This information is no longer correct, I have returned to the usage of an arbitrary system because the mathematically based system proved unworkable.

You may have noticed that from January 13, 2009 onwards, a new film rating system has been put in effect.

Films are still awarded “stars” but now the maximum number of stars is ten, not five and a formal calculus has been defined for the stars, the star rating is computed based on points allocated in seven categories.

It is important to note that the star-rating is not the be-all and end-all determination of the quality of a film. Under the new system stars cannot be removed because the overall film is bad (as previously). Stars are allocated on a sliding scale according to a specific methodology. If a film scores highly in one category but poorly  in another the film may still get a moderate or high star-rating even though it is a bad film. You must still read the whole review before determining if the film is right for you!

Films are now rated individually, on the following categories:

• Plot/Story
• Philosophy
• Acting/Characterization
• Music/Sound
• Direction/Photography
• Special Effects
• Technical/Other

One to ten points inclusive are awarded in each of the seven categories. The total number of available points is therefore seventy (7 x 10). The sum all of the points awarded is divided by the number of total possible points to yield a percentage. One star is awarded for each block of ten points. If the total number of points is not a multiple of five the points are rounded to the nearest five to ensure a sensible allocation (a fractional star can not be awarded in any amount other than ½).

Example Calculation

Plot/Story	4/10
Philosophy	3/5
Acting/Characterization	2/10
Music/Sound	1/5
Direction/Photography	5/10
Special Effects	5/5
Technical/Other	3/5
TOTAL	23/504.5/10 stars

In this example the total number of points is 30 out of fifty (not bad) Now, 33÷50 equals 0.46, round to .45.  Thus the total number of stars awarded to the film is 4.5 because 10 x .45 equals 4.5.

What do the categories mean?

Filmmakers hoping to receive a good review from Slacker Online may be interested in knowing  exactly what is meant by each of the categories.

“Plot/Story” refers to the plot of the film as well as the metanarrative, if any. Please note that your film is not required to have a metanarrative in order to score well in this category. However, if you choose to refrain from having a plot it is almost certain that you will receive a poor rating here. Metanarrative and/or allegorical elements will be evaluated in this category as well as in the philosophy category, in most cases.

Special Note to auteur directors. The reviewer has seen film, after film, after film, that—in the name of art—dispensed with narrative techniques in favor of pretentious metanarrative, exclusively. This is bad film-making and you will receive a very poor rating, or even a rating of zero points in this category if you choose to go this route. You have been warned.

This should not be interpreted as meaning that character-driven stories will automatically receive poor ratings in the “plot/story” category. Simplicity and brevity of the plot are sometimes desirable. Like all categories, this one is measured in the context of the film-as-a-whole. If a detailed plot would not be appropriate you do not need to fear a bad rating, as long as what plot there is, (however minimal) is effective. There is, however, never any excuse for the total omission of a plot.

“Philosophy” refers to the moral, ethical, religious, philosophical, scientific, political, social or other subtext of your film. Please note that films are required to have a philosophy of some kind. Thus if you choose to omit one your film may not be eligible for review. (Unless, of course your omission of any philosophy is an intentional  nihilistic or existential statement.) This is a very difficult category to score well in. Please do not be offended if you receive an average rating in this category, instead, be honored you did not receive a poor one.

“Acting/Characterization” refers to the skill and effectiveness of the actor(s) in portraying the character(s) as well as the quality of the character(s) as drawn. Characters that behave in realistic ways (if applicable), are original, have genuine stories (if appropriate),  hold the interest of the audience and give the audience a reason to form an opinion of them (if appropriate) tend to score well. Actors must refrain at all costs both overacting or falling into rote. This does not mean that understated acting scores poorly, the method of acting is not normally a factor per-se, only the effectiveness. A comedy would receive low ratings in this area of the characters were intense and driven; a drama would receive low ratings in this area of the characters were light and frivolous. Dialogue is also evaluated in this category.

“Music/Sound” refers to the incidental music, natural sound and sound effects (if any) in the film. If you choose not to have one or more of these in your film, this rating will be based on which ever remain. If you have no music, no natural sound and no sound effects, your film will be evaluated on the effectiveness of the use of silence. Remember that silence is a form of sound, films with never-stopping sound or music may score poorly in this category.

The sound of the actors voices is not evaluated in this category unless it is unusual in some way. For example: in the film 2001 A Space Odyssey the sound of HAL’s voice (although performed by an actor) was so remarkable that it was also evaluated in this category as well as in the acting category.

Special Note: if you wish to receive a good rating in this category please choose a very good composer for your film. A bombastic or unmemorable score will not do well. It is better to have no score at all than to have a poor one.

“Direction/Photography” refers to all elements of the visual appearance of the film except special effects. All camera work is evaluated under this category. The suitability, atmosphere, effectiveness and aesthetics of on-location filming (if any) are also evaluated here. Sets (if any) may be evaluated here or under “technical/other”. Editing decisions which effect the appearance of the film are evaluated here. Costumes, special effects and the like are evaluated under “special effects”. Regular lighting is evaluated under “technical/other”.

Editing decisions other than those causing specific effects (such as jump cuts, match cuts etc) are not normally noted at all unless they are unusually ineffective. In this case no points will be removed from any category because of this, however the editing will be noted in the body of the review. Exceptional non-effect editing will be awarded in the “technical/other” category.

Special Note: Poor editing that fails to remove, excessive special effects (even if the effects are otherwise excellent) could result in the film being awarded fewer points in the “Special Effects” category.

“Special Effects” refers to the special effects, costumes, animations, stunts, unusual lighting effects and CGI, and similar, used (if any). Please note that CGI and animations are liabilities for good reviews in Slacker Online. You are strongly advised to refrain from extravagant CGI and reminded that it is often best to remove it altogether. Of course, if CGI would be more effective than model work, etc, go ahead and use CGI but please do so tastefully. At all costs avoid CGI with a “plasticky” or “unreal” appearance in films with live action.

Films consisting entirely of CGI or animations, and having no live action, will have their CGI and animations evaluated under “Direction/Photography” as well as this category; in these films the reviewer will be more forgiving of “plasticky or unreal” CGI as long as it is clear that the CGI has been used to the maximum extent possible under current technology, and/or the appearance of the CGI is an effective and intentional artistic decision.

“Technical/Other” refers to everything else that the reviewer feels adds somehow to the quality of the film. Lighting, non-effect editing, hairstyles, design of presentational elements (titles, intertitles, credits etc), tone and any other artistic decision or factor that the reviewer feels was especially effective could fall under this category. Most films will not receive many points in this category. Exceptional writing will sometimes be awarded under this category if there is an aspect of the writing that does not relate to the “plot/story”,  second half of “acting/characterization” or “philosophy” categories. For example: if there is appropriate witty dialogue this might be noted here. Interesting non-philosophical ideas qualify for this category. Aesthetic elements that are not included in “Direction/Photography” may also be noted here, if they advance the art. Cameo roles by celebrities could be evaluated here, but, again, only if they add something to the film.