So the scale runs from -2 to +2. Ratings are based on my opinions of what I like and entertains me, rather than "this is a great film as recognised by film school reviewers the world over". As most casual visitors to the site won't understand this scheme I will generally use the descriptive ratings below instead (e.g. "Worth Seeing"). The ratings are:

• +2 Excellent. A "Must See". Really good entertainment, what cinema is supposed to be about. It doesn't have to say something. But it should be well made, acted and tell a good story. e.g. The Shawshank Redemption or Das Boot.

• +1 Good. "Worth Seeing". A good film that can do something original or interesting visually. It may have the odd let down but is generally what you pay money to cinemas to see. e.g. Three Kings, Minority Report, The Fifth Element.

• 0 Average. "All right". It is an okay way to spend a few hours. Or the good moments out weigh the bad. It can be a film that did nothing for me but other people may enjoy. (The director probably did things to annoy me) :-) e.g. Forrest Gump, Austin Powers - Goldmember, Men in Black II

• -1 Bad. "Avoid". Bad films will feature two or more of: cliched, badly acted, stupid story lines, insults to intelligence etc. Examples are: Mission Impossible 1 & 2, Star Wars Episode 1

• -2 Rotten. "Utter Shite". Miserable insults to your intelligence. Films that are a waste of several hours of your life, and leave you wanting to beat the makers with a brick. e.g. Armageddon, Batman & Robin

From what I rate you will see that I like things that look good. Cinema is a visual medium and I want my moving pictures to look good (this does not just mean explosions and T&A). And stage plays translated to film are usually at a disadvantage.