So, as you saw in the last post, I write up my thoughts on movies and post them on the IMDB when I have a chance. I've been doing this for about a year and a half, and I've learned a lot about criticism, and a lot about movies. If you want to see a full list of my reviews, they're here. I used to have a different user name, but I just changed it to marissabidilla to consolidate my online identity.
And there's still a lot of things I don't know about IMDB reviewing. I can write a review that I am really proud of only to have everyone say it wasn't "useful." And don't ask me why, as of today, I have the "most useful" review of "The Family Stone," a movie I barely even remember and whose review is not one of my most inspired ones. It's a mysterious place, the internet.
And neurotic that I am, I agonize about how many "stars" to give to every movie, and why I hardly ever give any grade lower than 5 stars, and whether I ought to reformulate my system, or explain it in more detail... But for now, I'll go with Roger Ebert says. Whenever anyone asks him "How come you give so many movies 3 or more stars?" or "Why did you give this many stars to this movie?" he responds, "My reviews are for those who are stronger in literature than in math."
I agree. Look at my writing, don't just look at the stars. And like Ebert, I feel fortunate to see so many classic/foreign/indie/quality films at this time in my life, so that I DO tend to like a majority of what I see.