cool please bump more threads i posted in 10+ years ago always riveting stuff

i think i was literally taking an aesthetics class when i posted this

i think i subconsciously always rate based on how much i expect i'd enjoy the movie next time i watch it. the more of a movie i see, the more i'm able to situate prior scenes within the whole, and that often makes them grow or shrink in my mind. they're no longer the same as they were when i first e...

if you think this guy's negative, wait til you meet his brother diehate

yeah tbh if i'd seen more popular movies i'd probably bump the % up some, but i'd imagine the percentage of popular movies i've seen is lower than most people's.

13%. any higher and i find too many of my fav users are excluded. i am curious to see what would happen if i upped it, but my PSIs are pretty damn good so idk. criticker could actually probably do an algorithm to show every user their most accurate % tbh but i guess that might be a ton of work.

lea seydoux: 75.00
olivia colman 74.29
michael smiley 74.29
rupert grint: 73.13 (lol)
kate lyn sheil 69.29

ryo kase and ariane lebed are both over 80 from 4, and lars eidinger has 75.00 from 4. paul schneider actually has 90 from 3.

a bunch of great stuff with a popularity score of 6/10 or less on criticker (this score refers to quantity of ratings, not the average rating): Romancing in Thin Air (2012) johnnie to's greatest movie IMO, thematically speaking it's a thousand times better version of life of pi . don't go breaking m...

scorsese's the age of innocence? not exactly like the description but pretty close.

here's the ending although the youtube doesn't show the part when they walk there. knowing scorsese that scene was probably a reference to an older movie, mind.

https://www.criticker.com/profile/Zephyrus/

randomly showed up second in my TCIs lately, their profile doesn't seem to be working properly?

P u l p wrote:I recommend using "Tiers"; It's more accurate

by definition, it is not