Roger Ebert on review ratings

[Berandor]

He gave "Stepford Wives" 3 stars, "Life Aquatic" 2.5 stars

Stars are relative, not absolute, and analyzing them represents a waste of valuable time that could be profitably spent watching aquarium fish or memorizing the sayings of Dr. Johnson. I am compelled to award them because of market pressures. I, too, would rather see "The Life Aquatic" again than "The Stepford Wives," but within the context of the two films, I think "The Life Aquatic" falls further short of what it was trying to do -- even though what it does is better than anything in "The Stepford Wives." I realize my logic is impenetrable. I recommend just reading the reviews and ignoring the stars.

Well, I can see how you'd regard a film that tries to do something and fails as a bigger understatement than a film that does what it sets out to do. But imo, and when I write movie reviews, I try to make my ratings comparable so that in the end, you can look at the rating and gain some impression of the films quality.

Let's just say I wanted to go to the movies, but wasn't sure what to see. I don't have that much time, but I look at a movie review site to skim the current films. One has 3 stars, another has 2.5 stars. I might go to see the 3-star-movie even though it is the worse film?

These things are called "ratings" because they "rate" films in comparison to each other. I can understand not rating movies, but if you do, you should try to make them comparable.

That's really what has made me not read a lot of Ebert's reviews. He could give an inane and barely watchable film 3 stars just because it doesn't try to do something else, and I'd wonder how in hell such a knowledgeable film geek can award such a rating for drivel.

Now I know.

 

[Starman]

I think that assigning a rating to anything is going to be somewhat arbitrary. When I am reading reviews, no matter what type of product, I am more interested in what the reviewer has to say about the product than what sort of rating he has given it.

Starman

 

[Krieg]

Counting stars (in and of itself) is an absolutely worthless method of judging a product. Roger Ebert gets that. Good for him.

 

[mattcolville]

I never give ratings in my reviews. I figure; if you want to know what I thought of a movie, read the review.

THe really amusing thing about this is; there are movies I quite like which are nonetheless awful. So of course, the review is highly critical. And people come away saying "how could you hate this movie so much?" Makes me smile. Here are some links.


Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
Spider-Man 2
The Bourne Supremacy
Spirited Away
Better Luck Tomorrow
The Passion of the Christ
Hulk
Bend It Like Beckham
The Last Samurai
The Return Of The King
The Matrix Revolutions (spoilers)
The 13th Warrior
Kill Bill
Return of the Jedi
One Hour Photo
Pirates of the Carribean
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
S.W.A.T.
The Rundown
Underworld
Lost in La Mancha
Bruce Almighty
The Matrix Reloaded
X-Men 2
Get Carter (1971)/Best In Show
Sexy Beast
Donnie Darko/Zoolander
A Mighty Wind

 

[Berandor]

I think that assigning a rating to anything is going to be somewhat arbitrary. When I am reading reviews, no matter what type of product, I am more interested in what the reviewer has to say about the product than what sort of rating he has given it.

Starman

Yes, and I actually agree. But if you *do* assign stars, you should do so in a somehwat comparable manner, I think.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

This is why I like the Ebert TV show more than the print reviews. A thumbs up or a thumbs down. You either like it or you don't. None of this 3.5 stars out of 5 (why not use a 1-10 scales then?) or 7.5 out of 10 (why not use a 1-20 scale then?). I just want reviewers to tell me the good and bad points of the film and if they liked it.

 

[Fast Learner]

I'm totally fine with his star system, and recognize that he always means that he's giving is x stars for what it is compared to what it's supposed to/could be. Great system.

As a result he can give a cheesy, low-budget but really fun action film 3 stars and an excellent-but-not-awesome high-budget period drama 3 stars. Are the films equally "good"? How could one possibly compare?

I agree that having no rating system would be better than the one he has to use, but I'd much rather he use his existing one than trying to give some kind of meaningful comparison of, say, Rush Hour vs. Big Fish vs. Lord of the Rings vs. American Beauty vs. American Splendor. That system would be completely and utterly meaningless.

When I see an Ebert rating, I almost always read the review, but I certainly always think "he's saying that film deserved x stars for the kind of film it's supposed to be," and make my decision based on that.

The only reasonable way to get useful information from a review, imo, is to know the reviewer; that is, read lots of that person's reviews and compare his/her thoughts to your own. I've learned, for example, that because I really enjoy the genre of science fiction and fantasy, I can generally add 1/2 to 1 star to any rating of a genre film that Ebert does and it will match my feelings about it. If it's a period drama, which I'm not a huge fan of but like the great ones, I can generally subtract 1/2 star from his rating. If either type of film is now in the 3-4 start range, then I'm going to enjoy it.

Why would anyone want him to try to objectively compare Y Tu Mama Tambien to Supercop?

 

[Viking Bastard]

This is exactly why I like Ebert. He likes movies for what they are. Sometimes, of
course, he misses the point of certains movies etc of course, but I can respect his
opinion, even if I don't agree with him. He loves cinema, not just some certain type
of film.

 

[Darth Shoju]

I think that assigning a rating to anything is going to be somewhat arbitrary. When I am reading reviews, no matter what type of product, I am more interested in what the reviewer has to say about the product than what sort of rating he has given it.

Starman

I totally agree. And Mr. Ebert is one of the few critics I respect. That loudmouth he replaced Siskel with is unbearable in my opinion.

 

[Dimwhit]

Yeah, I'm another Ebert fan. I don't always agree, but I can read his reviews, look at what he has to say, and from that I know (to a very high degree of accuracy) whether or not I'll like a film. I am able to do that more with his reviews than anyone else. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes not, but I almost always get a good feel for whether or not I should watch the films based on what he has to say about it.