It's a fair point, my ratings probably don't make much sense from a purely critical point of view.
Gangs Of New York was hugely disappointing, I had big expectations. 7, was what Horrible Bosses maximum score would have been before I even watched it, given it's context there's really no way it can achieve any higher that that, but it delivered well, it did what it was set out to do, so it achieved it's maximum rating. Gangs Of New York, with it's cast, director and budget was capable of being a 9 or 10, it was a massive let down, it didn't even come close to fulfilling its potential, 7 would have been "pretty good," but I thought it even fell short of that. Which did I enjoy more? Horrible Bosses, and many people think Gangs Of New York was a flop (despite it's fairly high IMDB rating), if you take Daniel Day Lewis out of that film, it turns into a pretty shit film then, the acting throughout is awful, as is the plot construction (IMO). so in that regard I feel my scale is accurate if you are comparing those 2 films. I wouldn't watch a film that I would expect to be a 5, that's why I rarely have low ratings.
Anyway, I don't consider myself to be a film boffin Uzique, you need not worry. If I did, BF2s would be the last place I would post any sort of review, I just come in here straight after I've finished watching and put a rating and some comments, based on my "personal" scale, is it consistent or not? That's a matter of opinion really.
Last edited by justice (2011-11-09 15:32:53)
