We've had so much new blood and turnover in the Critical Underground, I've decided to start the most of our ratings over from scratch. Which director's body of work should we tackle first?
I realize I have so far failed to explain the New Critical Underground on this site. The New Critical Underground is a group of 9 (soon to be 10, hopefully) amateur critics from across the web. I have never met the majority of the people in the group face to face.
Members send me ratings for films and albums as they view / listen to them or as requested, and I compile the ratings to create a master New Critical Underground rating for the work. I must receive at least four votes for a work to be rated. The highest and lowest score is tossed out, and the rest are averaged to create our official rating.
Our rating scale follows (for music, substitute the word film with album):
***** - A masterpiece; these should be rare
**** 1/2 - An excellent work of art, good enough that even people who usually hate the genre or main artists involved will still probably enjoy it.
**** - A very good work; people who hate the genre / artists involved may not care for it, but almost anyone else will.
*** 1/2 - A fairly good work, but will probably only be embraced by fans of the genre / artist.
*** - A barely good work; only diehard fans need apply.
** 1/2 - An average work; probably won't excite even diehard fans.
** - A below average film; non-fans will hate this work.
* 1/2 - A bad film that few people are likely to enjoy and many are likely to hate.
* - A truly awful film; nearly everybody will hate this.
1/2 - One of the worst films ever; like the 5 stars, these also should be rare.
I keep all individual members' identities and ratings private.
We've had so much new blood and turnover in the Critical Underground, I've decided to start the most of our ratings over from scratch. Which director's body of work should we tackle first?
I realize I have so far failed to explain the New Critical Underground on this site. The New Critical Underground is a group of 9 (soon to be 10, hopefully) amateur critics from across the web. I have never met the majority of the people in the group face to face.
Members send me ratings for films and albums as they view / listen to them or as requested, and I compile the ratings to create a master New Critical Underground rating for the work. I must receive at least four votes for a work to be rated. The highest and lowest score is tossed out, and the rest are averaged to create our official rating.
Our rating scale follows (for music, substitute the word film with album):
***** - A masterpiece; these should be rare
**** 1/2 - An excellent work of art, good enough that even people who usually hate the genre or main artists involved will still probably enjoy it.
**** - A very good work; people who hate the genre / artists involved may not care for it, but almost anyone else will.
*** 1/2 - A fairly good work, but will probably only be embraced by fans of the genre / artist.
*** - A barely good work; only diehard fans need apply.
** 1/2 - An average work; probably won't excite even diehard fans.
** - A below average film; non-fans will hate this work.
* 1/2 - A bad film that few people are likely to enjoy and many are likely to hate.
* - A truly awful film; nearly everybody will hate this.
1/2 - One of the worst films ever; like the 5 stars, these also should be rare.
I keep all individual members' identities and ratings private.
Thanks for your input!