I have gone back and forth on whether to give each film a score. I don't really like star ratings because it feels very ambiguous. I am not sure how to differentiate a 3.5 star film from a 4 star film. This is the problem with any sort of scoring system. It also leaves you open to directly compare two films that have to be judged on completely different rubrics. Even when assigning the score you let these comparisons cloud your judgement. You start to think, I gave Borat 4 stars, but I like Zoolander slightly more so I need to give it 4.5 even though Zoolander on its own would have only ever garnered no more than 4 stars. Anyway, I think you get the point.However, I do see the value in scoring movies with some objective scale. Usually when I read reviews the first thing I look at is the star rating. It helps to put the whole review into perspective. That might not always be a good thing, but it is a thing. I like to look at other people's ratings, and I feel like I should always provide some type of score. From now on I will try to start out every review with a very short thought along with my score out of 10. It is arbitrary, and can be interpreted however you wish, but I will give my "gut feeling" score for each film.
I am open to any suggestions for a better method/system. I also think I need to read this Christopher Null book.
Filed Under: Ratings