Whenever one reads a new critic it is always important to
know a little about that critic and his/her ratings system. Mine is a 5 star
(or point) system which goes like this:
1/5 (unwatchable: this is very rare, there is no reason to
watch this movie whatsoever and it is a complete waste of time!)
2/5 (bad: This movie has very little to recommend about it
and it is very flawed)
3/5 (Fair: this film is ok, there’s stuff to recommend about
it but it is also very flawed)
3.5/5 (good: this is an enjoyable movie that is recommended but
not spectacular)
4/5 (Really Good: this film has a lot going for it and
despite some minor flaws is really good)
4.5/5 (Exceptional: This film is highly recommended and is
almost as good as it gets)
5/5 (Amazing: This film is something everyone must see, it’s
the epitome of why we go to the movies)
Ratings are done mainly in comparison with other films in
that genre For instance: Skyfall would be rated against other Bond/ action
films whereas The Naked gun is rated against comedies. I feel that this is the
fairest way to do it because a Bond film for instance is not trying to be as
analytical and deep as an Bergman film for example. Movies that are going to be
rated Five Stars generally will have the title : Movies Everyone Must See,
before their reviews
No comments:
Post a Comment