Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Berandor" data-source="post: 1952631" data-attributes="member: 225">He gave "Stepford Wives" 3 stars, "Life Aquatic" 2.5 starsWell, 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.</blockquote>