I used to write brief write-ups myself of the movies I watched, but I haven’t done that in months. I keep meaning to get back into it, but it’s difficult finding intelligent things to say about the films. (Everybody thinks they’re a critic; only a select few are really good at it.)

At the time, I used a star system. As I wrote then, it wasn’t an exact science, but I do think they’re useful. Maybe more for the reader than the reviewer, but still, they have their place. Basically, I broke it down like this:

Four stars: For one reason or another, I think it’s brilliant.

Three and a half stars: It approaches brilliance, but doesn’t quite reach it.

Three stars: It’s a very good or enjoyable film.

Two and a half stars: I liked it, but I was more than a little disappointed for some reason.

Two stars: I liked parts of it, but not all or even most of it.

One and a half stars: It’s a pretty bad movie, but there were moments that suggested it could have been better.

One star: It’s a bad movie.

No stars: Avoid at all cost.

What exactly made a movie 4 stars instead of 3 and a half, or 2 and a half instead of 2—well, yeah, there it could seem a little arbitrary. But the starring often helped me understand what I was trying to say by giving me a frame of reference. I knew x was better than y but not as good as z.

Ebert, whose reviews I read each week, seems to view the rankings as a necessary evil. But he’s not saying below that films shouldn’t be ranked—just that rankings have different meanings in different genres, or for moviegoers with different expectations.