there judging every moment, turning the proceedings into a futile academic experience. This is why many critics can successfully tell us what a movie is about and successfully explain why they liked it or not, but fail at ever getting to the heart of a movie and conveying "how it's about". I find many critics to have subtle prejudices as well, and so when a certain kind of movie comes along, you can predict beforehand that they won't like it, because in their real lives, it's not something they would actually want to see. Which makes Roger an anomaly; he just wants to see anything that's good, and the jury is out until after he's seen the whole thing.
My moviegoing has been dramatically shaped by that philosophy, and I don't think it makes me like bad movies. It just gives me a clearer appreciation of everything I'm watching. It also doesn't hurt that the last 6 years in movies have represented the strongest streak of really good movies in my 32 yr-old life so far.
I've noticed that the number of films you are reviewing appears to be down, and that you are selecting films that are probably of more interest to you, and therefore getting better reviews. I'm happy that you are losing fewer two hour chunks of your life to dreck, but then we don't get to read the fun barbs that made up your last book.
Ebert: Huh? I'm reviewing virtually everything that opens.
Here's hoping you don't stop reading comments past the 58 mark. :-)
Mr. Ebert, the fact that you listed your #6 possibility so far down the list is what compelled my to write this comment.
I'll get to the point: The reason I consider you my main source to decide whether I want to see a movie or not is precisely the "generic expectations" quality of your opinion. You always qualify and explain why you're giving such rating (stars or thumbs, doesn't matter) and (here's what makes you special) what AUDIENCE that movie is more likely to please. With that information, all I need to decide is if I'm in the mood for that kind of movie. Easy and accurate!
Mr. Ebert,
I found this post very intriguing and before I continue I'd like to say, if I haven't already that I appreciate what you have added to the film world as a whole. I have learned so much through your insights and have often desired the opportunity to correspond merely to tell you that you have had an impact on my life...
This entry of yours resonates highly with my own experience with reading reviews, yours primarily and all others second. On my "igoogle" homepage, where I have a selection of links to websites, I have yours right above the metacritic site. A few years back I was primarily a metacritic guy. I picked up on this system from a tip and found it to be (of course) the perfect, post-modern way to find out what movies are REALLY good. As I read down the page of one liners I sometimes was upset or bitter about what critics said about movies I enjoyed, but almost always I found what you said came from a place I could understand, so I typically was led to following the link to your page. I remember a time (I think before metacritic) that I saw "the life of david gale" and found it sickening. I visited several reviewers and still remember how you said that it was morally corrupt and shameless (or something of that nature) and it really helped me understand why i found it so bad. And through the years I have had the struggle with understanding film by reading critics opinions I respected (and of course READING the reviews). Your discussion of the star rating system is fascinating, yet I want to applaud you for how you say:
" I like movies too much. I walk into the theater not in an adversarial attitude, but with hope and optimism"
Though I value critics opinions more than many (most of my friends/family seem to turn up a nose at the prospect of even caring what critics have to say) I have come to believe that most critics are downright cranky. There are several movies I saw this past year that you gave favorable, though not outrageous reviews for. Though most were received unfavorably by a "metascore", I remember appreciating your take on movies like Get Smart, the sisterhood of the traveling pants 2, bella and others...I think if I were a movie critic (God please!) I would probably have a significantly higher meta-rating than most. I too LOVE the movies. If it was a good experience I'm going to endorse it as such. Why even be in the movie review business if you don't like most of the movies you go see? Of all of the facets of your reviewing I find most endearing (which is many), it is your sheer love of film that I am most drawn to. There's a line from your review of my favorite movie of the past decade "The Best of Youth" that is featured on the metacritic site that has stayed with me for the 3 years since I first read it...
"It is a luxury to be enveloped in a good film"
This "luxury" has become one of the major goals of my life.
If the 4-star system allows for film to be rated no stars, isn't then 2 stars a middle rating, with 2.5 being a mildly positive review? In other words, isn't 0-4 the same thing as 1-5?
I, for one, am glad Roger Ebert seems to like a lot of movies. I'm also glad to read of a professional critic who goes into the vast majority of films hoping to enjoy them. Isn't that what we want from him?
I have friends who tell me "I never read the reviews." I recently got into an argument with one of them about it. I say that sometimes a review will help me decide about a movie I am a bit on the fence on whether or not to spent $9 at the theater or wait for it to show up on cable or in Netflix. At the same time, reviews have highlighted movies that I might have missed (The Proposition, comes to mind, one of my favorites of recent years).
Roger, when it comes to your reviews, most times I tend to agree, but there have been differences. I don't feel this discounts you as a film critic or me as a film fan. I think your writing is thoughtful and interesting and enjoy just reading the reviews. Even if I come to a different conclusion upon seeing the movie, I still liked the reviews.
I guess, in the end, the stars don't pay a huge amount into whether or not I see the movie. I actually try to READ the review and see the reasoning behind it. Even in a generally bad review there may be something within the critique that makes me decide I want to see that movie at some point.
In my mind, you can never have too much information. Still, a person does need to eventually come to their own conclusion. A critic can just help them weigh their options and assist with those decisions.
When I was hired to review movies for a local radio station 11 years ago, I decided to poke some fun at the standard rating system. Although I used the typical structure of the star-rating system, I eliminated the actual stars and each week replaced them with something movie-specific. (For instance, I recently awarded "Get Smart" 3-and-a-half shoe phones.)
People seemed to get the joke, but over the years, it's taken on a life of its own locally. I am often stopped on the street by people who say things like, "I missed your review of 'Tropic Thunder.' What did you give it?" I reply, "Three-and-a-half." Their response is always the same: "No, I mean, three-and-a-half what?"
Although the rating system is annoying and inexact, it seems that people fundamentally like the simplicity and even the gimmickiness of it. I've long considered abandoning it myself, but I figure that if the readers/listeners like it, then perhaps it serves some purpose, despite the obvious setbacks.
You should take the complaint that you rate things too highly as a compliment. It means, as you said, that you actually like movies. I review movies for a website, and I've found there's way too much of a trend among no-name online reviewer peers to just give everything the biggest bashing of its life. To still have enthusiasm about movies after a long career, when some people actively try not to be enthusiastic right from the start, is something I hope for myself.
I think stars and the like are most useful as a way of deciding rather I should read the entire review or not. If I'm already interested in a movie before it comes out, then I will read the reviews for it. But if I haven't heard of a movie, or have little interest in it, then a high score grabs my attention and I'll read the review to find out more. A low score for these movies means that I can skip the review without missing anything.
Pitchforkmusic.com, currently the most reputed critical voice in popular music, has a scale of 1 to 10 that is parsed by tenths. It's totally absurd, but readers know to pay attention if an album receives anything past an 8.0. My sense is that they have some sort of system if a reviewer wants to rate an album beyond this score, which will put it on their "Recommended" or "Best New Music" lists. When the site gives a score of this kind, it literally breaks bands: Arcade Fire, Wolf Parade, Band of Horses, etc. etc.
Any critical voice that is respected will ultimately define its own "highly recommended" area within a ratings system. Viewers experience highly recommended works for themselves, and gradually discover whether or not their views generally accord with those of the critic.
Much like Roger, Pitchfork has also delved into the past to weave a tapestry of great works that condition its tastes in the present, with (as much as I hate Top-10s or Top-100s) solid lists of records from different decades. This is a crucial critical activity: understanding the history of the art that you evaluate.
All this plays into the authority of a given critic's score or opinion. I'll admit that 3 Ebert stars do not motivate me highly to spend 11 dollars on a film. 4 are more persuasive.
One important issue is that ideally there should be much more to criticism than a recommendation for consumption or not. That is merely the business end of art. Criticism also consists in careful evaluation that goes beyond even an assessment of quality. Even a bad film can be parsed in a way that enriches us about our culture, the world, or the medium itself. This would be why those of us in the comments section generally read Ebert's WHOLE reviews, not just the rating...
My advice to anyone who complains about the rating system, if you are that big of a movie fan like me: get to know your favorite reviewers. Through time I think I've really learned more or less what an Ebert 4 star review stands for: something really worthwhile watching (specially if the makers and theme are of interest to me) but if I want to learn more, I better read the whole review.
Asides from reading Ebert on a constant basis, every year I buy the Leonard Maltin movie guide and, considering he gives 4 stars to about one movie a year, I know THAT is one movie which I can not afford to miss. Then again he gives 4 stars to tons of old movies which, upon seeing I don't think are all that good, in other words, every reviewer gives the star system his own personality and it's up to the reader to get acquainted with it.
Which of these 2 examples do I like more ? I have to go with Ebert, it's easier to appreciate someone who loves his job, perhaps a little more than he should.
Ratings systems are fictive categories, as such they will always be an abstraction from the experience of viewing a film. These arbitrary systems cannot express that films LIVE in our lives, they are not inert objects. We may love a film because it comforts us, and watch it consistently because it does so, even though we don't believe it is one of "The Greats." The dynamic between viewer and film changes over time, as the viewer sees more films, lives through certain experiences, or reads more about movies (or even life) in general. No rating will reveal either the internal complexity, nor our ever-evolving relationship to it in our lives. Films are, if we invite them to be, active agents in our lives, and shouldn't be treated with the indignity of clumsy and subjective categorization. It's no less an insult than rating the features of a lover's face.
I grew up with the Little Man rating system in the Fairbanks (Alaska) Daily News Miner. I loved that system and had completely forgotten about it until you mentioned it.
I have mixed feelings about the Netflix system because of the fact that it quantifies what the stars mean. I don't always "really like" a movie that I give a four star rating too. Sometimes, I thought the film was simply okay but I recognized that it was made very well and I just can't bring myself to only give it three stars. I can't say that I "loved" Cries and Whispers but it certainly screamed five stars to me when I went to rate it in Netflix. I think I was more fascinated and emotionally bruised by it than in love with it and I can't think of anybody who I'd actually recommend it to. Still a five star film though.
Roger, I know you rail against the star system that you are forced to use but I have to tell you that I like having it there as a barometer. I tend to read your reviews after I've seen a film. In the case of new films, I often haven't heard about a lot of what is coming out and seeing a four star rating attached to a new movie gives me reason to throw it in my Netflix Queue. Usually, I'll open your review and read the opening an closing paragraphs - just enough to get a sense for how you felt about the film without actually learning anything about its plot, etc.
You say "If we completely disagree, my words might nevertheless be useful or provocative." YES! This is one of the things I like best about your writing. You have a knack for making me understand what you, or somebody else, might have seen in a film that I didn't appreciate on the same level as you. Honestly, you're eloquent analysis are probably largely to blame for a lot of my Netflix ratings jumping from three to four. You rate things a little higher than most but you always have a good argument for doing so.
Roger,
Many good points, particularly about the need to read the whole review and not just the star rating. I sometimes despair of the American attention span.
I have consistently read your reviews, not because I see you as an "easy grader," but because you still remember what it's like to be a movie VIEWER. I read too many critics who seem to be looking down their nose at the unwashed or trying to write their masters' thesis, when all I really want to know is "Is this film worth going to for most of us?" With gas and ticket prices these days, that's not an unimportant question to answer.
As far as the stars themselves, my expectations were formed in my high school years by roleplaying game reviewer Rick Swan. This is how I remember his ratings (paraphrased heavily, it's been a while):
Five stars -- Masterpiece. A great work that should hold its value over time. (Equivalent of a "Great Movie")
Four stars -- Excellent game. Anyone who enjoys roleplaying at all should enjoy this.
Three stars -- Good game. If you enjoy the genre, you'll love this game, but even if it's not your usual style, it'll still give you a pleasant evening or two. A few issues, but nothing crippling.
Two stars -- OK game. People who enjoy the genre can make it work for an evening, but most people won't want to bother. Issues that can make the game difficult to play except for a dedicated fan.
One star -- Bad game. Even the most dedicated fans of the genre won't have the patience for this. Requires major surgery to be even close to playable.
Zero stars -- A mess. No redeeming value whatsoever.
Change "game" to "movie" and make a few other minor edits, and you've got how I've read movie ratings for the last 20 years or so.
Mr. Ebert,
How do you approach a film made strictly for children? I ask because I remember in your recent "3D" column you mentioned (with some relief) that you were able to avoid seeing "Fly Me To The Moon"
I was not so lucky. My son (6) and daughter (3) insisted on seeing it.
I was bored to tears, definitely a "sleeping little man." But my kids LOVED it, as did all the other kids in the theater. They were laughing and reacting to the film in a very positive manner.
It wasn't a good movie by any standard an adult would use. But the kids loved it. So how would you rate it?
Do you really think that you rate higher than other critics?
I've honestly never thought that.
I agree with you sometimes, I disagree sometimes. I liked "Dirty Dancing," to which you gave one star. You gave, I believe, 3 stars to "Entrapment," on which I would have walked out if movie prices weren't so high. I agreed with you on "16 Blocks" (you gave it 3 stars). I disagreed on "Firewall" (also 3 stars from you, but I saw it at home and refused to finish it).
Some things about films are (kinda) objective (bad dialogue, unclear storyline, "gross out" content that has no obvious purpose other than to "gross out," etc.), but how you react to a film is subjective. Could it simply be that when your colleagues, and to a lesser degree your public, simply objectify the subjective more than you do?
*shrugs*
Write on. Anyone who at this point thinks that the star system represents anything other than a subjective, "in the moment" reaction to a movie is.....Well, they just haven't been reading very carefully.
-Nighthawk
You sir are a national treasure. I told someone today that when I'm lying on my deathbed, I want them to read me your articles. Your contribution to society has been so large, even if all it has done is to affect me so deeply. Thank you for all you do, and get well soon!
If, as Mr. Siskel said, people want to know whether to see a movie or not first, wouldn't a three-star system be a better one?
Three stars: Might be brilliant or just worth seeing. In any event, see it.
Two stars: Might be worth seing, but your mileage may vary. Possibly worth it, but maybe wait for DVD.
One star: Whether it's a good idea not done quite right or an outright stink-burger, skip this one.
How about ditching the ratings system altogether? I think you've said that the ratings system is something that's been forced on you by editors/tradition, but you are probably the one movie critic in America that can do whatever he wants without worrying that his newspaper editor is going to tell him to take a hike.
A little insight into one reader that might be useful. I look at your stars first. If its 2.5 or above, I'll still consider seeing the movie. I'll start to skim through your review often reading the first and last paragraph. When skimming I look to see if there's a plot discussion or more of an analysis. If plot discussion I quickly exit. I hate spoilers. If its mostly analysis I'll read in more depth to decide. I hate reading in a review 'one moment that made me laugh was when...' because then I wait for that moment, possibly missing other moments or being disappoited when it comes because it then comes off as predictable. Or 'the ending was a mess' causes me to be enjoying a movie but awaiting this mess of an ending, and hoping it isn't so.
If I choose to see the movie I then do. Then I come back after the movie, and reread the review and fully this time. The review either helps to answer questions I had about the movie, helps me to sort through some opinions, and helps me to gauge my reliance on the review to indicate if I will like the movie or not.
One thing I have found to be generally true is that when there is a heavy dose of plot discussion in the review, the movie didn't inspire you all that much. When movies inspire you, you seem to skip over the summaries of the plot that people can find elsewhere, and instead focus on what you loved or hated about it.
Lastly, the only area I've find disagreeance with you and your star system (we can disagree on the quality/enjoyment of movies, and what deserves what's rating, no use in arguing over it of course) is the amount of 4 stars. I just have a hard time with it. However, I haven't seen many of those movies because they didn't get to our arthouse theater, or haven't been on DVD yet so I can't actually disagree about them! I only disagree because conceptually I can't imagine that there are that many 4 star movies released yearly. I think you are more giving of that 4th star than many other critics. Personally, as a music critic, I rarely give our 5th star (I hate stars too)as I want to only give it for something that becomes a classic. Classics are rarely instant, and often can only be given later on in the life of the movie and the viewer, repeated listens/views being necessary. However, due to your Great Movies list I no longer regard your 4th star as indicitation that it is a classic, so much as it is an indication that on a first view you had a great experience.
I like your idea of relativity in movies. It's important to remember that movies are for entertainment, and some very rare ones are like food, they feed your soul and brain. A movie can be a good romantic comedy, a good horror movie, a good zombie movie, and get a well-deserved 3 stars or maybe even 4 stars in my book if it's a good sci-fi. I like that stars represent the gap between expectations for that movie and the realization of those expectations. As the gap gets bigger, stars get dimmer. I recently watched August Rush, that little movie which lacks all the logical explanations and throws itself to its own premise. I loved it. I was genuinely engaged in it, it suspended my disbelief with its childish sincerity. I also liked Definitely, Maybe; In Her Shoes, The Holiday which were good romantic comedies that didn't assume I was a moron. Not like Maid of Honor. So I am glad that you're giving higher stars for those movies because they accomplish what they are set out to do. I am glad they exist, but they are not soul food either.
I like the four-to-zero-in-half-star increments because it provides a nice feel for the flavor of the film when see in context with other reviews. Too many gradations is harder to get a grip on; too few gives you little flexibility. This is how I've seen it:
4: Essential
3 1/2: Noteworthy
3: Appealing / worthwhile
2 1/2: Flawed but interesting
2: Flawed
1 1/2: Deeply flawed
1: Woefully problematic - the concept of the movie itself is serious in question here
1/2: Laughable
0: Contemptible
I don't think you give too many stars and it helps knowing how much you enjoyed it as a whole. A film can still be good, but not very good or bad and earn 2 and a half stars. Like, Little Children, as you pointed out: "Little Children" is far from a bad movie, but it's not as deep and subtly disturbing as Fields' "In the Bedroom" or as infernally funny as Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor's film adaptation of Perrotta's novel Election. I didn't like any of these characters, but I kept pulling for them anyway -- right up to the shock-o-riffic ending, when I felt I'd been sucker-punched.
I do think that even films that disturb you should get some credit, like WOLF CREEK for example. Not only is it one of the best true horror films since the original THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, it's stylistic, well-acted, and all too effective, which makes it succeed as a true horror film. The only movie in my opinion that you awarded too high of a score would be The Mummy 3, but hey, that's your opinion. That IS what a film critic is, anyway: to give someone their opinion of a movie.
You'll forgive me, Mr. Ebert, if I actually like the four-star rating system, though you can be sure that if I am interested in a movie, I never take the star-rating at face value. The stars are meaningless unless you read the review.
Why I like them? Most simply, they organize the opinion of the critic and are useful in making comparisons. For instance, if you enjoy the work of a particular director, the star ratings throughout his or her career might spark a discussion. Why does this Scorsese film merit 3.5, while several others earn 4? Why does David Lynch merit 4 stars for one picture, and a lowly 1 star for another? Of course, you need to read the review the find out, but it's a good place to start.
They're also helpful to organize opinions more broadly. You say that the one and four-star ratings are easy. They're helpful to us as well. Which movies did Roger Ebert really hate? Which did he truly love? Your books of negative reviews consist of ratings of 1.5 stars and lower, and that is certainly a fair standard of extreme dislike. In the same way, if we seek a terrific Ebert recommendation, we can search the stars and then read the review to find out why. I know you dread the stars, but I'm grateful that you use them. They aren't the be-all-end-all of film criticism, and they can arbitrary at times, but they are useful.
I myself use the four-star rating system to organize my opinions. And I think I can read the stars just as Mick LaSalle reads the mind of the little man:
4 Stars - This is a great film, unequivocally. The film affects you in a special way. You know a four-star movie when you see one.
3.5 Stars - This is a very good film, and there is something special about it that you admire, even though it does not quite ascend to greatness. A 3.5-star film may be an otherwise 4-star film with deficits, or a 3-star film that is more accomplished than perhaps its material would indicate.
3 Stars - A good film, but not without its problems. You recommend this film, but there are probably better ways to spend two hours of your time.
2.5 Stars - Close but no cigar. This is a film that has much to admire, but much holding it back. You may find much to like or even love, but not enough to outweigh your reservations.
2 Stars - Not a good film, but watchable. This film is certainly not good enough to recommend, but not so bad that prospective viewers should run away screaming.
1.5 Stars - This is where a critic starts to resent a movie for wasting his time. This film is definitively bad, though perhaps falls short of the critic yanking his hair out by the follicles. Possibly there is a character or performance or scene you admire (or pity), but you wish it were in a better movie than this.
1 Star - Terrible. No redeeming value.
0.5 Stars - The bottom of the barrel. So cynical or inept in its making that you consider writing a strongly worded letter to the studio, the producers, the writer, director, maybe even the craft service people.
0 Stars - Abominable. Beneath the bottom of the barrel. I agree with your assessment that this should be limited to films that offend you on a moral level. I have given this rating to only one feature film to date: "Bratz: The Movie," which in addition to being badly written, directed, and acted was a celebration of materialism aimed at impressionable young girls (sample dialogue: "I love the smell of retail in the morning!"). A film with this rating is hazardous to your health.
Roger, about you reviewing virtually everything that opens...
Righteous Kill opened this past week didn't it?
Not that I care you didn't review it.
By the way, thank you for responding to Rex Reed's comments. That guy never fails to come off as a moron.
And thank you for defending TIFF in general.
Ebert: I would have reviewed "Righteous Kill," but the studio didn't show it to critics in advance, and when it opened I was at TIFF. I want to see it because I want to learn why a movie co-starring DeNiro and Pacino would fail to win the studio's confidence!
Mr. Ebert,
Too many stars? I guess I have to admit a bias - I've been reading and listening to your work for nearly 30 years (I think that makes me a fan). I've developed enough familiarity with your writing to know when my own opinion will agree or differ from yours, no matter how many thumbs, stars or little men you may give.
I read movie reviews by Roger Ebert because I value and trust Roger Ebert's opinion and perspective. I couldn't give two toots about Metacritic or whatever the website-of-the day says.
Here's to the next 30 years!
You should read Jeffrey Zeldmans article "'Maybe' is one option too many" regarding the "true middle position. A great read.
http://www.zeldman.com/2007/06/20/remove-maybe-from-invitation-systems/
What I'd like to see is a grid rating system, though I'd have to give a little thought to the axes....
For example, one axis might be how interesting the story is, and the other axis might be how well the story is told. A movie like Lars and the Real Girl, for example, would be in the middle of the "interesting" scale but really high on the "how well told" scale.
Hmm...ok, so the first axis needs to be refined a bit...but anyway, instead of a linear scale (1 to 5) we have two scales, each 1 to 5, to provide a bit more depth.
At one time, my friends and I had a movie rating system based on the price of admission (sort of like, skip the first-run theaters, see it when it hits the $2 theaters, when they used to exist, like the good ol' Patio on Irving Park near Austin....)
I'm surprised that the extremes - four stars, one star - are the easiest ratings to give. Actually, I take that back. I'm surprised that four star reviews are easy to give. Sometimes I know instantly when I loved a movie. Other times I'm lukewarm to simmering after first seeing a movie; I could restrain myself to three and a half stars for plenty of movies. I guess it's the snob in me. I always want to explain away why a movie isn't great.
The reason that "The Women" scores less than SATC is than "The Women" held a treasured placed in the hearts of people who care about film. SATC, though often entertaining on television, could only move up in stature. It's an expectations game.
I write online film essays for the humanities department at the university where I work/teach as an academic resource, and early on I decided to incorporate the four-star rating system as some sort of general guideline for my reviews. I actually considered them sort of thesis statements prefacing my artcles, sort of saying, "This film scored this rating, and here's why." I later incorporated a "fifth star," reserved for great films that have stood the test of time and are now considered classics (similar, I suppose, to your invaluable "Great Movies" column).
In retrospect, it was a bad idea. I get more emails from my readers infuriated over some of my ratings then I get responses to words that I actually wrote. It's frustrating, for reasons that you've actually stated in your review of Harmony Korine's "Mister Lonely:" "I wish there were a way to write a positive two-star review." Well...exactly. The rating system is an instant handicap in which you off the bat let your reader know that you're not recommending the film, even though it's potentially a glorious failure worth seeing (just for the record, I liked "Mister Lonely," and I saw it based on your review). The star system has become a short cut that many readers seem to think is a substitute for our write-ups: Believe it or not (and I'm sure you'll believe it), I've many friends (including professors) who'll scan metacritic on a film, note the rating, mumble, "Oh, Ebert [or Travers, or Scott, etc.] didn't like it, how many stars did you give it?" ("Uh, two. But it still might be worth it to--") "Well, let's skip it." They don't even bother with the reviews anymore, so why are we going through the trouble of writing all these articles?
Well, because we know that many also DO read our words. And for the love of communicating our thoughts about an artform that we cherish. Every so often, I get an email or a student approaches me with something like, "I loved your thoughts on that film," and I smile, take a sip of my coffee, and get warm feelings in my heart that I actually DO have an audience. And that makes it worth it.
Now: In regards to the Great, Pulizer-Prize winning Roger Ebert (do you ever get tired of reading or writing Pulizer-Prize in front of your name?), what's the fuss? People shouldn't complain - at this point in your career, you've earned the right to give a film as many damn stars as you like, metacritic be damned. Werner Herzog dedicated a movie to you, for Christ's sakes.
Why would anybody bother to go see movies at all, when our economy is dying? Are we just trying to use the cinema to anesethetize ourselves? Shouldn't we all be panicking like a bunch of Chicken Littles?
I am more interested in the words in the review than the number of stars. Stars or numbers (or little men for that matter) are OK I suppose as a quick gauge, but I see them as too little information to base a decision on (I NEVER read book jacket liner notes until after I read the book, and then only to see how far off they are). I want to know if I can relate to the themes, topics, techniques, and execution of the movie. I give stars a 2.5 and wouldn't miss them if they were gone.
On another topic, anyone reading this who has not yet seen Brand on the Brain oughta (how's that for less information than stars even? Think themes, topics, technique, and execution).
While I don't always agree with your reviews, I always respect your opinion. When you give your opinion, you always back it up. Keep the stars because it helps me look for movies.
Mr. Ebert,
Years ago, I discovered that I agree with you on about 95% of the films you review, so I've come to rely on you as my movie-going touchstone. Now I know why this is. Like me, you actually LOVE loving films. People today seem so jaded; they love to hate things -- films, restaurants, books, you name it. I really look forward to reading your reviews because you give praise when appropriate, and you never look down your nose at films (or at your readers), even when you're highly critical. Occasionally, you even gush. I love that, because it shows us you're human.
(By the way, I completely agree with you about "The Women", but we'll have to agree to disagree on "Sex and the City"!)
Thanks, and all the best to you.
I feel that many critics (not Roger) have a star rating in mind before they set out to write their reviews. This often forces them to inflate the importance of a film's relative strengths or nitpick at its weaknesses. Many publications, including the British magazine Sight & Sound, eschew the star system altogether, which seems to give their reviewers the freedom to form nuanced opinions about the films under review without resorting to artificially counter-balanced arguments. Of course, this requires an investment of time and intellect from the reader.
I review for my college's paper and we use a five star system, but in my personal movie journal, I keep scores out of 10, 10's only going to films that, like you said, give a chill up the spine, and 0's to movies that are not only noxiously bad, but also offensive to me and my sensibilities. 5 is middle of the road mediocrity. I think it's far easier to rate a movie from such a wide variety of scores, including half points for movies I wasn't sure about, though I too am not a fan of the grading system. Most people ask me what I think of movies on that grading system though, and it's easier to say "7 out of 10. It was good" than it is to go into all the reasons why. I too find myself liking alot of movies, although I must admit that looking at my 2008 list, I've forgotten many of the films I gave positive reviews to.
I like reading positive reviews of movies that I didn't like because it gives me some perspective on what people liked about the film while I'm writing a review, and I like reading bad reviews of movies I liked for the same reason. I really appreciate that you like many films, Roger, because I often think that you are one of the few critics that actually has genuine affection for films in general and tries to find the positive in just about everything. It's refreshing to read a knowledgeable critic who isn't up his own ass all the time trying to sound smart and cultured.
Anyways, just for fun, here's my list of films and grades for 2008, just to give an idea of how my tastes skew.
10- The Dark Knight
9.5- Funny Games, WALL*E,
9- Cloverfield, Stop Loss, Iron Man, Tropic Thunder
8.5- Harold And Kumar 2, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Kung Fu Panda, Hamlet 2
8- Doomsday, Teeth, Wanted, Be Kind Rewind, Definitely Maybe, Pineapple Express
7.5- The Ruins, Indiana Jones 4, The Strangers,
7- Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day, Hancock, Hellboy 2, Step Brothers, Burn After Reading
6.5- In Bruges, Mamma Mia, The Bank Job,
6- Semi-Pro, 27 Dresses, The Air I Breathe, Get Smart,
5.5- Untraceable,
5- Vince Vaughns Wild West Comedy Show, The Signal, 21, Death Race
4.5- Wristcutters, The House Bunny
4- Run Fatboy Run, Superhero Movie, What Happens In Vegas, Bangkok Dangerous,
3.5- Vantage Point, The Happening
3- Jumper, Rambo, Righteous Kill
2.5- Strange Wilderness,
2- The Eye, He Was A Quiet Man, Diary of the Dead, Mirrors,
1.5- 88 Minutes, Prom Night, 10,000 BC,
1- The Hottie and the Nottie
0.5- One Missed Call
0- College
Critics could always consider a hundred point scale. Its large enough to allow docking points for minor flaws, but making it clear exactly how they feel. Whether they find a middling "70" a good score depends on
But then again, a point scale might be too scientific for something meant to play with your emotions.
(I made it wishy-washy so you can stay in your comfort zone)
Hi Roger,
Do you feel there is any relation between your ratings and your recent health issues? It seems to me that since your return to writing there was an increased enthusiasm for films - all films. (Perhaps I had just missed your writing style)
I always enjoyed when you and Gene Siskel would argue over a film - your disagreements were often where I'd find out if there was something about the film that would appeal to me. (Sometimes a 2.5 star film will fit a mood or maybe I just hadn't seen a better one in its genre for a while).
Also, a few people I know who are not fans of your reviews have complained about errors in your reviews or assert that you missed some key scene that explains what you found missing. (Usually it's the bloody horror film fans that have such complaints. Since that is a genre that I loath I have responded that you could have found it so boring that you might have dozed for a moment and missed another pointless beheading.)
Do you get many e-mails with complaints that you missed the mark on films? And how do you respond to them?
Thanks and Best Wishes
Don
Huntsville, AL
I write one movie review each week for the newspaper where I work, and I developed my own rating system. The rankings I give are:
See it tonight.
See it before it leaves theaters.
See it if someone else pays.
See it on DVD.
See it on TV during a bout of insomnia.
See it only if it can't be avoided.
Most movies rank in the "see it before it leaves theaters" and "see it if someone else pays" categories. "See it tonight" is very rare, and "see it only if it can't be avoided" is also rare, but slightly more common than "See it tonight."
I liked your comment about liking movies too much. I absolutely love seeing movies at the theater, and I usually walk in with an open mind, even with movies that don't deserve it (like "Witless Protection" starring Larry the Cable Guy, which ended up being truly as awful as I'd feared). I also agree with the idea of at least looking at whether a movie did what it set out to do. That's always an important aspect of movies to me.
Anyway, keep writing great reviews! I do look at your star ratings, but I pay much more attention to what you actually say. I don't always agree with your opinions, but I always see where you're coming from!!
Mr. Ebert: All well and good, but you still haven't explained how that phoned-in remake of THE LONGEST YARD deserved even the qualified favorable reviews it got from you,in print and on the tube. I tried looking up your review of the original, but it wasn't in the archive, meaning either (a) you never saw the original, or (b) your web people deleted the review for reasons unknown. I can only ascribe your admittedly low-end praise for the remake to your not having seen the original again, if only for comparison purposes; I have yet to meet anyone who has seen both who believes the remake even desrves marks for trying - and this is not limited to the older among us. Submitted with respect.
Ebert: I think your question will be answered if you read the first three paragraphs of the review.
I also like two other things you have said:
1. A movie is not about what happens, but how it happens.
2. A bad movie is always too long. A good movie is never long enough.
I wonder what your opinion is on the Onion AV Club's rating system. It's funny how a satirical newspaper can have some of the harshest critics in the business; hardly ever do I see an "A" movie. I've never seen an "A+". Most films they review fall in the "B-" and "C" categories. Some of the best movies of the summer, including some you've awarded four stars too, have fallen in this range, but the bar seems set pretty high; "Man On Wire", which I loved and agreed with you was a 4 star film, earns a "B-"!
I had to come back upon remembering a rather strange situation concerning reviews.
I had a guide that I had bought in the mid-1980's, and it concerned albums of all genres of music. It gave zero to 5 star ratings. Fairly standard stuff, until it got to the albums of John Coltrane. Of course, some of his albums had 2 stars, 3, several 4's, and many 5 star ratings. But a notation at the beginning of his entry noted that the star ratings were simply to be used to compare one Coltrane album against another, that an album given 3 stars in that context could easily garner a 5 star rating if it had been made by, say, Coleman Hawkins or Stan Getz.
Is that a double standard when writing reviews? It would seem to me that quality, whether pertaining to albums or movies, should be judged on the context of whether whatever's being reviewed is worthy of praise or not.
On the other hand, I am the first to admit that I will sometimes pick a second-rate Hitchcock or Scorsese film over other films that may rate a higher rating.
Ebert: Never thought of it that way, but why not? Sometimes a movie becomes a Great Movie even though I have bypassed other titles that were higher on that year's "best 10 list."
On that note, I have a question for you, how exactly do you choose films for your Great Movies column? Is it just the films that you feel like talking about at the time? Have you ever added a film to that column that you initially resisted?
I figured I'd ask while we're on the subject of a "system".
Actually I use stars not to pick which movies I want to see, but to pick which reviews I want to read. It's fun reading stuff on the level of "Your Movie Sucks". But I also enjoy reading a good critic describe the wonders of a film they rated very highly.
I have my own personal criteria for which films I'll watch.
I fall into the category of people who read reviews post viewing. Not because I care much about spoilers (too jaded), but I want to compare my own opinion with someone else's - albeit someone with perhaps a far more experienced opinion than mine.
This is why I do depend a lot on the star system as well rottentomatoes.com, yet at the same time I mistrust ratings. Especially the idea that a film's worth can be boiled down to a mechanically calculated percentage. But they are useful if you want to get an idea of whether you may like a film before you spend time and money on it.
This system works for me, because I want to watch as much of what is out there as I can. However, like you, I do find westerns and b&w movies intrinsically more appealing. Not just classic film noir, but any director who is willing to make his movie in b&w in 2008 is already making a statement about the direction of his work. To a lesser extent, I feel the same about modern directors who don't believe that the western is dead.
By the way, those pieces of chicken on sticks in peanut sauce are sate ayam - a dish indigenous to Indonesia, from where I type these comments.
I can't think of any newspaper in Australia that uses anything other than a 5-star system. I remember being quite astonished at the 4-star rating you used and thought it was kind of prehistoric. Then I discovered that the majority of critics in America use it. I remember comparing it to Americans not accepting the metric system (I'm sure you have your reasons). You have speculated in the past that you might be keen to try a 5-star rating system and I have speculated as to how that would change your whole system, but then I also wouldn't get the plethora of 4-star and 3 1/2-star recommendations on movies I never had any expectations for. Don't worry, I read the reviews. But your take on an outdated rating system is so unique that I treasure it.
By the way, in response to your preference for certain genres, is it fair to say that you're not a great fan of the period fantasy movie (e.g.: "The Lord of the Rings")? I don't disagree with your preference for science fiction and film noir (perhaps the culmination of both genres was "Dark City"...I find it fascinating how such disparate genres find inspiration in each other), but do you think perhaps you're not as taken with stories concerning mythological beings and the like as you are with certain other archetypes? And typically you prefer a satirical take on such stories (e.g.: "Beowulf").
"1. I like movies too much. I walk into the theater not in an adversarial attitude, but with hope and optimism (except for some movies, of course). I know that to get a movie made is a small miracle, that the reputations, careers and finances of the participants are on the line, and that hardly anybody sets out to make a bad movie. I do not feel comfortable posing as impossible to please."
This is a big reason why I (and most people, I suspect) value your criticism more highly than other critics. You have a healthy respect for the artists. You're not too lenient on them - you just refuse to treat them like preschoolers in your classroom, to be scolded or expelled. I dislike critics who give the snarky, selfish impression that they're better than the films they review. I'm not averse to honest, constructive criticism, but to this distorted belief that they have to hate the majority of what they watch to be discerning enough to appreciate "genius." The people who are giving you flak for your high star ratings are the people who've bought into this condescending approach to watching cinema.
Which system you use means little to me. The fact that you do use one and stick with it allows us to connect with you in an additional facet to the actual review itself. If you want to start including various pieces of fruit for how sexy the film is or varying sizes of dog leavings for how many animals appear, it wouldn't hurt a thing...
Roger,
If we are talking about film star ratings, it would be worth mentioning Leslie Halliwell's system. Both bad movies and average movies rate no stars at all under the Halliwell system. Star ratings start being given for movies that are in some way above average. I guess a Halliwell "1 star" would be equivalent to a "3 star" according to the San Fransisco system. It is very good for ranking films that have some merit. On the other hand a lot (I imagine) of specks of cinematic gold get missed in the unrated and unwashed. Also, despite what the introduction to his films books claim, I get the impression that he (or perhaps its his successors) does not greatly enjoy movies. Halliwell has awarded no movie 4 stars since "Bonnie and Clyde" in 1967.
I guess that is why I enjoy reading your criticism, even of bad movies.
Speaking of which, I would love to see you do a review of "High Noon". I realise its not one you rate highly (or are just not overly fond of?). Nevertheless, even a negative review can be illuminating - like the one you did on "To Kill a Mockingbird". That one opened my eyes. (Book I would like to read one day: "Great Movies I Didn't Like" - 12 respected film analysing an acknowledged "Great Movie" that they did not like. OK. OK. A man can dream can't he?)
I think Siskel had it right. The ultimate decision is binary. Should I see the movie or not? Whether the rating scale is 4-stars, (with or without 1/2 stars), 100 points, 1,000 quatloos, or a floating point value between zero and one with infinite precision, the quandry still remains -- Should I see this movie? Additional precision on the rating is superfluous.
BTW, I've always found it quite amusing that 4 star system with half-stars is really a 9 star system in disguise. That is, you have 9 possible states: 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, and 4. So, why not use integer numbers 0 thru 9 instead? Is that too much detail? If so, then 0 to 4 in half-star increments is also too much detail. When you renormalize, it's all the same.
In the end, I agree with your bottom line -- "Read the review."
Through the years, on many occasions, I have watched movies with neutral expectations, and left the theater feeling either invigorated or cheated. In other words, 4 stars or 1 star, no doubt about it.
On a few occasions, I have happened upon these films again years later, and have found that my opinion has changed drastically, and I have to wonder if my state of mind at the time of a viewing is to be trusted.
What I'm trying clumsily to ask is, whether or not you've re-visited a film and found that you were disagreeing with yourself in your original review? It would seem unlikely that a 4 star movie would become a 1 star movie, but perhaps a 1 star film occasionally gathers a couple more stars.
I think there are two reasons that you didn't mention that also contribute to your "higher" ratings. One is that you have writen a produced screenplay. You understand film not just from the outside as a"professional appreciator" - as they said in High Fidelity - but from the inside as well.
The other is that you reserve the Zero Star review for films that are truly offensive, or evil. This means you star with a base lineof above 1 star for a truly horrible, terrible movie, that is not offensive. This would automatically bring you 1/2 a star higher than critics who will give zero stars to a film without redeeming qualities, but also without offensive qualities.
I applaud your movement to remove the star system. To grade a subjective thing on an objective scale, is like trying to write an equation for Joy.
I've seen you use the expression 'stars are relative, not absolute' before, and was always confused by it (must be the mathematics minor in me). I think of it as the opposite. Your star ratings would be 'relative' if you felt any 3 star movie was better than a 2.5 star movie, in which case, you'd be saying that "The Longest Yard" remake is better than "The Life Aquatic", or that you enjoyed the former more than the latter. But I'm not sensing that from you. I'm thinking that there may actually be cases where you enjoyed a 2.5 more than a three.
If it was 'absolute', it would bear no relationship to other films and what you rated them.
Or perhaps by 'relative', you are playing on a paraphrase of Alvy Singer and Annie Hall discussing their sex life:
Person 3: "How did Ebert rate it?"
Person 1: "He loved it - gave it 2.5 stars"
Person 2: "Hated it - he gave it 2.5 stars"
Dear Roger,
as always, excellent and insightful post. Thanks so much. I agree with you that people tend to want "up" or "down" recommendations. I was that way too. I had seen dozens of movies across many genres and could rank them all with the star system. I could even emotionally sense when to use the 2.5 star rating for movies that I ultimately didn't like and was disappointed by--the kind that almost made it, but not quite.
Then this past year while reviewing movies for the Mace & Crown, I came across the Christina Ricci movie "Penelope". Without going into too much detail, I had finally found a movie I was completely, absolutely neutral about. I couldn't recommend it, but I couldn't disqualify it either. I ultimately gave the film a 2.5 star review in print, but wrote my review in such a way to explain why I could be so precisely in the middle on it.
I do like the star system, but I haven't rationalized how to avoid the difference between a 2.5 movie and a true "sideways" movie. Perhaps a hybrid of the star and the Little Man systems would work? I dunno. At the end of the day, I just hope that people will know enough to look past the star reviews and pay attention to what I've written about the film. Movies are much too complex and important for each to be neatly categorized and tucked away in a simple rating. They deserve words, not numbers or symbols, to describe their merits.
Stars, thumbs and written reviews never really conveyed to me what I needed to know about a movie unless I saw your review on television. Watching you on tv for nearly 30 years, I could tell by your enthusiastic expressions and glowing remarks that that was the movie to go see.
On a tangent, Gene Siskel gave a thumbs up to the movie Broken Arrow. After he listened to you about how the film was too long and boring, he decides to give the film thumbs down on-the-air. You both abhorred the next movie on the same show, Black Sheep, and Gene admitted he walked out of the theatre before the movie ended. Again, that told me volumes about these two movies, minus the stars, after watching your show on television!
While you say there's never any doubt about a 4 star review, I'm sure there is for a lot of critics. There seems to be an almost unattainable quality to the way some critics ever so slightly ration out their highest grade, and I'm sure it's a large part of why your Metacritic average is higher than most. I've always admired your willingness to give out four stars, since it shows your love of film and your desire to share a worthy discovery with the public. (And, of course, you always articulate why that film deserves that rating.)
Also, while you somewhat rail against the editors' need for an out-of-four star system, you are lucky that you're able to hone that system to your liking and give out 4-star ratings to great movies. It seems like the staff at Pitchfork is told there would be Earth-shattering consequences if they ever gave a 10 to any album that isn't a re-released established classic or by Radiohead. I'm having a similar problem reviewing CD for my school's radio station, where I have never seen a new album get its highest rating. There seems to be an unspoken rule that only the canonized greats can make the cut, and while a few new CDs that I've wanted to give a 10 have come my way, I've always chickened out with a 9.5. Every time I do, though, it feels like peer pressure getting in the way of my instincts, and the same could be true for other critics.
As a side note, browsing Metacritic, I'm noticing a stronger trend of avoiding perfect scores in music criticism than in film criticism. I guess they just don't give out enough stars.
Roger
First off, I'm so happy to see you back and swinging with a new lease of life. It's a gift for all of us, not just you :-)
I have wondered about rating systems for years. I have seen well over 12,000 movies and stored all my ratings on a database. My own ratings often cause me to scratch my head when I revisit a film. The reality is that we change over the years and we often arrive at movies in different states of mind.
I have far more interest in your commentary than the rating. It's partly because the words contain more information - but it's mainly that you remain the best writer about films today (but watch out for Mark Kermode :-))
I'm loving your blog. Thanks you from a fan and someone who cares.
Rob
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but most of your reviews have been posted on Netflix. Your films with "4 stars" are translated to 5 stars on Netflix, "3 ½ stars" are 4 ½, “3 star” are 4, “2 ½ star” are 3 ½,"2 star" are 2 ½ and so on (us subscribers do not have the option of ½ stars, and have to round up or down).
I could be completely wrong, but a good example of what the 2 ½ star means to you is from Wes Anderson’s “Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou”. As you stated in your review “I can't recommend it, but I would not for one second discourage you from seeing it.”
The problem is that Netflix star rating has interpreted your review for “Life Aquatic” as a 3 star film, and in their view of your star system that means it’s a “Liked It” movie. Now, do I care about any of these systems that use numbers, stars, etcetera? No. But, unfortunately, a lot of people base their view of your stance by this star system.
We need to start breaking out of these molds. The only critics that I know that don’t use any rating system is The New Yorker which leaves you with the critic’s article and their feelings on the film (sometimes ambiguous if they disliked it for the most part or not).
I sometimes overhear someone saying, “I saw that this critic gave it this many stars”, but they’re not able to name one single reason why that critic enjoyed or disliked the film (I’ve seen on other unrelated television shows and my friends using your original reviews and star systems on the “Brown Bunny” and George Romero’s “Night of The Living Dead”, not knowing that you’ve grown to like these films a lot more over time). All of these inane systems stunt the growth for film discussions and arguments. It can manipulate the public into just looking at the points the film received and he/she moves on not taking anything else from the critique.
This is why we love you, Roger. I always knew you were just a big fanboy.
I have no evidence of this, but I have the impression that you've been giving out a lot more 3 1/2s and 4s since you got out of the hospital. Which I think is just marvellous because I like movies too much, too. Everyone should.
Roger, I find that I agree with both your stars and the review about 99% of the time. There are very few times I thought your opinion or your grading of a movie was wrong and fewer times still I wondered if we had seen the same movie.
I like the stars because you get it right when it comes to them.
Mr. Ebert, I've been reading your reviews for about a decade now. I learned a long time ago how you use the star system. One review I remember well was a pretty negative review on The Longest Yard, which you gave three stars. It seemed weird that you would see a movie, give it a thumb up, then change your mind by the time you wrote the review. Yet it made sense for some reason. I think that is a good example of a movie succeeding at what it's trying to accomplish, even if it isn't trying to accomplish much.
Roger:
So glad that you're blogging. Although you seem to be driven to the medium by your current circumstances, I think it suits your style very well.
I don't think that the issue is that you grade too high, I think that you are not critical enough of significantly flawed movies. For example, I would have passed up watching Wall-E, save for the glowing reviews from you (3 1/2) and others. And while I appreciated the CGI, the simplistic story (45 minutes of cartoon slapstick at the opening, for example) was unsatisfying. I was not "enchanted" by the storytelling nor did it require any significant amount of "thought" to follow. And I love the genre, so I was all ready to be swept away.
You also gave Transsiberian 3 1/2 stars, and that is one reason why I saw it. But I found the movie unsatisfying in plot and structure. Throughout the movie I was guessing more interesting plot twists than the movie ultimately delivered. Woody Harrelson's smugness misled the active movie watcher that his character was more than he actually was. A Macguffin, perhaps, but it did not serve the purpose since the ending left me flat and disappointed.
So when you've given this same 3 1/2 rating to mediocre movies like Pineapple Express, the new X Files movie, and Get Smart, I think that you do your readers looking for a superior movie a disservice. The puffed up ratings work the other way, too. I saw Tropic Thunder expecting another noisy action movie with gross-out jokes and crude humor. And yes, it did have all of that, but it also broke out of the genre with its "inside" humor and some genuine laughs. But your 3 1/2 review lumped it together with many other movies that were clearly inferior.
As an absolute standard, I'd say that for movies that fit into a particular well-known genere:
Under 3 stars: Varying degrees of failure to meet expectations. I agree that awarding no stars can be considered a "reward" for a bad movie, but that still serves a purpose if used properly. Movies that are completely terrible can have some redeeming entertainment value, while a one star movie can simply be torturous. I hated Battlefield Earth, but it unfortunately didn't reach zero star status so I was simply disappointed. On cable there was a movie called "Crash Landing" which was so consistently horrendous that I recorded it to watch again. So I would consider the zero star rating to be considered as carefully as four stars.
3 stars: Meeting the expected criteria of the genre. "Good" movies, maybe with a surprise or two and only minor flaws. I would think that almost 50% of all major studio movies would get this rating. Many of your 3 1/2 star movies I think should be no higher than here.
3 1/2 stars: Significantly exceeding expectations. Still may have minor flaws, but those flaws would be greatly offset by other redeeming values: story, acting, etc.
4 stars: Reserved for movies of the highest caliber. They should be nearly flawless with great artistic achievement and a timeless theme. I see too many **** movies with trendy themes that will be rightfully forgotten once they go out of fashion.
But don't change TOO much! I've come to know and admire your thinking on cinema, and my objection here is that too many of your judgments are crowded together, which drowns out the superior cases.
-Mark
Someone mentioned Motorcycle Diaries earlier, and thank you for that, because the first paragraph of Mr Ebert's review for said film features one of the funniest punch lines:
"The Motorcycle Diaries" tells the story of an 8,000 mile trip by motorcycle, raft, truck and foot, from Argentina to Peru, undertaken in 1952 by Ernesto Guevara de la Serna and his friend Alberto Granado. If Ernesto had not later become "Che" Guevara and inspired countless T-shirts, there would be no reason to tell this story, which is interesting in the manner of a travelogue but simplistic as a study of Che's political conversion. It belongs to the dead-end literary genre in which youthful adventures are described, and then "...that young man grew up to be (Benjamin Franklin, Einstein, Rod Stewart, etc)."
Hehe. Nearly five years, and it's still brilliant.
Roger, just keep rating movies. My husband and I were addicts of the Siskel and Ebert show, and the Ebert and Roeper show. We don't watch the new version, these commentators lack authority, gravitas. Your reviews help me figure out whether or not to see a movie, or DVD. I am wildly fanatic about Netflix, where I can catch up with movies I never saw, and I rate them all. I try to rate them according to my own personal reaction, not to their general reputation. I may find that a gentle comedy is very appealing to me at my age and stage, and a car-crash movie, no matter how artistic, just doesn't interest me. So that's how I rate them. It's helpful to read you, for it leads me to things I may enjoy. Blessings to you, keep up the writings, they are a great pleasure to me.
Reading your post, several thoughts come to mind:
1. I'd say one of the big reasons you rate higher than most is, frankly, there's not as many true film critics around these days who rate based on how good the movie is rather than its artistic merit. Many minor, local critics (particularly on the internet) are film-school grads looking to break into the industry, or cinema aficionados who tend to pan anything that's not arthouse fare. Or perhaps more accurately, there's about as many professional critics as there ever were, but thanks to new technology there are many amateur critics who tend to rate slightly down.
2. I agree on the stars thing, personally I'm a fan of IMDB's 0 to 10 system. It leaves plenty of room for that middle ground of movies that are watchable, but not really great. A lot of movies fall in this category, which is fine since after all the main point of going to the movies is to be entertained.
3. On the subject of ratings, one thing that might be interesting to try is to rate not only on the quality of the movie, but some kind of 'cost to see it' factor. Particularly in the aforementioned middle ground, there's a lot of mediocre flicks I'd love to catch at the dollar theater but no way in hell I'm shelling out upwards of $15 for ticket and snacks.
The whole star business is a bit absurd as there is no standard yardstick by which we can measure the greatness of a film.The best thing to do would be to review a film without stars.In such a situation it would be great if the critic or reviewer suggests whether the film deserves to be seen or not.This is as simple as head or tail.There is only one option.This way there will be no doubt in the minds of viewers.
I give this blog entry four stars! One of the year's best!
Seriously...
I can generally tell if I'll like a movie based on your reviews, even if I don't agree with you (I usually do). For instance, I knew you were unlikely to give "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" a positive review based on your earlier concerns that the series was becoming "too dark" (I can't imagine how you'll react to the upcoming entries, which will probably make "The Seventh Seal" look like "Mary Poppins").
At least you don't give everything four stars like Ben Lyons. :)
I enjoyed your piece very much. I also watch movies because I love them. I approach them positively and really look forward to the chance to step away from my life for a while and into somebody else's. It is rare to find a film with no redeeming qualities at all, nothing to like. Sadly, I find the older I get the more it seems to happen. Either that, or I am becoming more picky.
My daughters taught me something about reviewing movies. They went through a stage a few years ago when they loved "tween movies". The Hilary Duff movies, Mary-Kate and Ashley, Lindsay Lohan... These were not films I would normally choose to watch, and for a period of time I saw them all. Every one of these movies was universally panned by critics. They put them all in the same basket and gave them the same rating. But the intended audience were more discerning. They loved some and hated others. Instead of seeing these films as a "type", they looked for entertainment.
On any star rating scale those films would fail. How can one compare a "Freaky Friday" to a "No Country for Old Men"? But to those girls there was a huge difference between them. A star rating cannot take account of subtleties such as movie intent and the needs of the target audience.
Think this is bad? Try rating something on IMDB. HA! How do you negotiate 10 stars? What's the difference between 7 and 8? Is there really a reason to have anything between 4 and 1? I actually believe in a 3 star system.
3 stars - Do not miss!
2 stars - See it if it's your kind of movie.
1 star - Don't bother.
Is there really a reason for anything else?
Mr. Ebert,
Having grown up in Europe, I am more used to the five-star rating system, and I'm not ashamed to say I prefer it that way, since 3 truly qualifies as the middle rating. However, I do enjoy your reviews, especially since I agree with you most of the time (notable exception: Fight Club, which is my all-time favorite movie).
Also, having read on your IMDb page that you're "an avid user and fan" of said website, I'm curious about your opinion on the ten-star system used in the User Comments section. Being a prolific IMDb "critic", I classify the ratings like this:
1-3: complete throwaway
4: can have one decent scene or performance, but the rest is an insult to the viewer's intelligence
5: has one good element, but doesn't really live up to what it promised
6: generally well filmed and acted, but is either boring or tonally inconsistent
7: does what it set out to do, but little else (this rating is usually given to comedies)
8: a good film, but has one or two flaws
9: almost perfect
10: an absolute must-see
I like that system, but sometimes people bash my reviews simply because the star-rating is too low or too high (I tend to give 8-10 ratings very easily). I agree with your statement: they should read the actual review before complaining. Having said that, what are your thoughts on the IMDb rating parameters?
Thanks for your thoughts--an interesting take on the star system is the Halliwell guide, where the bulk of movies receive no stars, and only films that in some way transcend the run-of-the-mill receive one to four stars (with very few films receiving four, or even three).
Thanks for your Great Movies articles. One problem with the idea of reviews is that they don't allow the movie to percolate over time. Some films, although seemingly great, fail to resonate; others may stay with you, and even grow surprisingly. Going back a few years, for instance, "Titanic" has essentially left my mind while I still recall, fondly, the details and performances of "L.A. Confidential." What films would you substantially re-evaluate now, either upwards or downwards?
Side Note to Roger: There are some films that you missed while out of the critiquing game last year that I hope you will have time to catch up on and write reviews for... in particular Rob Zombie's remake of "Halloween" from last fall.
The star rating system can occasionally be useful. I am thinking of the 100 Films of the Year chart that Premiere magazine used to do, in which fifteen critics from newspapers, magazines, and other media, rated previous year's films. It was a much better critical guide than the year's best lists that single reviewers, or editorial teams, do. But basically I'd like to see well written critical comments: why you think a film is, or is not, good. You do that well, you do not need those stars. (Roger Greenspun also used to do that very well; have his reviews ever been collected?) Another thing worth discussing is film critics' habit of describing the plot. Too many reviewers tell the whole story, only the ending may remain unexplained (and even then they give a hint if it is happy or sad). Why? I prefer not to know anything about the plot: it is a pleasure to be surprised. Often the beginning of a film is a surprise, and it is wrong to reveal it. Sometimes the big surprise is the movie's basic theme, or idea, as in Groundhog Day. I wonder how many film critics did not reveal this plot to their readers.
I thought someone should mention that Mick LaSalle did not invent this system. I have enjoyed the Chronicle's movie reviews for 40 years, with the exception of Mr. LaSalle's, who couldn't write a accurate review if his life depended on it. He is one of the reviewers whose advice I not only ignore, but reverse. If he says it's great, I avoid it. If he says it's awful, I run to the theater.
I thought someone should mention that Mick LaSalle did not invent this system. I have enjoyed the Chronicle's movie reviews for 40 years, with the exception of Mr. LaSalle's, who couldn't write a accurate review if his life depended on it. He is one of the reviewers whose advice I not only ignore, but reverse. If he says it's great, I avoid it. If he says it's awful, I run to the theater.
Also to Roger: You mentioned your love of particular genres, directors and actors... what about those who usually originate and craft the entire cotton-pickin'-thing in the first place: screenwriters. Do you not have any particular fondness for them or what they do?
Out of the five (including zero), and with the tone of the reviews, I generally consider 2.5 stars to be thumbs roughly at 90 degrees.
In one respect the film critics life is a good one - you get to watch movies and talk about them. The downside of that is, of course, you have to watch a lot of crap. Your ultimate job is to inform the public so that they can decide whether to see the movie or not, a binary decision. Thumbs up or thumbs down satisfies that perfectly but it does not satisfy the reality that neither movies nor anything else, except in rare cases, fits that mold.
The star system is an in-between course which people can use to gauge their probable reaction to a movie without having to read the review. It's also one that most people, I believe, use in a binary way; 4 or less and they won't bother, for instance. For this reason as much as the critic would like to think that it offers more choice to the public the star system really is a mechanism for the critic allowing them to do what they like, which is to express themselves on a movie.
The public may use a star rating of 1 to enjoy the pummeling that they understand the critic is giving the movie, something that a thumbs down does not convey. Similarly, with a 5 the public can participate in the critics huge enjoyment in the film. This makes a rating system a shortcut to the review itself but not a general guide.
All this is not to say that a graduated system or, for that matter, a review, is not what the critic should provide since the public would prefer simple guidance. The more discerning viewer, of which there are many, of course, is looking for precisely a more informed view which they can appreciate. There's something below the surface and worth thinking about in every movie. The critic expresses that and gets us thinking; helps us articulate what we may be feeling.
In my view, anything other than a thumbs up, thumbs down suits the purpose of the critic rather than the public by and large.
Dear Mr. Ebert,
Your intricately considered star system leaves plenty of room for your instinctual response in addition to your critical one. The TIFF has a People's Choice Award (first instinct) and the International Critic's Prize (studied response). I wonder how many times these two prizes, People's and Critic's, have converged in the last 30 years? Which films won both prizes? Those films would be fascinating for that reason alone.
After a quick check I come away disappointed. In the last 33 years there seems to have been no connection between instinct and study. (Except for Best Canadian Film, a sub-category)
"Gene Siskel boiled it down: "What's the first thing people ask you? Should I see this movie? They don't want a speech on the director's career. Thumbs up--yes. Thumbs down--no."
This is the difference between a movie reviewer and a film critic. James Agee, John Simon, Dwight MacDonald, Armond White, Andrew Sarris, Molly Haskell, Stanley Kauffman, Pauline Kael..are film critics.
None of them gave 3 stars or thumbs up or 4 balloons or two hearts.
Just admit that he is a movie reviewer. That's fine.
While I don't put total faith in the star system, it is an interesting guide, when you give four stars, I expect a glowing review, when you give one star I expect you to mourn the precious minutes of your life that have been robbed. Yet I try to not rely on them because sometimes you may give a film three stars yet as I'm reading you may be giving a two-star review.
Sometimes, I like to read the review without looking at how many stars have been given because it (as strange as this sounds) gives your reviews a kind of suspense.
If I must keep to a star system it must come from the gut. If I am watching a film, I don't think about the stars until I sit down to write about it because my opinion of the film may change while I am writing about it.
Here's an example: I was enraptured by Hellboy II: The Golden Army which, as I was leaving the theater, I thought was one of the best films of the year. However, when I got home and began writing about it, I realized that it was a work of visual brilliance, but it was lacking in the story department. How do I rate that? Four stars to the visuals? Three stars to the story? I ended up with three and half stars because I thought it was a nice middle ground. I assessed based on what was there, it's positives, it's negatives and found a proper rating.
There is a funny tendency in our culture to perceive the process of tearing something apart (or even just meticulously breaking something down into smaller and smaller components) as somehow better than the process of making connections, putting things together.
Similarly, the common perception that pessimism is more "realistic" than optimism. They are both just attitudes, whether native or adopted, on either side of a reality that fluctuates somewhere in between. (That said, many times my optimism has been blown away by the even better reality that emerged.)
So it's not surprising I guess that some people may perceive your ratings as "too" positive, that negative criticism is "better" criticism. A preponderance of negativity diminishes us all: critic, reader, filmmaker. I'm not looking for false positives, but speaking as an artist, I know a lot more great art can be made from a place of love and support and joy than from the cliche of torment and anguish. Because the former fuels you beyond your natural limitations, and the latter is simply unsustainable.
Thank you Roger for your love of film, your rich and intelligent writing, for sharing so much of yourself in your work and for being true to yourself. Sorry, I know I'm supposed to limit lists to groups of three, but that just won't suffice :-)
For the record, I like both the written review and the star system, just for different reasons.
Ideally, the star rating would not be disclosed until after the review is read. This would allow a reader to see the stars in the context of the written review, not the other way around.
Roger,
Your rating system needs no explanation. When you review a movie, you review it honestly and in a way that I think the average Joe would rate it. Not to say that you are an average Joe, but your ratings and your approach to critiquing a movie make sense. For example, you gave Don't Mess with the Zohan 3 stars. Don't Mess with the Zohan was not Gone with the Wind, but it was not trying to be either. You recognize this and score movies appropriately. This is why you are the only critic I actually read. The others are mostly film snobs and seem to rate the movies solely on their own impossible-to-meet expectations, which are often unrealistic for the average viewer.
For as long as I remember, I've always clapped at the end of movies in the theater. Not many other audience members do the same and I never really clap for an exceptionally long or with intensity but I clap nonetheless. Be it a great film, a good film, or a marginal film, I feel that a nice clap or two is always deserving.
Your 1st example reminded me of why I clap: for the "small miracle" the production of a film endures just to entertain us for a few hours. I like going into the cinema with the same optimism as you have, with hope and anticipation to be entertained or intrigued for a simple amount of time. Thanks for the inspiration to continue on clapping, and reviewing at the beat of my own drum.
Does Roger Ebert ever give out 0 stars? If not, it would explain why meta-critic says he's too nice. It seems meta-critic values each star at 25%, so 3 stars is 75%, but if 1 is the minimum, then logically it should be worth 0 (I've seen zeroes from other reviews), and then 3 stars would be worth 66.6%, lowering the value by 8.33%, which almost equal to the 8.9% discrepancy mentioned.
I agree the 4-star system, lacking a definitive middle, is more limited than the 5-star system. In elementary school, I recall A was excellent, B was good, C was fair, D was passing, and F was fail. (I may have the D wrong, but no matter. I am more interested in the C grade.) Why must "fair" invariably equate to poor in the public eye? On the other hand, I like the "Alert or Interested" Little Man as #3 (or C) because, in a word, it means the film is "watchable." Not good or excellent, but watchable, or dare I say it, fair.
My problem with the rating system does not lie with the rating but with the actual review. Ebert asks the reader, "Have you considered actually reading the review?". My answer is, Yes, I would love to read the review if it wasn't for the reviewer (not necessarily Ebert himself) describing too many events that take place during the film in their review. This has lead me to quit reading reviews altogether. I like a fresh perspective when I go to a film. I also try to avoid seeing the rating. It has become increasingly harder and harder to not hear something about a film before it comes out (i.e. hype, plot, etc.). If the reviewers quit writing about story and more about film I will begin to read the reviews again. Also, I like the "thumbs up, thumbs down" system...basically "see it or don't".
The fault, dear Roger, is not with your stars, but with ourselves.
Good criticism tells us much more about the critic than the entity criticized. I like to read things written by people who have a generous spirit.
Updike reveiws that way. Read the book reviews he's written in the New Yorker. He never fails to search for some redeeming quality in the work, even if it's just the author's intention and little of it makes it onto the page.
I hope the reiewer finds himself to be somewhere on the scale of moviegoer between thoughtless sycophant/PR person and heartless inkstained drudge. The reviewer should recognize his responsibility to choose where he wishes to be in that continuum and try to act accordinglingly.
Or as I've heard all my life--"Ask yourself what a smart person might do, and do that."
You've always done that well, Roger. Although it's fun to read reviews written by a small-minded crank with a large thesaurus, it's irresponsible in that it fails to fullfill the audience's pact with the critic, and it also fails to show the critic as well-rounded enough to carefully judge the work of art. Whack-a-mole criticism is fun but empty, in the same way that PR can be clever without being informative.
Roger, anyone who tries to decide whether they will be more entertained by Fletch or Shoah on the basis of a handful of printer's marks gets what they deserve.
Reading this just made realize that I have unconsciously overlooked the star ratings on your site. I grew up watching you and Siskel on TV and have been reading your online reviews for the past 2 or 3 years. Personally, I would rather have just your opinion and insights about a movie. The stars, numbers, letters and little man don't help me think about what happens on screen and what it means. Your reviews do.
I apologize for my typos. I am terrible at typing.
While you were gone I walked out of each film thinking about how you would rate it. I considered writing to suggest a contest in which your fans would submit reviews or ratings that you would agree with because your perspective is so ingrained in my memory.
I missed your voice and am so happy to see you back in the saddle. Best wishes to you and your family.
One of my treasured possessions is the book that you signed for me when you and Siskel spoke at my school. Later you and I discussed my disappointment over the discontinuation of Cinemania at the university book store. (You and Siskel had a comic debate over the name of the store during your appearance on campus.)
I read your review of "Axe in the Attic" while packing for the evacuation for Gustav and was moved by your comments. I hope that you will consider reviewing the Spike Lee film as one that you missed. During the evacuation we went to Memphis. At one point we drove along the highway looking for a place to have a meal. We passed Steak 'n Shake. I demanded that we stop. I explained that you have always raved about the place. I had a cheeseburger, fries, and a side-by-side shake. Excellent. Thanks.
Please take good care of yourself.
-Andi
Frankly,I could care less about star ratings.I read the actual reviews,watch the trailers and then see the movies I want to see.
I just love the fact that out there in the world are people that get paid to watch and review movies!!
Roger,
I've always preferred the thumbs up or thumbs down on your movie reviews rather than any 4 or 5 star rating. It's so hard to quantify the quality of any thing. I wsnt to know if it's worth seeing, in your opinion, yes or no. Star ratings are a kind of shorthand that you really can't understand without reading the review. (Is that why editors like them?)
These days, when I read a review, I'm thinking about whether or not I want to pay seven to nine bucks, plus the cost of popcorn and a drink to see this movie, or do I want to wait until its at the cheaper second run theater, or on HBO, etc.? And lately I've been looking at the running times of movies and thinking "I'm not paying that kind of money for a movie that's not at least two hours long!" I want my money's worth in quality and quantity, I guess.
I've never thought you were an easy reviewer or a push over. I always thought you went more with your gut instinct more than your head when reviewing a movie. Gene Siskel seemed to be the opposite, and sometimes, it seemed, that if one little thing bothered him, it seemed to spoil the whole movie experience for him. So, on the whole, I tended to agree with you more often.
I've missed seeing you on TV, but look forward to reading your reviews for many more years.
Yes, AJ Gibson, Mr. Ebert does indeed give out zero stars. All you need to do is go to his website, click on Advanced Search and ask it to list the zero star reviews.
There you will be presented with all the zero star films that Mr. Ebert metaphorically threw himself on the hand grenade so the rest of us need not suffer. Last I checked, there were 57 zero star films, so I figured he saved me 114 hours and well over $500, to which all I can say is, thank you.
Does Roger Ebert ever give out 0 stars?
Rarely, over the years that I've been following his reviews, I think he has reserved that rating for very specific films that go below the bottom the barrel, for a vile bag of garbage that is worthless, offensive and totally beyond reprehensible.
I remember he gave Zero Stars to I Spit On Your Grave, Dice Rules, Dirty Love, Jaws the Revenge, Tomcats, Little Indian, Big City and the eternal thorn in his butt North
I grew up watching you and Siskel. When I decided to write reviews, I opted for the five point rating system. I wanted to be a reviewer, and not a critic. I felt that way (and still do) because I felt that's who you were. Others were critics. They were out to criticize a movie; be critical. I always felt that you were out to tell us whether or not you saw a good movie, not whether or not a movie received your blessing.
As for my 3 (as in 3 Shriek Girls). It's not wishy-washy for me. To me 3 means its good, not great (4) or classic (5), but good. I've enjoyed a lot of 3 ShriekGirl movies, and even purchased quite a few.
I've only been at this for 9 years, so I have quite a few left before I can hope to write half as well as you.
But in regards to how respectfully I treat the work of others, you've always been my inspiration, and I wanted you to know that.
I don't see why this is even an issue. If you consistently rate movies higher than other critics, then people should consider your ratings only relative to your other ratings. Kind of like grading on a curve.
I'm more surprised that the other critics are all rating about the same.
I find reading a contradicting point of view more interesting than one that's in line with my own. Sometimes someone else's interpretation helps me see a movie in a different light and appreciate it more.
The Shining (1980) is the perfect example. I admire the technical aspects of the film -- the frame was magnificent -- but something in the stilted acting always irritated me. Your Great Movie review gave these awkward performances a valid context, which changes everything ...
You never find insights like that in a Star Rating. *sigh*
Roger,
Thumbs up on this post. (hee hee)
The Chronicle ratings system with the little man seems to be a rethinking (with much better artwork) of those old cheesy icons that used to appear in syndicated film reviews that would appear in small-town newspapers who couldn't afford their own critic. And it pretty much had the same scale - from raucous applause to walked out. Were those symbols ever trademarked? I couldn't even find an image of them on the web anywhere.
I do think that some star or thumbs system is necessary, or at least some part where the critic says whether they liked it or not. There are some critics (who I will not name) where after reading the review, I have no idea whether they liked the movie or not. All I read was a plot summary with a bunch of sarcastic comments thrown in. I have to look it up on Rotten Tomatoes to find out whether or not the critic liked it.
I agree that the star system is not perfect (you've given 2.5 stars to some of my favorite movies). But there does have to be some place where the critic simply says whether they liked it or not. We don't read movie reviews for sarcastic comments.
Forgive the simplicity of this, but when people talk about art, in my mind, they are usually talking about emotional restraint. What do I mean by that? I mean, it gives a person a certain longing. The greater the art, the greater the longing. My trusty oxford dictionary--the best dictionary--defines longing as an intense desire. Art may be measured by how it does not do something, as opposed to how it did something. Or as Roger said, good movies are about the questions. With bad movies you know exactly what you are getting.
I personally think you grade way too generously, but I've been reading your reviews long enough to ignore the star ratings. I read the whole review because I like your writing voice and enthusiasm for movies.
Your review of the Michael Keaton snowman movie "Jack Frost" is probably my all time favorite bad review. Everybody on here's gotta read that.
I must confess to a change of heart. When I read a review by a critic who doesn't use stars (or some other shorthand rating system), I often cannot tell whether he or she liked the movie, which causes me to re-read the review over and over again and then conclude I must be too stupid for words. So while I used to believe the star system was too arbitrary and limiting, I now appreciate it and wish more critics would use it.
I've always view the Ebert stars as follows (half stars omitted):
See it at all costs- four stars
See it if you think you may enjoy it- three stars
Skip it if you think you may dislike it- two stars
Avoid at all costs- one star
Burn down any theater showing it- zero stars
Also, regarding clapping after a movie: applause is a way the audience communicates with the artist. Unless the artist is present, the act of clapping is useless. I doubt you would clap after seeing a painting you enjoyed at the art gallery. Clapping after a movie only lets your fellow moviegoers know you enjoyed the experience.
Honestly, I find the rating system less important than the writer. Mr. Ebert writes honestly, I feel, and with an eye to the entertainment value of his reviews. He's always got a fun angle that makes reading his reviews of even the clunkers entertaining. When I have read a reviewer for long enough, I begin to understand their frame of reference.
While some reviewers seem to ready to write snippets that fit nicely in a promotional poster, others write as if it's a friend in the chair next to you, who turns and wants to offer how the movie made them feel. We tend to go to the movies with our friends, so why shouldn't a critic fit in this circle? I only read Mr. Ebert's reviews, anymore, because his reviews line up with my viewing tastes. Frankly, with the advent of the myriad (and most often unqualified) online reviewers, the ratings system should be scrapped. Just keep writing the way you do, and your audience will find you.
Because I'm a teacher, I prefer to use the typical A through F scale. It's a scale I understand; it makes sense to me conceptually. Of course, I've noticed that once I get to the B- range I already start himming and hawing to my friends about whether or not they should go see the movie. And anything in the C range pretty much says "Don't go see this movie." (Of course, someone who is already planning to see that particular film might view a C-ish rating as indicating the movie has potential to entertain them, even though I saw it as only average.)
Also, there is this conceptual problem: grading a freshman ethics paper is not the same sort of experience as "grading" a movie. One does not attend movies in order to grade them (unles they are a critic like you, Roger, in which case I truly feel sorry for you and do not envy you your job--I really go to movies in order to enjoy them). Grading freshman papers is usually more like...a nightmare, and not like the one on Elm Street (that first one was at least entertaining). But it's a necessary task, and at least I am getting paid (sort of). I am so glad to see you say, Roger, that you approach movies with optimism. I do too. (I can't say that about my freshman papers unfortunately.) And when I am swept away, dramatically, or adventurously, or science fictionally, or comically, it's magic, it's a love affair, it's a sixteenth birthday or it's Christmas. It's participation, or something like liturgy. So, I'm glad you're the "critic," and you should be glad you're not facing a huge stack of freshman papers on Aristotle.
You're right that its ludicrous to attack a critic for the number of stars he/she gives. Take your review of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. You gave the movie four stars, which I cringed at at first, but you explained the movie's flaws in detail. The four stars reflects your enthusiasm for the film as an entertaining romantic fantasy even though you understand its imperfections. The stars don't dictate the review, or mean much of anything.
My buddy and I have the fine distinction category of, I wouldn't recommend it but I wouldn't discourage it. For movies we didn't really enjoy, but had enough in them that if you were planning on seeing it you might as well go ahead and see it.
How about a sort of modified Michelin star system? The star(s) serve to attract attention to something which is deserving. I would use something like this:
Zero stars: substandard quality. Why bother ranking anything below this?
One star: average, some hits and misses, you can watch without feeling ripped off.
Two stars: at this point, you feel actual enthusiasm and look forward to telling your friends about it.
Three stars: brilliant. You replay the movie in your mind repeatedly and start handicapping it for Oscar night.
I'm tempted to have a four star category which would correspond to the "AFI Top 100" list, but it would be a bold critic who would make use of it for a newly released movie.
This is admittedly a coarse scale, but to me it serves the purpose. Just put the movie in the correct "star bin", and let the viewer's own quirks decide its precise ranking to other movies.
Why not just a 4-star rating system that does away with the half-stars? It would seem to me that that would be simpler, and fall in line more with the binary two-thumb system:
4 Stars: Loved it.
3 Stars: Liked it.
2 Stars: Can't recommend it, but found something worthwhile in it.
1 Star: Hated it.
Three and four stars would be "Thumbs Up". One and two stars would be "Thumbs Down". Why do there even need to be half-stars?
I love your reviews, Mr. Ebert, and yours is the only opinion I seek out when I am interested in a movie, because I find my tastes seem to align with yours.
For me, the Ebert star system relates more to the reviews. For example, when Roger Ebert gives a movie 4 stars, I'm enthused to read the review to see exactly what it is he thinks makes this movie so well-made. These reviews are a pleasure to read because they're generally a celebration and explanation of cinematic excellence.
But what I really enjoy reading are the 1-star or no-star reviews. Maybe it's a perverse pleasure, but when I check the Ebert website, I note the 4-star films but then immediately jump into reading about the 1-star films. Because I know I'm generally going to laugh as Ebert rips into the movie in a witty way.
Really, in general terms, I don't get to caught up in the meaning of the stars beyond that. I'm interested in the topic or I wouldn't have read this, but in some of the discussion it seems stars and their various meanings trump the films themselves, even to a certain extent with newspaper editors. And anyway, because I love movies too, I'm going to see a movie if it intrigues me no matter what the reviews and their star ratings attempt to tell me. A lot of times, I don't read the reviews until after I've seen a movie unless it's something special. And by special, I mean either highly acclaimed or widely derided.
And if I see something glorious, it's fun to find critics who agree and see why they think so too. Or ones who disagree to get an alternate viewpoint. And if I see a dog of a movie, yeah it's fun to jump on the pile. Not nice at all, but weirdly satisfying. Maybe it's schadenfreude. Maybe? Probably.
So that's how the star ratings are most helpful to me. Identifying fun reading beforehand or else for indulging in post mortem antics.
Mr. Ebert, I read your reviews in several ways; first, to keep abreast of movies and have some idea of what I might like to see.
Second, for the pleasure of reading them, whether I want to see the movie or not.
Third, I often look up your review after I've seen a movie. If I've loved it, or if something is bothering or intriguing me, I'll turn to your review the way I might call a knowledgeable friend to hash it out. Did the female lead annoy you too? Did you find the plot implausible, but fail to care? Has this director done anything else as good? Thanks for being that writer.
I'd like to add one more thing for everyone about what Roger has said about the positive star ratings:
3 stars is above average.
3 1/2 stars is excellent.
4 stars is great.
I hope I remembered that right.
Um hello..
It's been on mind but what is the difference between rating a three-star movie rating vs a three-and a-half star movie rating? Film critics should either rate a picture and either give it a one star, two star, three star rating or four star ratings because even a two and a half star movies still fails at the movies right? The star system is great it's just that there is no need for that half a star mark because a three and a half star movie is still considered a three star movie. Well four stars would be just four stars as opposed to three you know what I mean?
p.s.-I'm very happy you gave Brian De Palma's picture "Femme Fatale" four stars. It really is a great film.
Thank you Roger
you "called him on it"? you're so hip, roger ebert
For several years until this winter, I was stuck with an old operating system and an old browser that crashed whenever I tried to use rogerebert.com. So I had to use a Lynx browser, with no graphics. Thus I could not see the star ratings, or even tell immediately if the movie was recommended or not. I thought The Devil Wears Prada had a positive review, and it wasn't until I saw the review on TV did I know you were being sarcastic.
Mr. Ebert;
I came to enjoy your reviews by accident, in fact it was so accidental I can't remember when my one-sided love affair started. I just know that it started and it hasn't ended yet. I unlike a lot of your fans, have come to enjoy your reviews by kind of a reversal of fortune so to speak. I am not and probably never have been what you would call a movie lover. I am the kind of person who doesn't buy DVD's, unless I truly loved the movie. There are not many movies I enjoy seeing more than once. Reading your reviews has actually made me more aware of director's styles, genres, cinematography etc...therefore making my movie experience more enjoyable. So instead of reading your reviews because I am a movie lover, I am a movie lover because of your reviews. I enjoy seeing someone write so well and soundly about movies. I honestly just enjoy the way you write first and your subject matter second. So you have actually been more like a teacher to this here novice and for that you get 4 stars, a thumbs up and two snaps :)
I have nothing to add except:
Daniel Quiles and Zeiram--put these guys' opinions in a blender and that's essentially how I approach all art. It's all relative, 4 stars isn't 4 stars, isn't 4 stars. But 4 stars still signifies something.
I think Quiles+Zeiram's comments are pretty much what Ebert does, as well.
I read this entire thread and those are the two comments that stuck out in my mind as absolutely true.
Why do movies need a rating system?
I ask because I don't think that theater critics generally give stars out or a thumbs up or a thumbs down.
The local paper, the LA Weekly, gives a recommended or Go or pick of the week to theater reviews. Theater can cost much more than a movie (sans popcorn).
Usually, I prefer to read the whole review before I decide whether I go to see a movie.
I actually owned one of your older books, Mr. Ebert and I do see the tendency toward negativity. But, you have shifted and gave more movies a chance. There are plenty of films that others didn't get that you saw something special.
By the way, how did you feel about films that you thought were terrible but then years later either through the Criterion Collection ("Brazil" or "Videodrome") or the average film fanatic lexicon ("A Clockwork Orange" or "Reservoir Dogs") they aroused the highest praise?
Have you ever reconsidered where you stood on a movie after a second look like you did with "Blade Runner"?
I try not to even see the previews before seeing a movie, but I always flip the channel for commercials--i hate them. But if it's a smaller film, I will read Roger's review at least a little, but not even that in some cases like in his review of "Before the Devil Knows Your Dead", where he says to see that one fresh--I really like that idea. I watched an interview with Roman Polanski on that AMC movie talk show with those two guys, and Roman said that the previews were different in his days in that they didn't reveal the movies discoveries and that the previews today reveal the discoveries to the point where you don't have to see the movie anymore. On the flip side of the coin, you can't always avoid a movies advertising: and sometimes I find myself wondering just what kind of movie is this; like with "Lakeview Terrace", I saw that big posterboard of Samuel L. Jackson sitting in his police car, so I was like "hell yeah--its about time--a comedy where Samuel L. Jackson is giving some punks some street justice!" But then I saw some of the trailer noticing it was a thriller, and was a little disappointed. But after reading that interview with the director Neil LaBute, it sounds like a great movie, so thanks Roger for letting me know that this one really is one to go see...I could just tell about the movie from that poster board that he is going to play a helluva police officer.
Great entry on this topic! I usually agree with morth of Ebert's reviews and find his approach fair and insightful. (although he can be a little tough on horror films which are my favorites!)
I too am not too cynical when it comes to movies. I am really a movie lover and I get frustrated when I read constant negative reviews. As Ebert mentions, it takes a great deal to even make a film, and those investing the time and effort always have good intentions. As a filmmaker myself, I understand this!
I too think it is important to look for the 'good' in any picture. After all it is about entertainment. Some forms will appeal to some people more than others.
As for whether we uses the 'star' rating system or a different one, I too agree that it is more important to read the review. (but as one person mentioned above, I sometimes prefer to wait until after I have seen the film, because some critics give away too much).
In any case, great entry!
Not to tire you with yet another critic's scale on this seemingly endless list, but i think that Robert Christgau's (notable rock critic) grade system allows much flexibility by introducing the variable 'to be enjoyed by fans of the genre' and allowing a broad spectrum of grades that contain the premise 'appreciation of the effort of constructing such a piece of art'. He's system tends to focus on the craftmenship and enjoyability of the record, and although it is made to grade music (rock) records, I think the general ideas and notions are extrapolable to other arts.
He has used two grading systems, but they both mantain the same spirit. The are hosted on his website here:
http://robertchristgau.com/xg/bk-cg70/grades.php
http://robertchristgau.com/xg/bk-cg90/grades-90s.php
I have more faith in your reviews than any other critic I see. I take care to read them because of your tendency to judge by genre so that I don't see the best slasher film of the year and find myself sickened for life.
I saw "Turtles Can Fly" last night, very impressive. The phrase "lighly handled but not handled lightly" keeps running through my mind.
Even though I do believe no one sets out to make a bad movie, I've seen "Humanoids From the Deep" move than once and it does seem that it could not have been accidentally that bad. At some point someone must have said, "Let's go on to abysmal."
You might be glad to know that I don't rely much on your star ratings. Whether you like or dislike a movie doesn't sway me; I'm more interested in HOW you like it it dislike it.
And yes, I will sometimes see a poorly-rated movie if a review indicates there's a single amazing scene. Most critics disliked "Forbidden Kingdom," and I can see why, but it was worth it to see Jet Li vs. Jackie Chan.
Those darn Brain Clouds!
Mr. Ebert: I simply do not pay attention to the star rating, instead paying significant attention to your words. I do so because my experience is that you come closest of all critics to reading movies and enjoying them in the same way I do; therefore, I trust implicitly what you have to say, and only rarely have you ever diverged from my own thoughts on a given movie (Anaconda being one significant exception, as I thought it horrible- but that I can remember this out of the many movies you have reviewed shows how unusual it is!).
I view you in similar fashion that I do the wine critic Robert Parker, except that a good or bad review by Parker can affect the entire sales of a wine vintage or release. I believe that Parker is sorry he ever developed the 100-point scale that is now in use, because too many people will buy a wine simply because he scored it 100 without ever knowing anything about that wine- or even tasting it. Should I see a movie simply because you gave it 4 stars? Or because I find something in your review that picques me to see that movie? I prefer the latter, as I hope all your readers would.
Roger, all I can say is that your reviews are the only ones that matter. You may give more favorable reviews at times, but you are the critic who truly watches, enjoys, and observes everything going on in the film. Other critics seem to have their own agenda or merely want to bash an actor that has been in some unsuccessful films before. You go in with an open mind and give us your honest opinion, which is all we can ask for. I may not agree with you 100% of the time, but every time a new movie comes out one of my first thoughts is "I wonder what Ebert thinks of it?".
Stars or thumbs don't really matter, it's what you write in your review that says it all. But I must admit I do miss seeing your thumb on TV pointing in the opposite direction of Gene's..........those were the days.
Ebert: Huh? I'm reviewing virtually everything that opens.
You didn't review "Disaster Movie".
To be fair, it didn't screen for critics. Even if it did, you would have been tempted to invent the negative star system. It's not a movie. It's a scam job. It bears as much resemblence to an actual film as a fake Rolex (with workmanship so shoddy, it is spelled R-O-L-E-C-K-S on the face of the watch) is to the real deal. It purports to be a parody of the disaster genre. That is a bald-faced lie. Imagine seventy-five minutes of re-enactments of scenes from trailers for recent movies punctuated with a scatological "punchline", with each "joke" mercilessly drawn out to agonizing lengths to pad out that seventy-five minute running length. Imagine a "comedy" with such contempt for its audience that it laborously spells out each and every single movie and pop cultural reference, so just in case you didn't realize that the man with the weathered fedora, leather jacket and bullwhip was supposed to be Indiana Jones, one of the characters helpfully informs us, "look, it's Indiana Jones". Imagine...better yet, don't. Life's too short.
Why did I see it? I lost a bet.
One thing that is great about movie reviewing and the internet is that you can more easily find a reviewer with tastes similar to your own. In the newspaper we subscribed to when I was a child, the film critic had very different taste than my dad did, and my dad came away with the impression that "critics are useless" as a result. But now, with online archives of all the reviews by dozens of critics, with just a bit of research, you can find a reviewer that most closely shares your tastes, and rely on them to predict which movies you will most like.
The main reason I keep coming back to your site before heading to the movies is that I've come to trust your judgement and I agree with your ratings most of the time on the films that I have seen.
People need to stop looking at the star rating and actually read the review.
I read reviews from Roger for films over the years that have raised my eyebrows: "The Cell", "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow", "The Golden Compass" to name a few. These were films I liked but did not love, that received universal ho-hum reviews and there was Roger, alone praising these films to the sky. If you like a movie, you like a movie! Who cares what the critical consensus is. I get the sense several reviewers consult the tomatometer first before they publish their own take.
And what about some of Roger's more notorious condemnations: "The Usual Suspects", Ridley Scott's "Gladiator", Fincher's "Fight Club" to name a few. Or what about what is perhaps Roger's most conflicted take on film; Burton's "Batman Returns" where he gives the film two stars and then concludes: "I give the movie a negative review, and yet I don't think it's a bad movie; it's more of a misguided one, made with great creativity, but denying us what we more or less deserve from a Batman story."
Years ago I was searching for a movie on Roger's website and I stumbled on his review for "Dark City", a film I saw advertised on cable, saw bits and pieces of but never bothered to watch in its entirety. The 4 star rating intrigued me and it is the only reason I think I clicked to read Roger's review. Intrigued further I sought out the film, watched it several times, listened to the dvd commentaries and now think it's an underrated classic. This was a film that simply was just not on my radar.
Most filmgoers are perhaps not film lovers. They don't care about who the director is, how the film they're going to see holds up against the director's previous work, the technical specs of the movie or whether the crew behind the camera are Oscar winners. Their interest in the film is casual and they just want to know if they will have a good time.
I find myself anticipating and drooling like a hungry dog at the latest Cronenberg has to offer or Scorsese or Tarantino or Nolan or Malick. You judge these directors at a higher standard because your expectations are higher than say the latest offering of Michael Bay. So if I give Bay's "Transformers" 3 stars and Scorsese's "Gangs of New York" 2 and a half stars out of 4, does that make Transformer's more worth your time? Maybe but as a true lover of cinema you know which film you HAVE to see. You're more critical of a filmmaker the calibre of a Scorsese whereas with Bay you're perhaps just grateful he didnt assault your senses.
On another note there are times that Roger would give a film 3 stars and I will read the review and realise he described a film deserving of 4. I don't think Roger has ever gone back to change that review of "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" but at least he made amends by declaring it a great film several decades later. With Leone of course you need to make sure you're seeing the director's cut and not the studio's.
Sometimes a film's greatness isn't apparent when it is first released. I was flipping through an old movie guide and was astonished to see "Blade Runner" receive 1 and a half stars and described as "murky" and "incoherent" in the review itself. Or the initial reaction to "2001: A Space Odyssey"; most people left the theatre scratching their heads.
What I was trying to say in my last entry was that if it's a movie I really want to see, I don't read the review until after I see the movie or watch a few seconds of the preview. But I will check for the star rating, and if it's a bad and then read the review. With "Step Brothers", I thought it was going to be good, but I checked the star rating and then thought about what I saw in the previews (the live burial part) and read that that was just the kind of mean spiritedness that was apparent in the preview. A similar thing happened with "The Love Guru": I just saw the way Mike Myers was talking in the previews and thought it was just terrible, so I knew that one was going to be bad. So, I do think Siskel was on to something, as he always was concerning the politics of movies...I saw an old A&E thing a few weeks ago,that featured Siskel, that was about the history of the ratings system. I wish they would come up with the A-rating, as you have said, so we can have more mature movies at the theaters here in America. Why should Europeans get all the good ones?
I actually prefer an absolute scale when using the 4-star system. I only take into account what the film is attempting to be, and whether or not is succeeds or fails in that attempt, in the written portion of a review. The four star scale should be used as an absolute. 4 star movies are better than 3.5 star movies which are better than 3 star movies.
For me, some genres (horror, fantasy, slapstick) have a harder time reaching the four star scale because they lack the emotional weight that can elevate them to that level.
I have always been aware of your "sliding scale" and take that into account when reading your reviews. However, I still find it odd that you might prefer some of your 2.5 star films to some of your 3 star films.
I tend to think that such "snapshot" star ratings should not be open to interpretation. 3.5 is simply better than 3, regardless of the genre or intent.
Stars should be absolute -- the written review should deal in the subtlety of subjectivity.
And speaking of subjectivity... You say that "Any worthwhile review is subjective". Correct. However, it should also attempt to be somewhat objective too. A balance is always nice.
Before reading this, I would not have characterized your reviews as positive, but rather as informative (not just of the film but of your mindset or life references you had while watching), but now that I think about it, you are sunnier than most.
I realized that something was missing when I read your book, "Your Movie Sucked". I was in the mood for snark and snideness, but by the end I was depressed. It was so lowering to read all that negative stuff (not that you didn't express your views coherently and at times humorously). It is probably your only book I won't read again.
I also note that the other reviewers I read (from The New Yorker) tend toward the sour. It's not just that Anthony Lane or David Denby are harsher in their criticism, it seems that they don't come to their assignment with good faith and a positive attitude. Vinegar permeates even their favorable reviews, which are grudgingly given. Perhaps that is why you are my favorite reviewer, and I am willing to be challenged by you to see films that a stretch for me. Whatever, whichever, I am grateful for it. Even when I don't agree with your review, I can understand your point of view. That is priceless. (I am often left, after reading an Anthony Lane review, wondering if he likes any movies at all. I don't think he does!)
There is a middle possibility between the binary thumbs and the four/five star rating.
In our family we use:
Worth paying full price at the theater.
Worth seeing the matinee.
Wait and rent it.
Not worth seeing.
I think that's what people want to know anyhow.
Ebert's reviews are fun to read, or if I'm not sure I understand them, intriguing. There are a lot of movies I wouldn't have seen if it weren't for him. I didn't really think movies were more than just some hollywood movie; whatever movie I saw last was I guess the movie I really liked the most--it didn't really matter. But I really liked reading the reviews, and went to rent some movies that I thought sounded really good. I remember renting "Red" and was astonished at how absorbed I was in the movie. My friend came over and I said, let me show you a minute or two of this, and in a trancelike state we watched about the first 25 minutes before I realized we didn't have time to watch it together. I want to see more of Patrice Laconte, but only saw "Widow of St. Pierre"--Juliet Binoche really elevated it. All those other directors he mentioned over sixty, I don't think I've watched most of those directors movies yet, so, I have my work cut out for me there....well, I've seen almost ever Scorsese movie, a few Fellini masterpieces(not really La Dolce Vita--I saw in two sittings all tired, but it's coming in the mail), all the Hitchcock masterpieces, most of Kurosawa, I own "Secrets and Lies" but I havent seen others by him, every Altman masterpiece-did he ever not make one?, Bergman: only saw Fanny and Alexander and Seventh Seal--got my work cut out for there too, Bunuel: only "Belle de Jour" and the other surrealist movie-not in the Great Movies.....the rest I havent seen one by them...I know,I have seen Fassbinder's "Fear EAts the Soul" and "Merchant of Four Seasons" but haven't seen the other master of the German new wave Herzog
I agree with your system of rating movies, and have thought I noticed a tendency for higher ratings across time, particularly after your medical difficulties. I see that as a natural, humanitarian maturing as a result of life experiences.
But in re. to me personally, I find your reviews the best guide for knowing whether or not I want to see a movie. And that has been the case ever since I first watched you on TV many years ago. This has been a boon for me because I see 2-3 movies a week.
I'd also like to say that, considering the huge number of movies made and (as you pointed out) the tremendous amount of work that goes into them by so many people, and the amount of sheer luck involved in one becoming popular, it seems very reasonable to give more credit to those involved in movie-making.
Thanks so much for being who you are!
The four-star system never bothered me. What bothered me was the "two thumbs up" slogan. Or, more accurately, the way people misinterpreted it.
It drives me nuts to run into a person who tells me to watch a movie, then follows it up with "Two thumbs up!"
The idea was that TWO critics - each giving a single thumbs-up - would total "two thumbs up." (Simple math: One thumb plus one thumb equals two thumbs, even taking rounding into consideration.)
But, when a single person tells me "two thumbs up!", my face scrunches up in a whimsical fashion and smoke starts coming out of my ears.
Of course, I'll readily admit that maybe I should just get a life and stop worrying about such things.
What's your take, Roger?
Ebert: Of course your math is correct. But what about "both thumbs up?"
Roger's reviews are the only ones I read with any regularity. I look at the stars for a general idea but it is the film I am interested in. Redeeming features, less than adequate aspects, does it work? Can it be appreciated/enjoyed for what it is? The stars are irrelevant in many ways but the context of genre is signficant as there really is no way to compare "Tropic Thunder" to "Munich" but it is possible to enjoy both. Do I always agree with Roger's reviews? No, but won't go into my take on "A History of Violence" :-) Do I go see everything that Roger likes? No, but at least I know what I am getting into when I end up at a film that everyone I am with is willing to see. Sometimes one comes out feeling, as a friend said after "Pan's Labrynith" - "I am not sure I 'liked' it but I am glad I saw it."
The system is fine the way it is. Having faithfully read your column for 25 years I've noticed that the crude 4-star rating stategy is supplemented with several paragraphs of consistently articulate, thoughtful insight. Your writing more than makes up for the bluntness of the stars. Anyone looking at just the rating is missing the point.
Roger, on your next book collection of reviews, you should include a quote by 2001 astronaut Dave Bowman:
"My God, it's full of stars!"
I once had a film school professor who said "If I there's anything I want you to take away from this class, it's that it's okay to love RULES OF THE GAME, and it's okay to love EVIL DEAD 2." This kind of all-encompassing love of cinema is what characterizes the best of Ebert's writing, and is what made his work so addicting to me growing up as a movie fan in Chicago. In an age of cynical sourpusses like David Thomson and David Denby, who almost seem ashamed to make their living as film critics, I think that being thought of as overly positive is an endorsement, not an insult.
Seinfeld: Only two opinions, "It was great" or "It sucked".
Hence the success of thumbs up/down. It may have to do with information overload. If we carry only a simple great/sucks view of every issue, it takes less energy to store, recall, and communicate. We can still devote any amount of energy we choose to deliberating on its merits, and we enjoy that so long as the result is clear and simple. A wishy-washy opinion (unfortunately indistinguishable from a sophisticated one) nags us and distracts us as we look for good reason to tuck it away into the great or sucks bins. Human nature is simplistic this way.
Tell me if it's great or it sucks, then tell me why. If you're right, you're great, otherwise you suck :)
It is ridiculously hard to rate movies in stars, and I applaud you for sticking to it for so very long. I simply try to be as clear as I can when I review a picture in my blog and have resisted the temptation to have a grading system. Actually, sometyimes you make it so clear in your reviews (as does Peter Travers), I wonder why you still use them.
As for your ratings, I mostly agree with your takes, but I notice that whwen I disagree, I DISAGREE. You didn' like Fight Club, I loved it; you didn't like The Bucket List, I cried like a baby in it. And based on what I've read, I don't think I'm going to call The Mummy 3 "the best in the series", but I'll wait to see it. Then we'll talk. Hope you will always feel better.
I can appreciate that Roger loves films and have to admire him for admitting he likes them "too much." So do I. However, I still think being overgenerous is too close to acting less like a critic and more like part of the marketing system.
I don't think that the fact that Candace Bergen is a wonderful person should even come into play when acting as a film critic. I gave up taking Ebert (and Roeper) seriously because I found them so generous it was as though they are just endorsing junk and crummy trends in the industry - such as, unnecessary, crappy re-makes (The Women) weak writing, or over-use of CGI, etc...
Dear Mr. Ebert,
Jennifer Smith commented earlier, "This is why we love you, Roger. I always knew you were just a big fanboy."
I must echo that sentiment, with a sense of misty tenderness, for I've also always thought that about you. It's just nice to see it confirmed in print.
I think this is why I've turned to you more often for movie reviews, trivia, editorials, and now general blogging than any other critic, magazine, or website. You just seem to love movies, and at the root isn't that the real reason to watch them, discuss them, and write about them? You'd think so, but that often doesn't seem to be the case. Perhaps it's a lot like the teacher that loves teaching. How many of those did we encounter throughtout high school and college? Few enough that they stand out enjoyably in wistful nostalgia.
So keep on rating however you'd like, it's all right with me.
And by the way, in case you haven't heard it enough, you're a wonderful writer. I oughta know -- I'm great reader.
Sincerely,
Jeff Daugherty
Seattle, WA
I had a rating system I used in my personal journal for a while. Four stars were used, but each was awarded for a particular aspect of my experience.
1st star: awarded to a movie whose purpose has merit. A tragedy, an adventure, a very silly comedy, I'm pretty open. Just about any idea worth pursuing gets this star. A sequel that is an obvious cash grab: no star. The quality of the actual movie is not considered for this star, just the idea behind it. A few movies didn't get this star, but did get all the others. (Looking at you, Pirates.)
2nd star: awarded to a movie that achieved its purpose. Was the comedy funny? Was the adventure exciting? Was the cinematographic masterpiece actually beautiful?
3rd star: awarded to a movie that completely avoided insulting me. A movie can have flaws, but if even I could have pointed them out in production, then somethings is clearly wrong.
4th star: awarded to any movie that stayed with me after watching. Do I want to see it again, read about it, obsess over the plot twist, or find out what happens next? Or did I just see it, enjoy it, and move on.
I found this worked pretty well for my personal records. It highlighted the movies that somehow ringed true with me and which I'd want to remember and share.
BTW, only one movie failed to get any stars: The Phantom Menace.
Sorry about the second post, but I have to respond to your response. Per your answer, I did look up your review of nuLONGEST YARD, and your alibi for liking it seems a copout. The original LY was not just a goofy Burt Reynolds vehicle; beneath the crowd-pleasing turns, it was actually about something: trying for dignity in the least dignified situation imaginable. It was, and continues to be, possibly the best of all Reynolds's films, because he did not just have a party for his cronies that would turn big bucks on the opening weekend. It was a true ensemble picture, with every actor, from the lead roles down to the bit parts, giving 100%. I found it significant that when you mentioned James Cromwell's performance as the warden, you didn't compare it to Eddie Albert's in the original: such a comparison might have turned down your thumb, or maybe taken off a star. And don't tell me that you don't do comparisons: as a control I also reread your review of the 2nd version of THE IN-LAWS, which was a non-stop comparison with the much superior original. I still believe your mercy was attributable to your not having seen the original LONGEST YARD in close conjunction with Sandler's LY telethon (a friend called it that because "everybody was just phoning it in"). A friendly challenge: See the original again, then the remake, and then decide if maybe, just maybe, you let the latter picture through on a pass. Still submitted with respect.
This is the best piece of writing on the rating system that I've ever read.
I think you should do a show with Richard Roeper again. I'm not being facetious when I'm saying this but I think until you get your speaking voice back you should go on tv with your computer doing your talking and you typing the words.
You are more eloquent, even when talking through a computer, than most critics are with their own speaking voices.
Ebert: A computer knows the words, but not the music.
I read your review of A Clockwork Orange after reading through the comments on this post. I nodded, I cheered, I felt relieved. Recently I left a movie in tears--not because the story was wrenching but--because I was really upset at the squandering of so much talent to tell such a miserable little story. I am glad that you are brave enough sometimes to say "nein" to revolt against things that are revolting--perhaps not on an artistic level but certainly--on the level of our humanness. There is however the other side to this--films that succeed on a human level and fail artistically. Many times to fail artistically is to fail on a human level but certainly not always. Indeed, a couple of my favorite movies of all time fail artistically but I think tell me a story that I am blessed to know.
You obviously have a very side knowledge of movie history, actors, directors and other film-related subjects. So it's disappointing to see you give such generous reviews because I get the feeling that you could be more discriminating about whether a movie is worthwhile or not. It seems like you're more of a movie fan than a movie critic. I've read some of the reviews of Pauline Kael, and the thing that was interesting about her is that she was very fun to read, as you are, but she also held movies up to a high standard based on her keen knowledge on the subject of film. With so many younger critics without your awareness of films, it seems that if you were more discriminating, you'd separate yourself more from the novices if you held films to a higher standard.
Roger - re your statement:
"Ebert: A computer knows the words, but not the music."
Never underestimate the value of eloquence (which you have in abundance).
Regarding the comment above, by Ian Rosen, I love the fact that you appear more of a movie fan than a movie critic. This means that when you give a review it provides more useful information to those of us who ARE movie fans - NOT movie critics. Speaking for myself I believe too many people (not just movie critics) like the sound of their own voice. Just go to the review/comment/message boards on the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) to see what I mean.
The one reason why you are the ony critic that I pay attention to is how you rate movies. You rate movies based on the genre (or at least you seem to) You dont go into every movie expecting it to be The Godfather; you seem to rate movies based on enjoyment and the quality. I dont always agree with you and your assesments (Donnie Darko jumps to mind) however I usually see your point in your criticisms. You are not unnecessarily cruel in your ratings (unlike some critics) and you definately dont have a "god-complex" when rating movies.
And I dare say you give everything positive ratings. Fight Club is a movie that everyone I talk to loves and a lot of critics liked (81% on rotten tomatoes) however, your criticism and rating of that movie I feel is dead on.
I like the 4 star system. 2 1/2 is like a so-so film, a C+. There are a good number of movies you've given that rating to that I have gone on to watch and enjoy considerably (again, Donnie Darko).
For me, I divided even further than halves. I usually use it if a film was otherwise great, but I had a tiny flaw with it.
Example: I gave Juno 3 and 4/5 stars. I really liked it, and was happy it got Oscar nominations. But I was irritated by the Paulie character, so I docked it.
No Country For Old Men I gave 2 and 3/4 stars. It provided enough food for thought not to be a 2 and 1/2 star film, but the ending to me seemed to go nowhere.
I think the easiest recommendation breakdown is:
See it in the theater as soon as possible!
See it in theaters on a rainy day/ Rent it on DVD when released
Rent it on DVD at some point
Wait for it on tv
However, these will definitely change by genre. I know some people really get a kick out just being in the movie theater, but for me, (mainly because of $) I reserve theater movies for ones where the bigger screen and better image quality will make the bigger difference for me seeing the film there versus at home.
This tends to push me towards seeing the big action and special effects film on the big screen. I love Judd Appotow films but I feel there will be very little difference for me seeing at home (especially if a few friends are over to laugh with me) versus seeing in the theater. Thus his movies will fall somewhere on the Go to the theater on a rainy day/ rent it when it first comes out on DVD level. Thus it was interesting in reading your review how you felt the big theater helped Lost in Translation so much.
In a way, as you stated Siskel simply wanted to tell people if they should see a movie or not, I interpret the ratings in two ways - should I see the movie or not, and how much of a priority/money should the movie be given.
I had assumed that recently you've had more freedom in choosing the movies you review, and that naturally you've been reviewing more movies you like--thus the higher ratings overall.
I often disagree with your ratings, but I read your reviews religiously, because you speak intelligently about the movies. I can get an indication from your review of a movie you might have rated highly that I would not like and vise-versa. For that reason I think the review is more valuable than the rating.
Yes you appear to love movies. That gives you the knowledge and depth you need for your reviews. We all should be lucky enough to earn a living doing something we love. It is something to aspire to.
Thank you,
Kevin
First of all, I'm thankful for your explanation (or defense) of your rating systems. I trust your reviews above all others, but it alway made we wonder (but never question) when i would check out Metacritic and see your name atop the list of critics commenting on a certain film.
The rating system you mentioned from the San Francisco Chronicle reminded me of a little rating/game my wife and I have when we go to the theater and sit through the trailers (perhaps one of my favorite parts of the experience). It goes like this:
We hold up fingers 1-5 and this is what they mean.
5 - I'll be there opening night!
4 - I'll see it opening weekend
3 - I'll probably see it at sometime during it's run in theaters
2 - I will not go see that movie
1 - I would see that movie if you paid me!
In playing this game I've run across the difficulty of the 3-4 category. Something in me wants to bend my pointer finger and give it a 3 1/2 but I try to be strong and pick one.
It's easy when you love it, it's easy when you hate it. It's that middle ground of neither hot nor cold that makes it obvious that I should just leave it up to the people who know what they're doing and just sit back and enjoy the movie.
As a college instructor, I find that I have the same problem when I grade papers.
Here's what I've come up with: a basic 10 to one marking scale with a definition of what each mark means. Since instituting the scale, I've had far fewer students complain about their marks.
My scale:
10 = You're up there with God and the Beatles
9 = You're smarter than me; you can teach the class next week
8 = You're as smart as me
7 = You've exceeded my lofty expectations
6 = You've met my lofty expectations
5 = Hooray, you passed!
4 to 0 = Oops, something went wrong. Onward and upward!
Anyone getting a 4 to 0 gets the Fast Times at Ridgemont High treatment: I go to their house and read them the textbook. OK, I don't, but it's a pretty great scare tactic.
Ebert: That sounds like it would work.
Thank God the Sun-Times doesn't compel its critics to assign star ratings to books.
(I'm whispering that so that they don't hear me.)
I believe you enjoy movies far more than the average critic who is intent on "criticizing". That could also be one reason for you giving out too many stars.
You are quite right. Stars are pointless and one really needs to read a review before making a judgment.
And with your reviews, the writing is good enough to warrant a read and the insight that often comes with it is a major bonus.
As a San Francisco resident I absolutely loathe the Little Man system for being needlessly abstruse and the sort of system that needs to be learned. For someone coming into it without any knowledge of the number of icons or precisely what to take away from their representation it is almost impossible to use reasonably. The sideline that I vehemently dislike Mick LaSalle's reviews and ratings is almost secondary to how much I dislike the Little Man.
Personally I prefer a ten-point, weighted review system. Five points for completely average, six for above-average, seven for well above-average, eight for very good, nine for excellent, and ten for a level of superiority that should ideally be occupied by a very, very scant few. In the average year perhaps one or two films should ever be awarded one or ten stars or even none. The majority should likely end up with four to six. A film that is great for it's genre, but only within that genre would likely never receive above seven and that would likely be awarded to genre classics.
At the same time, for me, the problem is also one of quantization. I would like to be able to, as much as possible, look at two films with the same rating and be able to agree that I feel both are equally good or bad.
I think the problems are often two-fold: people feel conditioned by the typical academic grading system where 50% is equivalent to failing and thus many people believe that a 50% or even 40% rating is equivalent to failure and not, as I believe, completely average or only a small failing (but certainly adequate if something else grabs you... consider it shopworn), secondly people often seem to have been conditioned by the "if you can't say something nice..." aphorism and dislike giving out negative reviews or ratings for all, but the worst. This gets even worse when combined with binary ratings that fail to utilize the entire scale (i.e. so many online ratings tend to be devoted almost entirely to 1's or 5's with little in between). While you make a cogent point for the usage of binary ratings they're rarely helpful when trying to make complex choices, e.g. is this a good, but flawed film that I might nonetheless find worthwhile or is it a good film that tries, but never quite makes it into being essential?
Ultimately, of course, no rating is ever going to take the place of a properly written review. Or, for that matter, a dozen. No one opinion can ever give the whole picture.
Sure, that you like movies shines through in your reviews, but there's more. You also seem to like the people who make movies, and the people they make them about (in the broadest sense). Your humanity shines through your reviews, and I trust them for that reason, without always agreeing with every aspect. You are able to write a review about a movie you didn't like -- hammer it, actually -- and still say kind things about the people who made it (an example would be "North" 1994, to which you gave zero stars). Your reviews are circumspect enough to not spoil the movie for me if I read them before watching, and often make me ponder on aspects of the movies that hadn't occurred to me if I read them after watching. They are frequently as thought-provoking and entertaining as the movies they are meant to describe.
Can I get ANY of that from stars? No. The star rating system is much too blunt of an instrument, whether it's calibrated to 4 or 100. I dare your editors to drop the star system and just let you write.
One of the things I've always admired about Mr Ebert's reviews is the sense that he really enjoys going to the movies. It takes a special kind of dedication for a film critic to keep that love of cinema up for any length of time. I'm sure that the mindset outlined in this article is an essential part of keeping that love alive.
(That, and he's one of the few people to "get" Being There.)
Roger, I have always enjoyed your reviews. Whenever I consider going to a movie, I always check your review first. I trust your opinion, because I know that if you like it, I will probably like it too. I always read the actual review, rather than stopping at the star rating, because you back up your opinions, and they're well-informed by a long history of seeing films. You are a film critic, not a film reviewer. As a Dodger fan, the highest compliment I can give you is that to me, you're the Vin Scully of your profession.
I know good when I see (experience) it and I know bad, but good luck to those who gauge, rate, or define art. Yes, that's a person trying to do one thing while perhaps doing another.
The best thing about the thumbs up system is that Ebert was only wrong half the time.
Ebert ratings are a little higher than other critics because he takes the experience levels of viewers better into account. Many critics knock down some films because they are derivative of (or directly steal from) older films or simply aren't as good as older films. But a viewer who hasn't seen those older films won't care about them. If a film is aimed at a particular audience and Roger feels it hits the target, he gives it at least a mildly positive review. Some other reviewers rate films from the viewpoint of a very intelligent film expert with unreasonably high standards.
Gene Siskel boiled it down: "What's the first thing people ask you? Should I see this movie? They don't want a speech on the director's career. Thumbs up--yes. Thumbs down--no."
But that isnt really true, is it? I mean, it was probably true in 1975. Today, though, there's a third option: "Wait for video." (Or "Wait for DVD," "Wait for cable," whatever.) A movie you'd enjoy watching if you're not (a) paying a babysitter, (b) paying cineplex prices, (c) building your whole evening around the thing, and (d) choosing it over a couple dozen other films that might disappear by the time you get a chance to get out to the movies again. That's why you need that thumb, wagging two-and-a-half-star rating.
When I began looking at films critically for the first time, it was the example of your TV show that resided in the back of my mind, and finally won out as I was at a loss to explain my love of mediocrity. I found myself defending films such as "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?", "Back to the Future", and "Joe vs. the Volcano" from the shrill criticism of fellow film students, all of whom believed that mediocrity was a sin beyond imagination.
Yet, most of them could refer to specific lines in "Plan 9 from Outer Space".
There is a need for the three-starrer in this world. A film that serves a movie's purpose to entertain, within the constraints set for it. A film that goes above and beyond should be a rare, and enjoyable experience.
It was there where I discovered that your reviews tended to match my tastes, and that whatever you star it, I would read and take in your opinion, digest it, and it would help me decide what to spend my time and money on. That is, after all, the harshest critic.
So far, so good.
It is because of this that my tastes have evolved to a point worthy of little rating system outside of my wallet.
That being said, it is also your writings that have inspired me to branch out and find new films that I never would have before. I enjoy you.
Thanks for your reviews, and your stars.
Precisely the reason that your are the number one critic in the world. You're honest. And the star system works for people who have read your reviews for a long time, in that I can typically guess within half a star where you will place a film, but I am surprised from time to time, and sometimes VERY surprised. When we don't have the time to read you're whole review at that moment. It's nice to see those familiar stars to get a broad stroke. Not to say I don't love to read your reviews. I do, even when you're pissing me off. You're a gifted writer.
As to the idea of you giving too many stars... I disagree. I think you give what you feel and if you err you err on the side of giving all involved the benefit of the doubt.
To me this says you're not elitist. But that doesn't mean you're not elite.
In your review you gave Aguirre, the Wrath of God zero stars in 1977, but by 1999 it had been listed by you as a Great Movie. Is the zero stars a mistake? From your review back then, it seemed that you liked it.
Ebert: A big mistake!
I am very disappointed that you have included "Gone With the Wind" in your list of Great Movies. It was an attempt to justify a society that was built on the back of slave labor.
When Big Sam says, "But your Ma says the Confederacy needs us, so we goin' to dig for the South" and "Goodbye Miss Scarlett. Don't worry. We stop them Yankees" the movie is making the point that the slaves were happy and content with the way things were before the meddling Yankees came.
You say in your review, "A politically correct `GWTW' would not be worth making, and might largely be a lie." I couldn't disagree with you more. 'GWTW' is the lie. Many people buy into this fantasy world as the reality, and that is what makes it so insidious.
It is time that we as Americans face up to the evil system that permeated our society for almost two hundred and fifty years. Sugar coating it won't make it go away. A first step is to accept "GWTW" for what it is.
Great filmmaking, great cinematography, great music, great story : Yes. Great movie : No!
John Updike's rules for reviewing; they've been getting around since his death, for example in the New Yorker:
Review the book, not the reputation. Submit to whatever spell, weak or strong, is being cast. Better to praise and share than blame and ban. The communion between reviewer and his public is based upon the presumption of certain possible joys in reading, and all our discriminations should curve toward that end.
And yes, it is a little late to be posting this.
Ebert: But it's so useful.
Ebert: 2. Directors. There are some who make films I simply find myself vibrating with. I will have difficulty in not admiring a work by Bergman, Altman, Fellini, Herzog, Morris, Scorsese, Cox, Leigh, Ozu, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Keaton...and to borrow an observation from my previous entry, I haven't even reached directors under 60.
In your most recent blog entry, about Agnes Varda, you suggested to me the films of Paul Cox. As I looked back on this list, I noticed you had already suggested him to us several months ago. I know all the others on that list, except for Mike Leigh. After comparing his list on IMDb with your reviews of his, I'll be sure to check out some more of his films. I loved "Happy-Go-Lucky," but wasn't familiar with his other work.
If I may, I do have a quick question. I watched Hitchcock's "Spellbound" tonight and have been struggling to find your opinions on the movie. I've seen probably 15-20 of his movies, and I can't help but put this one in my Top 5 after just one viewing...am I over-reacting, or did you enjoy it as well?
Ebert: Enjoyed it, but not among my favorite Hitchcocks.