By: Head-Reviewer/Webmaster Danny Baldwin

     What does the term “four-stars” mean, what does an “A” signify? How do we come up with them? Is it based on enjoyment? Is it based on technical correctness? Is it based on poignancy? Do ratings reflect our personal favoritism or a good film? Can’t a three-star picture be better than a four-star one? I believe that art is subjective, and it’s quite hard to form an opposing argument against such. Presuming that this is correct, then how could we be so objective, so mathematical, and slap a number, letter, or single-term on a piece that’s completely up for interpretation?

     For example: I gave both Rob Minkoff’s The Haunted Mansion and Michael Haneke’s Funny Games three-buckets. The former was a complete disaster, but I loved it, because I found it entertaining—a pleasant diversion that was both fun and forgettable. The latter is nothing I’d ever want to watch for pleasure, but it conveyed the emotions that it wished to. One didn’t succeed in what it set out to do, and the other did, yet I was obliged to grant them the same score, based on personal opinion, because of the enjoyment-factor. However, isn’t every moviegoer different? Most readers will simply look at a score and not read the whole review. What good does this do us critics?

     And this is really the problem. If the patrons of my website were to actually absorb every word of my reviews, I would have no problem dishing out ratings willy-nilly. Things go wrong when they assume something about my opinion. If one were to only glance at my scores for both The Haunted Mansion and Funny Games and not read my reviews, then, in theory, they would think that both films are equally good uses of their time. Before long, they’ve watched both, and I’m the blame for them disliking one of the two. To be honest, I admired Femme Fatale (rating: 1 ½ buckets) a lot more than The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake (rating: 3 ½ buckets), and would rather watch it a second time than many films that I gave higher ratings.

     This fact brings up yet another issue. Should a reviewer score based upon comparison or an adjective system? By definition, I liked Mr. Deeds just as much as Master and Commander, but would definitely recommend one over the other. They’re both worthy of renting on DVD or perhaps seeing at the local multiplex at matinee price, but M&C is a much better movie than Deeds. I, personally, try to equally balance the adjective system and comparing multiple films against one another when scoring, usually rating on a bell-curve, based upon the strength of cinema in the given year.

     We must also ponder what a perfect score symbolizes. This year, I’ve awarded eight four-bucket ratings, so far, but wouldn’t go so far as to compare them with classics that would receive the same score, like Citzen Kane or Casablanca. This is partially the reason why I write retrospectives, seasonally. Films that have, over the years, been remembered, and their filmmakers went WAY, WAY, WAY beyond the call of duty when creating them deserve to be recognized. More importantly, has there ever been a perfect film? I don’t believe that there is, or that it’s humanly possible to craft one. All that a “four” means to me is that a certain flick has revolutionized, exhibited, or perfectly captured a trait that is crucial to its genre.

     I wish that I could completely eliminate all types of ratings from Bucket Reviews, but I fear that I would lose traffic as a result of it. Ironically, those of you that are still reading this very essay are probably the few that would continue to follow my reviews if I didn’t score movies, for I presume that you care about a site’s actual content. Why have I written this article? Am I trying to get something off of my chest? One must only engage their self in deep consideration to determine such. Film is priceless; an art that is forever changing, and everlasting. Why are all of us so tempted to come up with a clear-cut form of evaluating it? I suppose I’m hypocritical for thinking this way, but the whole issue is, after all, beyond all of our understanding. Even though it may sound silly, this fact is completely and entirely undeniable.

Back To Home
Back To The Exclusives Page