If you read my thoughts on the film in question, you will see what I liked/disliked about the film, as well as learn about the experience I had with it. Sticking a number on the end just seems vague and pointless.

Plus, how do you 'rate' something like No Country For Old Men alongside Anchorman? Both great movies that you may give a 9/10, but they have nothing in common.

(PS great blog by the way, I give it a four out of five)

This post was mentioned on Twitter by heyuguysblog: Are movie review ratings outdated?: http://bit.ly/7W4pvL...

Also, your idea of regarding 10/10 films as perfection is interesting as people conceive these in vastly different manners. It's actually a view I share but from my background largely in music blogging/journalism, if one of my peers awards something full marks, I won't automatically assume it's the most perfect album/single/gig ever and concede that everything forever after will be inferior. Instead, I'll take it as a glowing recommendation from a trusted source.

Indeed, you could adapt a scoring system like percentages (out of a 100) or scores (out of 10, to the nearest decimal point). Consequently, the award of 98%/9.8 to a film like The Shawshank Redemption is a sufficient approximation to greatness without ever being perfect. And these points aren't even touching on the idea of absolute vs relative and objective vs subjective.

I also have problems with the idea of assigning numerical ratings, especially when they don't tally with the tone of the review. However, I still think they're useful and I would further explain why but this is turning into a bloody thesis.