Ratings on this Site

I've been asked a few times to explain my rating system. Sometimes, I'll say a movie or beer wasn't that bad, but it only gets a 2.25 or 2.5 out of 5. What gives?

My method is to create a bell curve where the average movies and beers or whatever wind up in the middle. As a result, it may seem like it skews a bit toward the bottom, but that's only if you don't consider what is resting on the bottom - HiCu and A Common Man. While the top consists of truly outstanding examples like Guinness and Cabin in the Woods.

Anything that gets a 3.5 or higher is a definite recommend. Anything in the middle depends on circumstances and personal preferences. Looper, for example, got a perfect 2.5. It was a well written and acted movie that had significant technical inconsistencies that kind of ruined a lot of the fun for me. Newcastle Brown Ale also got a 2.5; and I admitted that it actually does really well when paired with food, but it is weak on its own.

Since I try to find very good beers, and I avoid ones that I know or at least suspect are bad, the entire curve for beer tends to skew down; there is no Budweiser or Bud Light here to fill the bottom levels. Movies, I have found, have started to skew up, as I can watch a bad movie and think, "Well, at least it wasn't as bad as K-11." You may disagree with the ranking style or the specific ranks of individual reviews, but this is the method I use.


Popular posts from this blog

Starship Troopers (1997)

Omnipollo "Nebuchadnezzar" Imperial IPA

Tennessee Brew Works Extra Easy ESB