I rate this post 3½ out of 7 Thumbs Partially Up

So maybe I'm not the first person to complain about this. I can't read everything about everything. But I am going to complain about this anyway.

Why would any movie critic with half a brain rate films in half-star increments?

This is what I'm talking about: Moe Schmoe, movie critic for the Wherever Times, sees the newest action movie in theaters and rates it 2½ out of 4 stars. For whatever reason, Mr. Schmoe has decided that the film is better than two, but not good enough for three. What's the point of a four-star system if you are going to split them into fractions? Why not just rate the film 5 out of 8 stars? Why not round it up to ten stars? Better yet, why not convert to the "academic" system of A through F? With all the plusses and minuses, you have 13 different levels, or grades, to choose from. Better than B but not A material? It's a B+ or an A-.

Look, all we really want is: Go See It or Don't Go See It.

Which brings me to Siskel and Roeper. Their system should be the simplest of all: either Two Thumbs Up, meaning we both recommend that you see it; One Thumb Up One Thumb Down, meaning it's probably good enough to watch, but you should wait until it's on DVD; or Two Thumbs Down, meaning that you shouldn't waste your money on this steaming pile of cat doo. But even those stalwarts of cinematic judgment break down their own system when they say, "Two Thumbs Up - WAY UP!!" There's only one kind of Up, guys, and that's Up. To add the WAY to your Up means that you have two levels of Up, thus defeating your triune yes-maybe-no system. (You guys can take your system and stick it up where the sun don't shine - way up.)