A note on my film rating system

This is just a quick post about the manner in which I will be rating films I review on here.

Firstly, I'm going to be using a graded rating system, from:
A* (a cinematic masterpiece),
A (an excellent movie),
B (a GOOD movie),
C (Not a bad film, but a flawed one, a respectable effort),
D (a film with more than it's fair share of flaws),
E (A bad/boring movie i.e. a snoozefest/crapfest), 
F or below (A flat out terrible piece of cinematic trash).

(N.B These loose criteria I am throwing out here will not at all be definitive or objective, I'm just roughly and quickly explaining what each grade whill equate to. Besides, I think slotting complex works of art, that hundreds of people have worked tirelessly on; into such narrow, simplistic rating systems does not always do the films justice BUT I guess I should use a ratings system if I am going to be reviewing a lot of movies)

I'll try explain this next point as best I can. Secondly, I will be judging films on what they try to be; not what they clearly aren't trying to be. In other words, if a movie does not provoke much deep though but was clearly intended to simply entertain rather than provoke philosophical debate, I will judge it on these terms. For example, Jurassic World earned a high rating from me because as a film designed to entertain it achieved exactly this. Whilst perhaps not as 'great' a film as say, Citizen Kane or 2001: A Space Odyssey, Jurassic World succeeded on it's own terms, and so I couldn't criticise the movie for ambitions it never had. I see it as a somewhat pointless exercise scrutinising a dumb movie which knows it is a dumb movie! A great comedy film need not contain the same qualities as a great biopic, or a great war drama.

I realise now that everything I have just said is perhaps fairly obvious. However, I wanted to make clear at this early stage the fashion in which I shall go about discussing and rating movies.
That's all for now,
Henry