|
|
the MOVIE pages rates films on a five-star scale different from the four-star system used by Roger Ebert and several other reviewers. I find that the five-star system is often easier to understand since it can be easily translated to the decimal system or A, B, C, D, F ratings. Almost all of the reviews are illustrated and include links to alternate reviews or official web sites so you can form a more complete picture of the film.
Those of you who have visited the MOVIE pages before its renovation will probably notice that I have adjusted a few of the ratings slightly. The revews on this site follow these guidelines fairly closely. Anything that scores above four-stars is highly recommended. Please keep in mind that “good” movies are not always entertaining (that is why I created the Boredom Factor), and many of the movies that I consider personal favorites are not necessarily well-made films. Please use the star ratings as a guide, though the text of the reviews should give a better indication of whether or not you are likely to enjoy the films. I hope you find this system helpful in deciding which movies are worth your time.
 |
Exceptional. This is a film that represents perfection on multiple levels: direction, acting, screenplay, visuals, etc. Expect this rating on movies that dare to break bounds and succeed. In my book, five-star movies tend to be very unique, even quirky. These films will definitely not appeal to all tastes. | |
 |
Remarkable. This movie has very few flaws. Overall, it is still an excellent piece of filmmaking, though there is some room for improvement. The director may have lost direction when following an original idea, though the film will probably be remembered as one of his best. A film in this category is well-worth your time (and money). | |
 |
Good. A three-star film has many elements that work well for it, though it leaves something to be desired. Good ideas that don’t quite pan out and run-of-the-mill dramas or comedies founded on a strong script often fall under this rating. Still a fine film, though you shouldn’t be too stressed for missing it. | |
 |
Mediocre. Typical summer blockbuster fare. There is little in this film to make it stand out from others or to justify your time. Expect to find sloppy acting or direction, poor story development, and/or obvious clichés. Keep in mind, such films often prove to be extremely entertaining despite technical errors. Not a complete waste of time, and the slightly mind-numbing experience might be a nice respite from the worries of real life. | |
 |
Disaster. Few redeeming qualities. This is the type of film that runs out of good footage in its trailer. A failed attempt (often with big-name stars) to recycle successful material from other movies. You’ve probably seen the same idea on screen (whether it was two decades or two months before this was released). Poorly-conceived new ideas can fall as low as this (though originality usually counts for something). | |