The Reasoning Behind My Review System

I'd like to take a moment to talk about my review system in depth. A good portion of this information is covered on my home page, so I will try not to repeat myself too much. However, the justification and reasoning behind the system I have chosen is not exactly clear, so I'd like to clarify any and all thoughts that I have.

As you may know, my review system is currently an 11-point scale, ranging from 0 stars (worst) to 5 stars (best). Originally, this site was created with a simpler 6-point scale with no half-stars. This worked out for me well in the beginning, as I believe that simpler is better, especially when it comes to ratings, and it still works now. I can't believe that some other rating systems use more than an 11-point scale, such as systems that have decimals, use "strong" or "weak" descriptors, or scales that range from 0-100. It is simply not necessary to provide that large of a range of scores in my opinion. Because honestly, is there really a difference between 12 and 13 on that scale? Or a strong 4 and a weak 5? If you are not able to give a concrete example of a movie that fits into every point on the scale, then those extra points are useless and clutter the system.

The movie review that finally pushed me to change from the 6 to 11 point scale was actually Lord of the Rings 3. I originally planned for it to be rated as a 4, but that simply seemed way too low for this high quality of a film. But I also wasn't comfortable putting it at a 5 either, as I don't think its close to perfect and I don't think it deserves to be in that upper echelon of films. So, with no other options, I decided to completely overhaul my review system. This did include rescoring a lot of older films to more accurately fit into the scale. This was honestly easier than I expected, but I also didn't bother changing any of my subcategory scores. You can actually see this if you go back to older reviews, where you probably can't find a single half-star for any subcategory. Even today, I try to avoid using half-stars for subcategories whenever possible just for ease of mind.

One of the most common misconceptions I have gotten about the scoring system is the 3 star score. If you're looking on Yelp, Amazon, or any other online review system for products, you'd probably avoid something that is only rated 3 stars. That's because these systems lean heavily towards the higher side of the spectrum. What I mean by this is most items in these scales falls above a 4, meaning that it is at least acceptable. And I admit that using stars in the way that I do leads to some confusion. But make no mistake, I am in no way trying to replicate or copy these systems or scales. A three is a positive review by all streches, and should not be compared to a 60% on a test or a three-star local restaurant. A three is good, and any movie that receives this score deserves to be known and seen, at least by some.

In designing my score scale, it is my intention to create a "Bell Curve" of sorts. If you do not know what that is, a Bell Curve basically is a pattern in which the majority of items in a scale fall close to the middle, with less and less appearing as you go farther away from this center. My "middle" of the curve is intended to be somewhere in the 2.5-3 star range. Of course, if you take a look at the actual distribution of scores I have awarded films, the curve is nowhere near a bell curve, and the center is nowhere near this supposed 2.5-3 stars. I believe this is because of two things: I want to watch good movies, and I haven't reviewed enough movies. If I picked my films completely at random, I do think that this curve would be better illustrated, however that is not how I do things. I watch movies that interest me, either because I have heard good things about them, I have seen them before, or they were directly recommended to me by others. So, it makes sense that the majority of films that I have reviewed have been "good", because if a movie is on my radar, it's more than likely that it's a good movie. As I review more and more films, I think that the distribution should shift more towards the middle.

Sometimes I still think that 11 points is too many. And sometimes I think it's too few! Trying to fit every single movie into 11 groups is difficult no matter how you try to slice it. I still mull over the score I gave The Gleaners and I and Kung Fu Panda. As of yet, the latter of those two has the higher score, but I can't honestly say that it's better. The difficulty lies in comparing two pieces of art that have nothing in common except that they are both films. So what should I do to rectify this? For now, I will just keep reviewing movies and expanding my own understanding of what makes a movie deserve a certain score. And I will keep searching for the ever-elusive 0 star film.