what kind of a reviewer do you think you are?

[Jellysauce]

i think there are people out there who are naturally just harder on movies than other. personally i think im really easy on movies, if it entertained me even the slightest bit ill probably give it a better score than the average person. i know there have been multiple times where i have seen someone review a movie and i was like "come on, the movie wasn't THAT bad!" but its all personal opinion i suppose.

anyway, do you think you're hard, neutral, or easy on a movie when you give a score?

[Jeb]

I'm usually harsh and hard on movies if they contain two or more flaws. However, in some instances I have been known to be easy on movies. One example of this would be Crank. It had numerous flaws and yet I didn't criticize it too much because it was a sheer amount of fun. Punisher: War Zone I also went easy on. These kind of films don't take themselves seriously, and if they do this, I will turn my brain off and simply have a good time. So I guess that makes me a mixed bag

[doctor7]

I consider myself either easy if I enjoy it but pretty much merciless when I hate it.

[frederic_g54]

If a film is intended for the "moron demographic" and has no redeeming quality at all, then I'm harsh, but since I love this medium I tend to give some points to mediocre/forgettable films (points for cinematography, acting, music,...) so at least there's something to recommend.

So yeah, I'd be known as "the nice guy" (praise great films and not bash mediocre ones...unless they deserve it )

[MmzHrrdb]

I think that I can be hard on movies at times when i review them, but when i rank them i tend to try and give them a score that can be relative to the other movies that i've ranked. I try to order it, so if i know i liked one movie more than the one i just saw, ill give it a lower score relevant to the movies around it. I try to give every movie a fair chance but it always comes down to how much i enjoy it. When I review a movie, a basically have three different tones to when i write it, an impressed tone, a neutral tone, and a "fuck that was bad" tone. So i can tend to be harsh when it comes to reviewing depending on what tone i feel like taking, but the score always reflects what i truly think.

[Grit]

I just go off what I feel and don't try to be reasonably harsh or slack, but I'd guess I'm generally towards the harsh side with my scoring system. Unless I find I have some kind of genuine connection or attatchment to a particular movie, I just give it what I think it's worth on my personal enjoyment value.

[carnageace]

Knee jerk reaction. Always seems to be right.

[Dorkovsky]

A subjective one.

[Stain]

A complete bastard.

[Stewball]

I start from the point that Hollywood average is a 7/10 on a past and present, worldwide scale. A 7 is very good, but if you want to excel, especially in the movie capital of the World, you gotta be a lot better than a 7.

Above all, to get to first base with me anyway, it's got to have a point, and to make that point. It's ok if art is the point but then you're completely off is totally subjective la la land.

Just about every major aspect of movie making, cinematography, directing, acting, plot, music, overall impression (being as it is a combination of all the muses), are combinations of both the subjective and objective. The brown out backgrounds in O Brother Where Art Thou still rankle with me, but on the other hand that cinematography really captured and set the mood for the period it was set in.