4 ms·

I think a connoisseur would be more likely to say, "I've tried 10000 things like this, and I like qualities A, B, and C about it, but perhaps dislike D and E.

I think a connoisseur would be more likely to say, "I've tried 10000 things like this, and I like qualities A, B, and C about it, but perhaps dislike D and E. Overall, I like it right now, so it seems good to me, but my tastes will probably change in the future, and not everyone will share them. I look forward to trying more things." I believe connoisseurs also equate liking things with them being good, they're just less naive about it and don't necessarily proclaim universal goodness. I mean, did Roger Ebert ever give 4 stars to a movie he didn't like?

ctdonath 13y ago
Did Roger Ebert ever give 4 stars to a movie he didn't like? Often. He frequently made clear on the point that he gave high ratings to movies which achieved what they set out to do, and did so with skill ... even if he didn't particularly "like" it. No, I don't remember a suitable example off hand. ...though the closest I do recall is The Human Centipede: he refused to give it an N-star rating at all, because it earned 4 stars for its quality for achieving what it set out to do, and zero stars because it was so hideously offensive nobody should see it; unable to reconcile the two, he just didn't. ETA: That's summarizing what I recall him writing about it, which includes material beyond the official review thereof.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  He didn't say anything about 4 or 0 stars in his review. > I am required to award stars to movies I review. This time, I refuse to do it. The star rating system is unsuited to this film. Is the movie good? Is it bad? Does it matter? It is what it is and occupies a world where the stars don't shine. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-human-centipede-2010 http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-human-centipede-2010 I haven't read most of Ebert's reviews, but I would be quite surprised to read a 4-star review in which he clearly expresses that he didn't like the movie. Maybe Ebert is not typical of connoisseurs? He did say that giving 4 stars to Superman is not the same as giving 4 stars to Ben Hur (or something similar), but he still liked both of them. I assume you're a connoisseur of something. Pick two things that you dislike, one that is good, one that is bad. Do you dislike them equally?

ctdonath 13y ago

Did Roger Ebert ever give 4 stars to a movie he didn't like? Often. He frequently made clear on the point that he gave high ratings to movies which achieved what they set out to do, and did so with skill ... even if he didn't particularly "like" it. No, I don't remember a suitable example off hand. ...though the closest I do recall is The Human Centipede: he refused to give it an N-star rating at all, because it earned 4 stars for its quality for achieving what it set out to do, and zero stars because it was so hideously offensive nobody should see it; unable to reconcile the two, he just didn't. ETA: That's summarizing what I recall him writing about it, which includes material beyond the official review thereof.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
He didn't say anything about 4 or 0 stars in his review. > I am required to award stars to movies I review. This time, I refuse to do it. The star rating system is unsuited to this film. Is the movie good? Is it bad? Does it matter? It is what it is and occupies a world where the stars don't shine. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-human-centipede-2010 http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-human-centipede-2010 I haven't read most of Ebert's reviews, but I would be quite surprised to read a 4-star review in which he clearly expresses that he didn't like the movie. Maybe Ebert is not typical of connoisseurs? He did say that giving 4 stars to Superman is not the same as giving 4 stars to Ben Hur (or something similar), but he still liked both of them. I assume you're a connoisseur of something. Pick two things that you dislike, one that is good, one that is bad. Do you dislike them equally?