<b><i>Why do people recommend movies everybody has seen ? What is the point of recommending</i> Pulp Fiction<i> ? or the lastest blockbuster like no one had ever heard of it ?</i></b>
Ratings have relative meanings. A four-star movie is not necessarly better than a three-and-half-star movie. I mostly rate films the same way Roger Ebert does: ''Ebert has described his critical approach to films as "relative, not absolute"; he reviews a film for what he feels will be its prospective audience, yet always with at least some consideration as to its value as a whole.'' It all depends of the achievement in relation with the ambitions of a project, and it is also, very often, subjective.
I realize my reviews are filled with typos and missing words, probably cause my thoughts are processing faster than my fingers can type and that makes them seem of lesser quality than they would be if I took the time to write everything properly. But I don't really have that time anymore, which is a shame, cause I loved reviewing movies. So now I just write quick comments, the things that attracted - or repelled - me the most about the latest movies I've seen.
Sometimes I read older reviews and I find myself irrelevant and stupid.
Now, I prefer exchanging thoughts about movies in general with fellow Flixster users. It's always interesting to get a different perspective, especially from someone who likes movies as much as I do, but not necessarily for the same reasons.
That's what Flixster is about for me.
<a href="http://www.250films.net/list/InfamousHug0/" title="250films.net"><img src="http://www.250films.net/list/InfamousHug0/images/progress.png" alt="250films.net" /></a>
The early bits feel a bit rushed and convulted, but Andrew Gardfield's charming performance and the chemistry between him and Emma Stone make this quite enjoyable. Not as fun as the first part and not as bad as some seem to claim. But still dissapointing.