Yeah, laugh at me if you want (like I could stop you ), but I'm just being honest. Brett summed it up pretty well, although I'd say my values are more of my reactions to the films, than an objective evaluation of the film itself. It's not that I think the bottom films are 'steaming piles', simply that I would never enjoy spending two hours rewatching them.
This sounds like a very reasonable approach to rating films. ultimately, if a film is dark and serious, or light and comic, should have no bearing on the films overall grade. A film can be about massive genocide and the impact it has on many human beings, or a film may be about some pimply faced frat boys trying to get laid by the prom queen, In either case I would say a film either succeeds or fails on it's ability to hold a viewers attention and draw them in.
Great acting, a tight screenplay, superlative cinematography and deep issues, are all for naught if the viewer feels bored or disconnected from what he/she is seeing.
My preferred rating system is much like the old Halliwell system
**** A great film *** A very good film ** A good film * An average or decent film
Films I don't like, Do not get a rating, as I feel a film that is not worth seeing is a film that is not worth rating.