Like many of you, I go to the movies to be entertained. Movies are an escape, taking us to a different place, or a different time. They may make us laugh, or cry, or make our hearts pound. The #1 criterion for me is whether the movie is entertaining. An entertaining if empty action flick will rate better in my book than a critically acclaimed but slow-moving drama. I do not like to pay my money to sit through a couple of hours of boredom. Of course, there are some really bad action films (think Van Damme), just as there are some engrossing dramas (Elizabeth).

Allied to the entertainment factor is a good plot and the quality of the performances. A film like Armageddon might have plenty of eye candy but its plot is so dumb, preposterous and manipulative that I can't really recommend it unless you put your brain on autopilot. Likewise, a great performance or performances by some or all of the cast can sometimes lift a fairly lacklustre movie. An example is Eddie Murphy for Bowfinger.

Most of my reviews will be first impressions, whether having seen it in a cinema or on video/DVD. I'm in tune with the fact that opinions of movies can change over time or after repeat viewings. Personal examples include Groundhog Day, which seems to get better every time I see it, and the previously mentioned Armageddon, which seems so hokey now I don't even know why I thought I enjoyed it first time around. If I change a rating, I will duly note it, as will I note the reviews of movies I've seen more than once.

I rate the movies I see on the following scale, out of 4.