TL;DR: The Democratization of Film Discussion and Star-Based Rating Systems

Recently, I had a good convo with pal Stuart when, after seeing a mediocre star rating of a classic film, I shot off the snide line "We should only apply star ratings to new media. Sliding in in 2025 to give a 80 year old movie a 3 star review serves neither you nor the movie."

Stuart wisely pointed out that *of course* our ratings are subjective, transitory (will likely be different at a different time) and we cannot have the experience of those who experienced a movie in 1945.  People are only able to give the rating they can give - and we cannot require homework of them to give a rating.

And, I agree!  

Everyone is entitled to their rating.  

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and review.  If I did not believe this, this blog wouldn't exist.  

Certainly social media has made us all experts and put us all out there expressing our opinions whether the world wants our genius or not.  These days, I'm primarily exposed to these opinions through BlueSky's #film feed, which is often linked to folks' letterboxd accounts.  For buddies like Stuart, JimD, Howard, and JAL, I've even linked their letterboxd accounts right on the version of this page you see on web browsers not viewed in mobile versions (look over there in the left menu bar, we'll wait).  It's how I track their viewing and opinions as dudes whose opinions I personally value, even - or especially - when it's different from my own.

Obviously, I am included amongst the teaming masses howling movie opinions into the void.  In no way is this blog special.

While I keep this blog more or less, really, as my personal film journal to track what I have and haven't seen (just this weekend, I found out I'd once seen the movie Red Dragon, which, if you'd held a gun to my head, I would not have said I'd seen) it's also very much me publicly sharing my opinions.  And, also also - It's a record of how I personally view film.  

In fact, I would think reading the blog, day over day, would give people an idea not just my opinion on film, but also give you some insight into who I am (and I am sorry about that.  I know it's unpleasant).  And, yet, I publish links from this blog to Facebook, Insta, Threads, Tumblr and Bluesky with every post.  So it's not like I'm quiet about all this. 

The subjective nature of the experience of viewing film is something they only sort of taught 30 years ago in film school, tilting wildly from auteur theory to death of the author in the same class and without trying to reconcile the two.  I don't know how helpful it is to say "there is a mind behind a film, a vison and we treasure that beyond measure.  But ALSO...  It doesn't matter once you release it as the audience makes it their own and 13-year-olds who can't understand your movie count as much as folks with a PhD in the topic of the film and film itself". 

I'm egalitarian as hell, but I'm not that egalitarian. 

I don't go in for the internet's embracing of The Death of the Author, but maybe that's a post for another day.  

Suffice to say, Metacritic and RT exist to show us that people paid to think about movies do not have a consensus.  The world is a subjective hellscape.  And so we march on, sorting through the rubble of The Minecraft Movie.

In my opinion, some form of truth lies somewhere in an ocean of factors.  And we have something of a set of coordination points.  

• Author's own intention/ baggage  
• Vision of the producer, director, actors and editors, etc...
• The influence of the studio and any censorship or ratings board.  
• The context of the world in which the film was conceived.  
• The context of the world into which the viewer received the film.  
• The viewer's own baggage and pinprick limited worldview.  Two eyes out of of 8-billion humans.

Somewhere in there, you might have an idea of what's going on with a movie.  Any of those might be the angle from which to discuss a movie, or if you want to drag politics, religion, or your own personal field of study into viewing - while I consider one's bailiwick the viewer's own baggage, you could make plenty of arguments that it's a mode or method of viewing.

But... 

The star ratings system...

Star ratings systems were devised for consumer benefit.  A movie was coming out in ye olden times - but so were several movies out that same weekend.  

This was an era during which film was transitory and impermanent like a play.  Unless a movie was re-released (a rarity), had a long engagement, or revival, you would have only a brief window in which to see it.  And, so, one had to trust the local film reviewer.  If they gave a movie 5 stars, you had a better chance of enjoying yourself than watching the 1 star film.  Comparison shopping.

As long as our reviewer remains a constant - or we go about deliriously believing that there is a universal constant for movie quality - we have a chance at making a wise investment for our evening and money.  A five star rating indicates that there's a hint of quality to the movie, but little in the way of a measurable metric.  It is, as we would say now, vibes.

I *think* (but can't say for sure) that stars came into rating via the Michelin star system for restaurants, which were originally intended to tell motorists where to stop for a bite to eat.  This, of course, became something quite different for Michelin well before I was born.  A single Michelin star is a career-high now for the best chefs.  Things change in meaning.

Yelp, Amazon, Doordash and Lyft all employ a five-star rating system, all of which have been horribly compromised.   Yelp and Amazon are manipulated by bad actors, Yelp by manipulative strong-arm tactics blackmailing businesses to get a good review, and Amazon by a flood of robo-reviews with false promises of consumer satisfaction.  Doordash and Lyft almost seem to require 5-star service or they'll penalize your service provider (when we know those rides silently in a car are fine, but...  5 star?)

And, much the same, what was intended for comparison shopping in film has become something a bit different.

Movies changed drastically when they became reviewable in our own homes.   I'm of the age where I remember when this was new for most people.  Where even HBO was temporary, but a recording of HBO was gold.  And now, we can call up the works of Charlie Chaplin in five minutes from thought to popcorn in hand on our sofa. 

We've democratized film endlessly, and each named ourselves a reviewer or critic, because, innately, we are.

And it does raise the question - 

Why are we all shoving ratings in each others faces on Letterboxd? 

It's an interesting proposition.  After all, we were clever enough to like five star movies, were we not?  And, through some transitive property of ratings systems, if we like things others gave five stars, things we like must be five stars, correct?  I mean, I know my taste in movies, books and music is incredible.

Maybe, for new movies, we are helping the market decide.  

The guy at the local paper may not like my preferred niche for film, and so give Zombie Attack #2789 a mid-grade, but as a zombie aficionado, you feel a bit different - this is in fact a GREAT zombie movie.  5 stars.  Maybe you're mad that Capeman is being remade when you liked Capeman 2013.  Why not pre-emptively give Capeman 2025 one star?  (you sad little man)

Or, maybe we just saw Latest Neat Picture and we just feel the need to weigh in.   It was surprisingly good or surprisingly bad.  We don't even really need to say why, we can bop over to Letterboxd and drop stars.  We can, if we so choose, add the why of our stars.

I think this makes sense.  If nothing else, we share a roughly contemporary POV in a world shared with fellow viewers, and we can assume a similar knowledge of recent movies and current events, and film market.  If we help our fellow Zombie Attack or Capeman fans, all the better.  

Toss those stars out there.  Go with God.

But this post started with a comment about older movies.  

With older movies, we know we're not influencing markets, especially when we're watching Beastmaster for a giggle on a Thursday night in June.  The Beastmaster ship has sailed.  We know Beastmaster is not high art, but it entertained us and had animals and was fun that was funny.  From that perspective - 5 stars.  As a work of art to pass down to the next generation?

How many stars do you give Beastmaster?

With our star ratings on older movies, we're curating something - less about the movies themselves than a sense of our taste, of our personal beliefs in quality and the degree to which we think the movie succeeded vis-a-vis both its own rubric and ours as a viewer.  

But we know this barely works.  

How many 19-year- olds entering film school are horrified to learn that they must watch a film in (gasp) black and white.  They wish to make a Skibidi movie!  What does Rules of the Game have to do with that?*

One thing getting older has taught me is that our past is a distant land, and as someone now on the wrong side of fifty, we can see The Youths react to the media of our own past as if discovering antiquities.  Much like any archaeologist, they hold up the artifact and misinterpret the meaning through their own lens.  Two naked men stacked on this vase?  Quite the culture of wrestling they had in this society!  This woman was a leader?  She must have hidden herself as a man, for no woman could possibly lead...  Etc...

We are bad at understanding what was happening just forty years ago.  How much worse are we at understanding eighty years ago?  120 years ago?

Should the viewer be asked to be fully versed in the history and context of the film?  And, indeed...  Should we ask people to understand the full history of Universal pictures that led to the creation of The Wolf Man?  The history of Lon Chaney Jr. as an heir to a great talent?  The state of the world as we saw the end of the Depression and roared into World War II?

We can't ask that.  But, also, a little humility never hurt anyone.

You hope the viewer has the curiosity to start looking into those things in order to understand how our world reached our present state and embraces a general liberal arts education to try to contextualize this orb we live on.  But judging by *gestures broadly at burning planet*, curiosity, learning and an historical context for the world?  Not really the priority.  

No one is stopping you from watching The Wolf Man in 2025.  And, just as every person of age deserves a vote, regardless of education, background and perspective, so, too, can anyone go to Letterboxd and put 1-5 stars and say what they think.

But that doesn't mean your opinion isn't bad.

This is why I say (to quote myself again): We should only apply star ratings to new media. Sliding in in 2025 to give a 80 year old movie a 3 star review serves neither you nor the movie

I'm not saying The Wolf Man is a 5 star movie.  Nor a 1 star, or even a 3 star movie.  I'm saying, I would avoid giving the movie any stars. 

Look, you can wrap your screening of the movie and say "the make-up in this movie is laughable compared to Rick Baker, or the CGI werewolves in this other modern movie. 1 star".  But... you probably wouldn't.  Innately, you know that there's a logical progression of monster movie make-up that has occurred over the years, and it improves over time as materials and techniques become available.  

What is more slippery is understanding how to read a movie released in 1941.  And that's, frankly, something you can only get used to through watching older movies.  And, hopefully, your curiosity strikes you enough to both give latitude to the ever-changing language of film as well as wanting to ask "why did they do it that way?" and "what did they mean by what they said?"  

If the past is a foreign land, I would compare it to voyaging to some new country and seeing that they drive differently, they eat differently, they marry and have families and dance differently.  We know the boorish American thinks they're doing it wrong instead of accepting the differences.  In fact, you go there to experience the difference knowing "it is on me to sort this out, I cannot ask this country to conform to my expectations.  And, surely, my world would feel as foreign to these good people.". 

It doesn't mean you agree with them - and may find their practices at odds with your own morals.  But it is you who've entered their country and custom.  You can observe.  

And, you know, we have unkind names for those who shows up in foreign land and insist that the locals must adhere to our invading law and custom and become one of us or perish.

You may discover food that is new to you, and you may like it or not like it, but the food was also not made with you in mind.  It was never geared toward your palette, which is the product of your home country.

Now - the thought here is:  yes, but should I not tell my fellow travelers this is a local delicacy, but it is in fact, disgusting?  Warn them with my one star review?

You can.  But, also, there are those with palettes trained for this food, who can discuss what it is without just giving it a thumbs down.  So, who are you helping?**

So what then?

The star system for older movies feels odd to me, personally, because I don't trust the reason the viewer gave the movie that rating.  I don't know if you're an idiot abroad or Rick Steves who likes everything in Europe and claims friends in every corner of the continent.

Stars are part of a "review" rather than a critical read.  A review is a general discussion of a movie and - in general - what you get from both media and folks on Letterboxd.  It's what's on this site 95% of the time.  A synopsis.   Some comments about whether the movie works or not.  Often, it's a discussion about feelings.  And that's legit.  Movies exist to elicit feelings and the degree to which they do that well is often the point.

If the review is essentially "they didn't make movies that look like Fast and the Furious in 1922.  Therefore it is bad."  - you are a bad reviewer.  I give you no stars at all.

Many reviews of older movies by well intentioned folks get bogged down in flogging the past and retroactively punishing our forebears for their sins.  It's easy to do, and I indulge in this often as it's unavoidable.  Dunking on how people used to be somehow more racist is also not entirely the measure of a movie.  But it IS part of a cultural exploration, and exploring more of that context is when we pass from reviews into criticism, combining history, social critique, literary theory, film theory, etc...  to make a point.***  Chase that dragon and keep going to see what you find, I say.

By digging into the movie and the context of the movie, you're starting to turn over all the rocks and get to something other than vibes.  You may focus on one thing - portrayal of the femme fatale in film noir, for example.  Or depictions of race in Andy Hardy movies.  Or a general digging in on what a movie is or how it came to be.  *This* is when you start looking at what's happening in the world when this movie was written, shot and released - for older movies.  It's when you begin pondering the filmography of the filmmaker and how this movie fits in.  What the studio was releasing at this time, and what people were paying to see - and can begin examining how and why.  It's how you reconcile How Green Was My Valley winning the Oscar in the same year as Citizen Kane, Sullivan's Travels, The Little Foxes, and, indeed, The Wolf Man.

It can be real effort to build an argument, and when you do that, you're pulling in as much information as possible.  That can mean research, verifying facts, etc...  And it can and should be done.  It's laborious @#$%ing work.

Going into the movies like Starfleet following the Prime Directive - to observe and understand - is a way to enter into film watching with something like humility.  You will bring your own baggage, just as, on the opposite end of the coordinates, so, too, did the filmmakers. 

I give myself no stars

With roughly 2700 movie posts, you may note the lack of a ratings system here at The Signal Watch.  And most of what I do is review as I am too lazy to get into criticism.  But I also never wanted to slap a rating on anything for all the reasons above - and while it's been death to my follower and reader count, I don't want to?  It's not how I think about movies, and it's not how I want to talk about them.

I'd rather make an argument or observations or make some jokes at my expense and that of the film (and no one cares, which is fair).  I almost always try to provide context, both personal and historical, because it feels honest, and I have no intention of pretending I have some critical, all-seeing eye, devoid of personal feeling, and there's one truth to how a movie should be seen.  It's my hope that by doing this, I'm deconstructing my own place in the viewing experience and maybe, in doing so, get a bit closer to what the movie is doing versus what I'm doing.

So, yes, this long-as-hell, TL;DR post is about why, here at The Signal watch, we don't do star systems, thumbs up or down, or use a calculator to rate movies.  

And I am not right on this.  Letterboxd has 17 million users.  People like it as both an audience and as writers/ film fans.  And it isn't changing any time soon.

*I was recently horrified to see a film essayist I quite like admit he had never seen Gone With the Wind.  My dude...  Laziness is fine, but we drew the line at not watching Birth of a Nation.  We agreed to sit through this one.

**this is void for all Scandinavian delicacies which are usually fish guts stewed in deadly chemicals and induce childhood trauma

***at some point, I want to find the article that cracked open my skull on this notion, about a missing reverse shot of "Look" in John Ford's The Searchers