If you’re familiar with the reviews that the Seattle Collegian has published until now, then you’ll notice that we’ve altered our formatting slightly — most importantly, we’re introducing a star rating format. This has been implemented to give readers (like you!) an easy understanding of our reviews from the get-go that’s standardized across the board.
What does each star rating mean?
0 out of 5 stars: The worst of the worst. Not even the sort of funny-bad that you can watch to laugh at. Isn’t going to win a Golden Raspberry since the Razzie electorate all left 15 minutes in.
1 out of 5 stars: Maybe one or two redeeming qualities. Overall, though, just bad. Not something you’d ever consider recommending.
2 out of 5 stars: Meh. The reviewer was not wild that you gave up two hours of their life to watch this thing, but there are worse things to do for two hours.
3 out of 5 stars: Pretty neutral: an even-ish mix of good vs. bad qualities. This is also a place for those pieces that aren’t Good Cinema or Artful Theatre, etc, but are still fun to watch.
4 out of 5 stars: Not bad! Definitely more good than bad, but not award-worthy. Something you’d be willing to rewatch and/or want to recommend to a friend.
5 out of 5 stars: Oscar/Tony/Grammy/etc.-worthy. Blew the reviewer away. They want to make everyone in the world watch it (or it’s possibly so good that they want to keep it all to themselves!). They’re going to see it three more times if they haven’t already.
Questions/comments/concerns? Or do you want to write a review yourself? Comment below and we’ll get back to you, or shoot an email to our Arts and Culture editor: email@example.com