The Zero-Star Debate in Film Criticism
Few things spark as much debate in film criticism as the zero-star review. It’s the ultimate condemnation—a declaration that a movie is not just flawed but utterly without merit. Recently, The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw reignited this discussion by calling zero-star ratings a “dreadful precedent.” Yet, he also revealed a list of one-star films he’d downgrade if given the chance. Where should critics draw the line between bad and irredeemable?
Why Zero Stars Are Controversial
Bradshaw’s argument hinges on fairness. Even the worst films represent effort—countless hours of labor, creativity, and collaboration. A zero-star rating suggests total failure in every aspect: acting, direction, writing, and cinematography. But most films, however flawed, have something redeemable—a standout performance, a striking visual, or a moment of unintentional humor.
Beyond fairness, zero-star reviews risk becoming clickbait. In an age of hyperbole, extreme ratings can overshadow thoughtful critique, reducing criticism to performative outrage.
Bradshaw’s One-Star Films That Deserve Zero
Despite his stance, Bradshaw admits some films push his limits. Here are the “one-star shockers” he’d retroactively downgrade:
-
“The Emoji Movie” (2017) – A soulless corporate product disguised as entertainment, this film reduced storytelling to brand placements. Its one-star rating feels charitable.
-
“Movie 43” (2013) – A chaotic, star-studded mess of cringe-worthy sketches that made audiences question if comedy even exists.
-
“Gotti” (2018) – A biopic so poorly executed that not even John Travolta’s dedication could save it. Universally panned by critics and viewers alike.
For Bradshaw, these films aren’t just bad—they’re offenses to cinema, representing laziness, greed, or artistic bankruptcy.
Is There a Middle Ground?
The debate boils down to whether criticism should be absolute or relative. If zero stars exist, they should be reserved for films that fail on every level—not just in quality but in intent. Yet abolishing them entirely might dilute criticism’s impact.
The solution? Context. A zero-star review should come with a detailed explanation, clarifying why the film lacks any merit—not just calling it “bad.” It should be rare, reserved for cinema’s true nadirs.
Final Verdict: Use Zero Stars Judiciously
Bradshaw’s hesitance to give zero stars is principled, but his exceptions prove their necessity. Some films demand the harshest critique. The key is restraint—zero stars should be a critic’s last resort, not a default for dislike.
Criticism thrives on honesty. If a film is irredeemable, critics should say so—but they must also respect the medium enough to wield that power carefully. As Bradshaw’s list shows, sometimes the difference between one star and zero isn’t just about quality—it’s about cinema’s soul.
What’s your take? Are zero-star reviews fair, or do they go too far? Share your thoughts below.
— By [Your Name], NextMinuteNews
