Robert Bannister <robban@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote,
in article <4ksdl0Fdi6c4U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>slipuvalad@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
>> Among young people in this generation of American "students," where a
>> grade point average is seldom below 3.5, there are many who think
>> Machiavelli's "The Prince" and almost ALL books are NOVELS!
>
>Since this already has a thread going, I feel justified in going off
>tangentially. I think I have finally worked out film ratings.
>
>Most reviewers, especially for TV and DVD guides, rate movies out of 5,
>and for years I couldn't work out what they meant. Now, I think I have
>solved it.
>
>1 star - rarely given, so ignore it, but they are probably correct.
Martin&Porter[*] give a "turkey" for that rating.
>2 stars - a "genre" film (eg horror, sf, etc.) - if you like this type
>of film, you'll almost certainly enjoy it.
>3 stars - avoid this; it means B movie.
>3.5 stars - this appears to be the average. The reviewer likes bits of
>it, but you probably won't.
>4 stars - either by a famous or weird director, or it features famous
>actors. Likely to be in black and white, and you will hate this film.
>5 stars - the reviewers didn't actually see this film, but it was a huge
>box-office success, so if you like pop movies, it will be OK.
>
>Either there is a shortage of good movies, or the star rating system
>doesn't cover them.
Adrian Pepper.
[*] "DVD & Video Guide 200X", Mick Martin & Marsha Porter
I could not remember the authors, and could not locate the book in a
web search, and then I remembered last year's copy is on the shelf just
above my head.
-- Do not use the proprietary name of a specific World Wide Web search
engine or site as a verb to refer to the process of performing an
automated World Wide Web search.
|
