In my local paper (Washington Post), they review books, restaurants, plays, music, and movies. Only movies get a star rating (1 to 4). Why?
IMHO except for the very best or very worst, whether you like a movie (or anything else) depends on the movie and what you like. Some people are going to enjoy a two-star movie, some will be bored by a three-star movie. I think it’s better to read a description than look at a bottom line rating.
On the Australian show “Review,” host Myles Barlow compulsively pursues risky life experiences in order to give them a star rating. Paying for sex gets two stars; divorce gets one star.
Pro westling journalist Dave Meltzer of The Wrestling Observer popularized using star ratings to rate pro wrestling matches back in the mid 80s-early 90s.
Do NOT talk to wrestling matches about star ratings though because some of them seem to be overly obsessed with the idea and very critical of Meltzer’s opinion of matches.
In general I have not seen reviews of books or live performing arts rated with stars anywhere. I am not asking about why the Post is the only one that does this, but rather why in general does this convention seem common. To me.
BTW the Post used to rate restaurants with stars but stopped during covid and decided to make it permanent.