Roger Ebert on review ratings

[Umbran]

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.

Yes, but there are many, many possible bases for comparison.

One may be in respect to an objective ideal of a perfect film. Another may be in respect to how well the film fulfills it's own promise. So long as you know the basis, you can use the ratings to compare. Different people will find different bases useful or interesting. That's the nature of the artful beast.

 

[Ranger REG]

FWIW, I respect Ebert more than I respect his cynical colleague Roeper with such impossibly high standard.

 

[barsoomcore]

I don't always agree with Ebert, but after I finish one of his reviews, I can usually tell if I'm going to like the film or not.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I don't always agree with Ebert, but after I finish one of his reviews, I can usually tell if I'm going to like the film or not.

Heh. Stephen Hunter, in the Washington Post, is usually a good judge of non-fantastic films. He doesn't get those at all, but the other movies, I usually agree with him on.

And the Washington Citypaper reviews, I've found that if they REALLY REALLY like it or hate it, it'll be good. If not, it'll not be up my alley.

Brad