Movie Rating System

The movie rating system needs an update.
     Back in the Roger and Ebert days, it was a simple thing to give a movie either a thumbs up, or thumbs down. This was quick shorthand to indicate if a movie was worth seeing or not. It works if you have a passive interest in film, if you get the urge to see a movie every now and then and want to know what is worth the price of admission.
     But if your interest in movies goes beyond that, if you're more interested in how good a movie is then a sliding scale is needed. Most movie reviewers have adopted this, usually by rating a film between 0 and 5 stars.
This is sufficient if films are either bad or good. A bad film gets 0 stars and a good film gets 5. Easy enough, right? However, films are complex things and deserve more than this. Films can be bad on many levels, and excel in many ways sometimes despite their flaws. What this means for the star rating system is that medocre films get 3 stars which bestows it more worth than it's due. Let me give you an example.
     Under the 5 star rating system, an unwatchable film (Mortal Combat 2) gets 0 stars, a passable film (Happy Gilmore) gets 3 and excellent film (Dave) gets five. But all films aren't worth the price of admission. Not really. Each of these films is flawed in vital ways and none will stand the test of time. Dave is a very good film, but not worth repeated viewings. It's good entertainment, but could easily be seen on DVD without missing anything.
     Mr. Cranky takes a different approach to ratings which I've enjoyed before the site started going downhill. Mr. Cranky rated films on badness, from 1 to 4 bombs with a stick of dynamite for an abysmal film. This gives the reviewer plenty of opportunity to cover how a film has failed, what it's fumbled and how it has fallen short of being a good movie. The problem of course is that it rates every movie on badness alone, with great movies being given the best rating of one bomb.
     I suggest a new system which rates movies between -5 to +5 stars.
     Most movies can be charted on a bell curve with the majority of films falling in the middle. These are the movies that exist to make some money and provide a few hours of diversion, before being consigned to the DVD bargain bin at Hollywood Video and eventually consigned to a dusty shelf in the living room of the average film goer. These films can safely be given a 0 rating indicating their unworthiness of time or money.
     The negative stars allow the reviewer to brand movies which to their shame fail to live up to even a mediocre label and in general lower the standards of the film genre worldwide. Take "You've Got Mail". Under normal standards this movie would get 2-3 stars. The acting is passable, the plot simple and film work adequate. But the new rating system gives it a -3 stars for squandering talent, creating a film centered around a product and wasting the movie goers time.

Examples:
Negative Stars
-Any Adam Sandler Film
-Any starlet vehicle
-Any film with Dana Carvey
-Any unfunny comedies (See above)
Zero Stars
-Any date movie
-Any Disney Movie (yeah, with one or two exceptions, but not many!)
-Any film where a major character works in the movie industry
-Any teen horror film
-Any awkward, stilted period films
Postive Stars
-Any Pixar movie
-Any film with no marketing tie-ins
-Any film rated R for content and not just nudity
-Any sci-fi film (And I'm not talking about near future films like The Day After or other such garbage. I want spaceships and lots of 'em!)

     What's really great about this system is that it make it easy to spot the standouts in any category. Take The Ring. Horror film. Expectations for this genre are pretty low, so when it get a 4 star ratings it's obvious there's something special about this film. Upon viewing, they mystery is solved. The film has suspense and unease practically oozing through every eerie frame. It's internal logic is solid and powers of suspension of disbelief unchallenged. Great film!
     Then look at Gladiator. Period piece. Again, expectations are low but not abysmal. During period pieces the audience is expected to watch the pretty background while the characters chew it. But when the movie appears with a -3 rating, eyebrows go up. One painful movie experience later and the cause is clear. Wasted lead, anachronistic sets and language and a directors contempt for the subject are on display throughout the film. Ouch.
     Now if there were more spaceships in Gladiator, it would be a different story.