----------------------------Original message---------------------------- This is addressed to film lists of various persuasions, as well to some friends and/or unseen acquaintances whose opinion I value. It is not an earth-shaking, scholarly, film-buff, info. or trivia question as you will see. When I first started publishing film reviews in newspapers, I did not use star (*, **, ***, ****) ratings.You give your opinion(s) ands this ought to be clear enough,even to casual readers. The * rating does force you to play God (well, Godlet anyway), which is hubristic and adds a kind of carved-in-stone judgment to your ideas and taste. Eventually though, Richard J. Leskosky --and old (not in age) friend and colleague with whom I've shared newspaper reviews for many years -- and I had to conform to the prevailing giving of stars,zero to 4. [I no longer disagree with the star-giving principle: many critics,talented ones too, use no stars at all but seem to sit on the fence,seesaw between positive and negative remarks and dialectics,and rarely come out with a clear judgment as possible. Please don't ask me to name names.] Later (notwithstanding the skepticism of my friend Richard) I prevailed on our then-editor to go to 5 stars, so as to have more elbow room, with MANY more nuances. It is like giving grades from A+ to E- with "NO stars" for what deserves the guillotine. This lasted a short time only. We reverted to 4 stars primarily to avoid confusing the readers used to the most commonly used system = 4-stars. Of late,however, I have been noticing more 5-star ratings than before. My question to you,then, is what do you think, how do you feel/react to the 4 vs the 5 stars. And BTW, what would be the best method if most reviewers could agree on one. Thanks Edwin Jahiel, Cinema Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign " Le mauvais gout mene au crime" (Stendhal)