Another thing: I like movies. However, when I go into a movie, I go to be entertained. I'm not really the kind of person who judges movies based mostly on their "artistic quality". Therefore, when I review a movie, I base a large part of the review on the entertainment value.
Of course, that's not all I base my review on. When I sit down to review a movie, it starts out with zero stars. If the movie is entertaining, I'll add two stars (give or take a little on all of these figures). Good acting will give it another star or so. A good plot will do the same, as will special effects, originality and high artistic quality. However, entertainment IS the chief principle in my review. A movie could have great acting or special effects; but if the movie is so un-entertaining that it's painful to watch, I probably will give it a terrible rating.
Also, some people asked for a way to compare different ratings. Here's the answer to that request:
***** A must-see. One of the best movies in its genre (in recent times, at least).
**** Well worth your money. Not quite the best, but if you like movies of this genre, I would strongly recommend it.
*** Decent. It's probably worth your money, but I doubt you'll find it as an extremely memorable movie. This rating can also go for movies that have a strong appeal to a certain audience, but not so much for most people.
** Mediocre. I wouldn't really recommend it, but if you've heard a positive opinion from someone else, you might want to check it out.
* Poor. I would advise against seeing this movie.
0 Bad. I would recommend this movie if you enjoy being bored, or if you like to suffer.