My ratings are a reflection of my enjoyment of a film.  Not necessarily the technical aspects themselves: the acting, direction, script, sound, or visuals.  But rather, how much each of those things enhance (or dehance) my enjoyment of the movie.

Also, I put weight into rewatchability.  If I can watch a film over and over again, and enjoy it every time - to me, that's a sign of a good movie.  The litmus test is whether I would stop to watch if I ran across it while channel surfing.

Unless it's integral to my review, I don't write plot synopses ... I let the other 10,000 windbag critics take care of that.  I'm just here to tell you if the film is good or if it deserves to be buried next to Jimmy Hoffa under a few tons of concrete.

I hold a belief about movies that I use to judge their credibility.  I believe that each film sets up "rules", and the film must then exist within those rules.  These rules allow a film to be plausible even though it is not believable.  As a result, sometimes I'll criticize a film for cheating, for doing something that breaks its own rules.

Please keep in mind that the grades I give to films are really grades within that genre of film.  So, while I might give Election a higher grade than The Godfather, I'm not necessarily implying that Election is a better movie.  What I'm saying is that Election is a better comedy than The Godfather is a drama.  And on occasion I will change a grade.  A film's rating can increase or decrease over time, so I like to let my reviews reflect that.