In Depth:
The Fifth Star in a Four-Star Rating System

           I have always preferred the four-star rating system over the five-star rating system, because it always seemed a little more straight-forward:

                    0       = depraved, immoral trash
                    *       = embarrassingly bad
                    **     = fair—not bad, but not good either
                    ***   = good
                    **** = great

I include half-star variations, which have never really been defined but essentially equal out to:

                    1/2*     = Unwatchably bad
                    *1/2     = bad, but not embarrassingly so
                    **1/2   = okay, but instantly forgettable
                    ***1/2 = very, very good

In my experience as a film critic/reviewer, I have found that this rating system is nearly foolproof: I would venture that every film every made will fall into one of these categories.

          Other critics favor the five-star rating system, but I have always found fault in that system due to the fact that once you get to half-star variations, the true measure of the film gets vague if you are going by the star system and not by the content of the review itself. That sounds crazy, I know, but you’d be simply amazed by how many people consider the star-system as gospel and don’t even take the time to read how the writers actually justify their rating. But that’s another topic altogether that I’ll divulge on more below; in any case, I could conceivably read the five-star system’s ratings as something like this:

                    *         = poor
                    **       = fair
                    ***     = good
                    ****   = very good
                    ***** = great

This seems fine, but if you include half-star variations in such a rating, things start getting the little incomprehensible. How does one determine, for example, that a film is better than “good” but not quite “very good?” Or how can a film really be somewhere in between “very good” and “great?” The margin seems so insignificant that you’re better off simply rounding up or down.

          Yet I have recently been persuaded to use a “fifth star” for purposes of my rating system, though not quite for the same use given by most five-star systems. The ground on which I have been converted rests in the fact that some films have indeed transcended “great” and are now recognized as bona fide “classics,” rising from mere celluloid and existing now in our collective consciousness. I will concede this point, and if adding an additional star to my rating system means that people recognize that the film I am reviewing is not just great, but also a classic, then I am happy to oblige.

          As far as I am concerned, there is no difference between a four and a five-star film in terms of greatness and quality; the difference lies in its vintage. Five-star films, a.k.a. “Classics,” are merely great films that, over the years, have proven to be timeless and are now heralded as landmarks in cinematic history. These are the films that are still being watched and interpreted, even decades after their theatrical runs. There are plenty of great films, even very good films, that deserve to stand the same test of time but for often inexplicable reasons have not. But for a film to be given the fifth star by me, it means that it has been tested over the years, and it remains tried and true and, most of all, beloved.

          Thus, from this day forth, films considered classics will now be issued a fifth star, in addition to its four-star rating. That fifth star rating will include a link to this page, to explain why it exists. I want to make it absolutely clear that in terms of quality, there is no difference between a four-star film and a five-star film, and for that reason, there will be no four-and-a-half star rating. (Can a film be in between “great” and “classic?” Name me that film, if it exists.) The five-star film has simply transcended cinema—it is the most quoted, the most copied, the most parodied, the most acclaimed—whereas the four-star film probably deserves such transcending but has not reached such a level of durability. Four-star and five-star films are equally great, with one key difference: One is not only great, but immortal as well. (I realize that I probably sound like a broken record here, but let it never be said that I don’t make my points absolutely clear.)

          So, here’s my updated system, in its entirety:

                    0          = Depraved, immoral trash
                    1/2*     = Unwatchably bad
                    *          = Embarrassingly bad
                    *1/2     = Bad, but not embarrassingly so
                    **        = Fair—not bad, but not good either
                    **1/2   = Okay, but instantly forgettable
                    ***      = Good
                    ***1/2 = Very, very good
                    ****    = Great
                    *****  = Classic

          There might be a paradox in this new rating: What about films that are considered classics that I didn’t find altogether great? Well, I’m going to cheat a little: For a film to get a fifth star, I must first be willing to give a film a full four-star rating. That still leaves “classics” like The Graduate and Fight Club with little love from me and certainly no five-star rating; if my reader doesn’t like that, he’ll actually have to read my reviews for a more thorough explanation. Thus, I am still provided room for arguing whether or not some films deserve their high status.

          There is also the question of the Cult Movie—films that have an incredible fan base made up of folks obsessively dedicated to a particular movie or franchise (i.e Lord of the Rings and Evil Dead), but are not necessarily well known or considered all that great outside of their loyal fans. If a film is only a cult-film, it is unlikely to be awarded five stars (I say this with all due apologies to Highlander and Dark City, even though they’re still great films). If it is both a cult film and a universal classic (Star Wars, Seven Samurai), then it will certainly make the cut. But this is just to note that there is a difference between the two.

          The last, most important question: Why go through this trouble at all? Some critics, who are probably all the wiser, realize that life is entirely too short to even deal with the star-ratings and do not include them, forcing readers to actually read the whole article if they really want to know what the critic thought of the film. I cannot tell you how many times I have been tempted to remove the star-rating from my website altogether, except for the fact that I understand that many readers will scan instead of carefully read reviews, and I would rather have a definite rating-guide that they can go by, so they will know immediately what films I recommend. If they’re wondering, for example, whether to rent War of the Worlds or E.T. as they are quickly leaving work for the week, they have my star-rating to know which one I recommend more even if they don’t have time to read my often long-winded articles. In addition, if a film novice wants to get familiar with “classic” cinema and doesn’t know where to start, it is helpful to know which of the films I consider great are also ranked among the immortals. I offer the star-rating as a service to such people in either of these categories, who deserve, as all good people do, to watch a good movie over a bad one. You know who you are; thank you for reading, and you’re welcome.

Questions? Comments? E-mail me: danel_the_tinman@hotmail.com