Roger Ebert explains why some movies ‘only’ get an A-
A sentiment expressed frequently by commenters here at EricDSnider.com is this one: “Why did this movie ‘only’ get an A-? Your review doesn’t mention anything wrong with it!”
Two recent examples. On “The Bourne Ultimatum,” someone writes, “I thought this movie deserved much better [than] a B+.” (Considering the scale only goes up two more notches, to A- and A, I’m not sure that “much” better than B+ was really an option. That’s like saying you wish something cost “much” less than a nickel.) And on “Lars and the Real Girl,” a reader says, “Now, I’ll go back and read your [review], and may learn why you thought the film deserved only an A-.” (”Only” an A-? You people are tough!)
In both of those cases, the reviews are entirely positive. There’s nothing in the text to indicate that I thought the movie was lacking in any way. So why not a perfect score?
As is often the case, Roger Ebert has expressed the answer to this question much better than I would have. In a recent “Answer Man” column, he received this question:
I often find some of my very favorite films are ones you give 3 1/2 star ratings. I’ve never read a review where you explain what costs these movies the last half star…. How do you decide on those?
And Ebert explains it thus:
I wish that I didn’t give star ratings at all and every review had to speak for itself. But 3 1/2 is a very good rating, meaning all a movie lacked was an ineffable tingle at the base of my spine.
Exactly. An A- or B+ movie, if there’s nothing specifically wrong with it, simply lacks a certain something — something you can’t necessarily put into words, but something nonetheless.
I used to be much more liberal with my A’s. If you look in the archives, you’ll find I gave them out more frequently when I first started reviewing (mid-1999), and less often starting in about 2004. It used to be that if I couldn’t think of anything particularly wrong with a film, I gave it an A. Now my attitude is different. It’s not enough that a film doesn’t have anything noticeably wrong with it. It needs to have something strongly right about it, too.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:50 am
This link goes up on my blog. It lends a voice to something I’ve felt for a long time - criticism is more visceral than logical. That’s absolutely a good thing. I’ve had trouble explaining to friends why I didn’t like some of their (and your) favorite movies. Now I know that I don’t have to. It’s more of an art than a science.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Whatever, Eric. We all know you have trained monkeys that pick your grades. The question is, how many?
November 27th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
I know what you mean Eric. I like to give my movies ratings ot of 10 using halves. Whether I use your scale or mine, it’s really hard to determine exactly what I feel the movie deserves. I usually change my mind pretty often by a half of a point or half of a letter grade. You just know the movies that deserve a perfect grade though. Rarely do I change my mind with those movies.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:14 am
I am constantly amazed that people will come to your site, read a review, and then get mad about the grade you give the movie. You know, as though this was their personal film school project or something. Or as though it is YOUR fault that the movie didn’t really click for you. Kind of like when some parents (we all know the type) go to a teacher and get mad that their kid got a bad grade. As though it is the teacher’s fault that their kid did poorly on a test or assignment or something. Ugh.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:21 am
I’ve always liked your letter-grade rating scale better than star approach. But something that often keeps me up at night is …… how come you don’t use A+ ?
November 28th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Holy crap, what is wrong with Ebert’s face?! He looks younger and creepier than he did 10 years ago. . . . and like he got a jaw implant and his eyebrows waxed. . .and someone to iron out his skin.
November 28th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Ha ha. That reminds me of the old Garrens skit.
It may not have what it takes to win best picture, but it has… a somesing…
(Sweet spirit. Sweet spirit.)
November 28th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Ebert has had several surgeries on his face in the last few years to remove cancer from his salivary gland and jaw. I think that explains why his jaw looks a little odd.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Eric, I read your web site because I’ve found that if you like a movie the chances are pretty good that I’ll like it as well. I love the fact that you don’t give out many A’s because it helps me decide whether or not to plunk down the money on a first-run movie or just wait until it comes out on DVD (or not even watch it at all).
November 29th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Eric, your “only” A- rating of Lars and the Real Girl made me want to see a movie I otherwise wouldn’t have even heard about. (I live in a cave, what can I say?) So, thanks!