
Obviously you'll want to answer in the way a guardian film critic thinks is "good". Edit: Actually based on rotten tomatoes scores
( , Tue 29 Apr 2014, 15:25, Reply)

but then it asked if I wanted to take the test again? Why? Am I supposed to be worried that I only scored 58? Or is that I should have scored much lower? Confusing...
( , Tue 29 Apr 2014, 15:40, Reply)

Time to hit up the trashy sci-fi and zombie catalogue and re-balance myself...
( , Tue 29 Apr 2014, 15:48, Reply)

So the only question is, what the crazy am I doing here?
( , Tue 29 Apr 2014, 15:52, Reply)

65, but some year's selections were all pony, e.g. 2003 and 2004. But then I thought Bad Teacher was a really decent comedy and everyone says I'm very much mistaken about that. I've seen it three times... what am I doing with my life?
( , Tue 29 Apr 2014, 16:01, Reply)

I had to guess at the last two years "best filums" because I haven't been able to borrow those dvds from someone yet.
( , Tue 29 Apr 2014, 16:07, Reply)

You must have heard of this www.youtubeonfire.com
I watched Captain Phillips on there. Quite good.
( , Tue 29 Apr 2014, 16:24, Reply)

I've not forgotten/forgiven The Guardian giving Austin Powers 3 four stars. Which lead to the most deathly 2 hours I've ever spent in a cinema.
( , Tue 29 Apr 2014, 17:59, Reply)

if its based on Rotten Tomatoes scores...."they" (denoting the internet nutters) gave Glengarry Glen Ross 95% and its fucking atrocious, I've no doubt the stage play on which it is based is half decent but nothing bloody happens. Things to do in Denver when you're dead got 30%...its no oscar winner I'll agree but at least it had substance..
( , Tue 29 Apr 2014, 18:01, Reply)