This is something that has been urking me for quite some time now. I'm not a big movie buff. If I have nothing to do on a weekend I'll catch a flick but I do however checkout the ratings just to see who gave what for pure curiosity. I don't understand why it's only a fourstar rating. To me four stars isn't broad enough to seperate a bad movie from a good movie from a great movie from a classic.

Is there any particular reason why there isn't say a 10 star rating?

of course they split some of those stars in half so technically it's an 8 star rating which is pretty close to 10

They could have it as follows:
1. Great movie don't miss it
2. Good movie
3. Some may like it
4. Save your money it stinks

I have no problem with the 4 star rating system. What makes me laugh is Ebert & Roeper’s Two Thumbs Up----WAY UP! So now a thumbs up has gradations?

Yeah, I think it's used because it's the most basic system you can have.

*-Very Bad
**-Run of the Mill Bad
***-Good
****-Blow Your Socks Off Good

What about and ? Can't get any more simple than that.

Yes, but it's a Registered Trade Mark of Siskel & Ebert.

I recieved a 'cease and desist' letter from their lawyer when I used the rating system when I covered funerals for the local paper.

What would be considered a funeral? Maybe if someone got hysterical and jumped on top of the coffin? Or maybe if someone bumped into the coffin, knocked it over, and the corpse fell out. Y'know, entertainment value, just like a movie.

I'd prefer it that way, although it might take somewhat getting used to:

********** - Possibly the best movie ever
********* - Almost the best movie ever
******** - Close but no cigar
******* - Not bad
****** - Could be worse
***** - Eh
**** - Ed Wood
*** - Pretty damn bad
** - Run away now!
* - If you avoid only one movie this year, make it this one!

Why 10? Why not 12? Why not 13? Any rating system is arbitrary so it doesn't really bug me.

My criteria (in order of importance) was:

1-Good food
2-Any celebrities attending
3-Any cute girls
4-Good music.

Well my thing is there are so many movies in the 3 star rating, which I'm assuming most here consider "good"

Among those "good" there are many that are better than others but those better aren't considered a "classic" or "can't miss"

I agree any would be arbitrary but a broader scoring system would nice to have. But there is the half stars so I guess thats getting somewhere.

HELL YEAH i've wanted to see that since they DIDN'T show it in the movie clerks

oh and welcome to my new 1 star rating system... Either the Movie sucks or it doesn't, no leeway there

I too have tried to use the 4 star system, but found it impossible to translate using the Rotton Tomatoes ratings of 1-10. So, I tacked on an extra star, finding the 5 star easier to deal with:

* - complete utter crap
** - it didn't TOTALLY suck
*** - it was ok...stuff I liked, stuff I didn't
**** - good deal
***** - great

Then, I'm over at RT...and all I've got to do is mulitply by 2 to get my RT rating. Oh yeah...and I can also use the 1/2 star set up too, so I can the odd numbers...you know like 3, 5, 7, 8, 9.... wait... cancel the 8. No 8.

That's my beef with anything below a ten. I like to be as specific as possible so an eight is different from a seven and a ten is that much further away from a one.

Kantonberg the IMDb.com has a best of 10 rating from members like me that vote it up or down.

From a letter grade standpoint, a 4-point scale is most efficient:

A - ****
B - ***
C - **
D - *
F - Bomb (0 stars)

Some reviewers also give out no stars and a half a star. So technically, the current star system is based on a ten point system.

Apparently nobody hear majored in math, or even in counting for that matter. If you include zero and 1/2 star ratings you get 9.

0, .5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4

So it is a 9 point scale. Which is close enough to 10 to make this whole thread fairly pointless.

My local paper has a five star scale, I've always preferred that to a four star scale.

Apparently you did, but failed english.

.

OOPS. Atcaluly, taht ins't far form the tutrh.

Well, for most reviewers teh star rating system is just a simple way to give a basic rating. None of them truly (well the good ones at least) think the star rating is detailed and really representative of their opinion. I know Ebert is bashed a lot for his star ratings, but seriously you have to read his review to really understand where he's coming from. I know that's hard for a lot of people.

In my database, I use what is essentially a 100 point system - 0.0 through 10.0 - and convert other critical ratings to match the 100 point system so I can get an average of all the ratings.

A friend of mine always jokes that his rating system is from negative one million to positive one million. That means an average movie rates a "zero".