Still, it's definitely aimed at families that already celebrate Christmas. But it's light enough to amuse kids, and parents will get a kick out of the cast, which also includes turns by Oprah Winfrey , Tyler Perry , Kristin Chenoweth , Anthony Anderson , Tracy Morgan , and more.
The catchy soundtrack includes a variety of secular, gospel, and Christian superstars -- including Mariah Carey who sings the theme song , Kirk Franklin, Casting Crowns, and Pentatonix -- singing a mix of classic and contemporary Christmas songs like "We Three Kings" and "Breath of Heaven Mary's Song.
The Star will definitely appeal to Christian families with young kids as a holiday season pick. Continue reading Show less Talk to your kids about They're in the review, but we had such a good time watching the film, that we focused far more on the positives than picking too much at it.
In each of those cases, there was something particular and hugely striking that resonated with us, be it the haunting solitude of All Is Lost, or the deep-threaded themes of loneliness encompassed with Frozen.
We don't expect you to agree with those reviews, but they are honest and true feelings. There was something in each of them that got them over the five star line for us. On a personal level, the film Labyrinth is never far from my mind when coming up with a star rating.
I love Labyrinth. I could watch it on loop forever more, and bore you to death about it. But there's not one bit of me that would rate it a five star film. That doesn't mean I love it less, just that I know it has a few problems.
The crucial one, as articulated infamously by long-time Jim Henson collaborator Jerry Nelson, was "I didn't give a fuck whether she got her brother back or not". Given that was the narrative drive of the film, that's a fairly substantive issue, and one I agree with. I can list a long collection of films that I love watching, will happily rewatch, but fall short of five stars for me.
I'll happily do you a list. So to go back to the question: where is the level set? It's not. There is no formal line, and no mathematical equation here. Instead, there's just a broad criteria that appreciates that if we give something four or five stars, we're recommending you spend money or time on it. Conversely, if we give something one or two stars, we're not recommending that you do.
Again, you don't have to agree with us, and you don't have to go by our word. Hopefully, more often than not, the words above the score will marry up to the star rating. Dredd only got three. Is this seriously a better film than Dredd?
Does one film getting four stars automatically mean that it's a better film than one with three stars? Helpfully, the answer is usually yes, but not always. In the specific case of RoboCop and Dredd, they were reviewed by two different reviewers, which straight away means that an absolutely direct comparison, score-wise, is impossible.
I reviewed Dredd for the site, having devoured Judge Dredd comics as a child. And it falls into the law of Labyrinth for me, as outlined above. These are also shared on the other two websites the metascore is shared on IMDB and the tomatometer on Fandango. Besides these iconic ratings, both websites also have a less-featured rating type where only users get to contribute.
I have collected ratings for some of the most voted and reviewed movies in and The cleaned dataset has ratings for movies, and can be downloaded from this Github repo. Before plotting and interpreting the distributions, let me quantify the qualitative values I used earlier: on a 0 to 10 scale, a bad movie is somewhere between 0 and 3, an average one between 3 and 7, and a good one between 7 and Please take note of the distinction between quality and quantity.
To keep it discernible in what follows, I will refer to ratings quantity as being low, average, or high. As before, the movie quality is expressed as bad, average, or good. It has a thick cluster in the average area composed of bars of irregular heights, which makes the top neither blunt, neither sharp. However, they are more numerous and taller than the bars in each of the other two areas, which decrease in height towards extremes, more or less gradually.
In the case of IMDB, the bulk of the distribution is in the average area as well, but there is an obvious skew towards the highest average values. The high ratings area looks similar to what would be expected to be seen for a normal distribution in that part of the histogram. However, the striking feature is that the area representing low movie ratings is completely empty, which raises a big question mark.
Initially, I put the blame on the small sample, thinking that a larger one would do more justice to IMDB.
To my great surprise, the distribution looked like this: This similarity raises the confidence with regard to the representativity of the smaller sample.
The shape of the distribution looks almost the same as that for the sample with movies, except for the low ratings area, which is in this case feebly populated with 46 movies out of The bulk of the values is still in the average area, which makes the IMDB rating worth considering further for a recommendation, although is clearly hard to rival the metascore, with that skew. Infallible taste is inconceivable; what could it be measured against?
He is a bad critic if he does not awaken the curiosity, enlarge the interests and understanding of his audience.
.The least correlated with the Fandango rating is the metascore. That's basically the job that a star rating does. And happy movie-going!
The bulk of the values is still in the average area, which makes the IMDB rating worth considering further for a recommendation, although is clearly hard to rival the metascore, with that skew. Who's the target audience for this movie? This is a free, open source, no-ads place to cross-post your blog articles. However, they are more numerous and taller than the bars in each of the other two areas, which decrease in height towards extremes, more or less gradually. Continue reading Show less Talk to your kids about We're on neither, but there's no denying that they're a good source of exposure for review outlets.
Go back into the annals of British computer magazines and one excellent title, ACE, used to score games of Personal focuses on what the film was about, and whether or not I found the experience enjoyable or beneficial. The taller the bar, the greater the number of movies with that rating. Measuring correlation simply means measuring the extent to which there is such a pattern. At this point of the analysis, I could say that by looking at the distributions, my recommendation is the metascore.
Instead, there's just a broad criteria that appreciates that if we give something four or five stars, we're recommending you spend money or time on it. What does Bo learn on his journey that leads him to Mary and Joseph? Thus, I hope to encourage those who read my reviews to be wise and discerning, open to what a film offers while also using caution in determining whether or not to see that film. The least correlated with the Fandango rating is the metascore. Countinue reading about.
That doesn't mean I love it less, just that I know it has a few problems. Please feel free to continue the debate in the comments below - we'll keep going with our replies to constructive posts there too Few more words To sum up, in this article I made a single recommendation of where to look for a movie rating.
Precious is a four star film for me that's a million miles away from Wreck-It Ralph, another I'd rate at four.
Either don't have a star rating or increase to 10".
That's not to say they shouldn't be challenged: part of the fun of being a film fan is the debate, argument and disagreements. But in an ideal world, the star rating would be the gravy, rather than the proverbial dinner itself. What's the story? How do you frame a viewpoint on a film? Each of the small points that together make up the shapes above could describe the ratings of two variables say, Fandango and IMDB for a specific movie.
So why have a star rating at all?