(this has nothing to do with advancement, really)
In case you didn't know, when something is reviewed and is given stars (one star bad, four stars great, etc.), the stars are usually given by the editor, not the writer (I hope I don't get into trouble here). If a popular and powerful artist gets a bad review, the editor often gives more stars than the writer thinks the record or movie deserves. Of course, if that same popular and powerful artist is no longer popular and powerful, then an editor will feel free to give their work the amount of stars it really deserves (I'm talking to you, Courtney Love!). With this in mind, I'd like to give you a little sample from a couple of movie reviews from Rolling Stone:
"Extraordinary in every way, from the pitch-perfect performances to the delicate handling of explosive subject matter, 'The Door in the Floor' is also a model of page-to-screen adaptation." (Three and half stars)
"Will Ferrell is the go-to guy if you want to laugh your-self silly. He could read your mom's Rolodex and get you giggling. Sadly, your mom's Rolodex would provide richer comic material than "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy.'" (Three stars)
So the difference between a movie that is "extraordinary in every way" and one that would have been funnier had it used your mother's Rolodex (my mom has a PDA, and it is hilarious!) as source material is half a star.
The whole star business is completely worthless. (two and a half stars)